Introduction
Human Resource Development (HRD) is the strategic focus of HRM, from recruitment and retention through the development and usage of human resources (Jacobs, 2017). According to Collin, Lemmetty, and Riivari (2020) employee motivation, skills, and creativity, as well as professional growth and workplace learning, are becoming increasingly important for a company’s survival in the workplace. Kaija Collin, Soila Lemmetty, and Elina Riivari 2020 investigated the practices of HRD that improve creativity in Finnish growth firms in their article “Human resource development practices supporting creativity in Finnish growth organizations.” While this article produced meaningful results demonstrating that Human Resource Development today is a significant factor in increasing worker creativity and that it can promote creative ability by positioning itself as the distributor of responsibilities in teams, concise career opportunities, and daily fair governance, there are limitations to the validity, trustworthiness, and generalizability of the findings.
Summary of Article
The researchers investigated the requirements of creativity based on the experiences of workers reported in interviews to truly comprehend the practices in HRD that foster creativity in development firms in Finnish. They also looked into HRD practices in firms that cater to the needs of creative people. Collin et al. (2020) collected 98 interviews from employees of creative design, industrial, and technology firms. The authors used the interviews in a content analysis driven by theory to uncover the various prerequisites for creativity. They discovered that several HRD activities, such as career development, teamwork, job design, and daily leadership and supervision, had an impact on an employee’s creativity. The study concluded that HRD has an essential role in fostering workplace creativity and that the best ways to support creativity are fair leadership, clear career routes, and shared responsibility in teams daily.
Critique of Introduction
Collin et al. (2020) focus on the fact that creativity is associated with employees’ prior competencies and knowledge, as well as on-the-job learning, but HRD studies have given inadequate focus to the HRD practices that are important in the promotion of creativity. On the other hand, the authors fail to cite any proof from the few publications that have been published on the subject. An attempt has been made to provide significant literature to support the necessity to understand the HRD practices that improve creativity. The literature cited by Collin et al. also does not include information on the demographics of the study participants, nor does it provide information on the statistical tests used to evaluate if the research revealed statistically significant data. The use of such literature, which lacks validation to back up the writers’ claims, reads like blanket remarks designed to deceive (Schaefer & Alvesson, 2020). Furthermore, some of the material included in the study is obsolete (cited work 1996-2005), casting doubt on the research’s and conclusions’ validity.
While the introduction’s review of the literature raises crucial concerns, it focuses on the work of single authors rather than general research topics. Even though it discusses previous research, the introduction fails to indicate any theoretical or methodological flaws in previous studies. It thus fails to explain why the current study will be different from previous studies. It’s difficult to put faith in the works listed because it’s unclear how the authors conducted their research (Rose, & Johnson, 2020). They may have employed tactics that cast doubt on the research’s credibility and trustworthiness.
Critique of Research Methodology
The authors adopted a qualitative approach, although they do not discuss the participants’ backgrounds. Such qualitative research methodology must also indicate that data analysis was conducted in a clear, systematic, and rigorous style by recording, organizing, and revealing the analysis method in ample detail so that the reader to decide if the procedure is credible (Schaefer & Alvesson, 2020). However, the study design is not precise—so many aspects are incorporated in the design that it is difficult to interpret the research’s major point.
Furthermore, the interviews were done by only three interviewers, resulting in a low level of research corroboration. More impartial interviewers who exchanged notes after the interviews would have been beneficial. Because there is insufficient information on the interviewers and no information about the background of the authors who analyzed the transcripts, bracketing should be deemed of medium quality (Rose, & Johnson, 2020).
Critique of Findings and Discussion
The six primary issues explored in the results section were opportunities to build competence, resources and support, time and freedom, collectivity, a tranquil working environment, and a diversified substance of work. The failure or reluctance to articulate the exact effects of these issues is cause for concern. Whether good or negative, this absence gives the impression that the findings are skewed (Rose, & Johnson, 2020). Despite the thorough and logical exposition of the findings, with each of the discovered themes discussed in turn, there is a great deal of information on the topics, but the relationship between theme and creativity is unclear. The findings and discussion are broad, and discovering these specific themes requires scanning through the lines. Furthermore, the clearly shown themes include performance appraisal, teamwork, job design, career, recruitment, supervision, education and training, and leadership, which are not the study’s or the findings’ intended outcomes. Finally, the report failed to provide a research conclusion.
Conclusion
This was a fairly extensive research project, especially for a journal article. It was, for the most part, well-written and arranged. To develop the scenario of the effectiveness of HRD practices, there was a clear need for a quick evaluation of relevant materials that are not outdated. Due to the bulkiness of the paper, the information in the article is likewise not straightforward. More than half of the available elements of rigor, such as participants’ information, are absent, thus the overall rigor of the qualitative research methodology is medium. The article failed to provide exact details on the practices that enhance creativity in the organization and thus is not a very reliable source for other researchers.
References
Collin, K., Lemmetty, S., & Riivari, E. (2020). Human resource development practices supporting creativity in Finnish growth organizations. International Journal of Training and Development, 24(4), 321-336.
Jacobs, R. L. (2017). Knowledge work and human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 16(2), 176-202.
Rose, J., & Johnson, C. W. (2020). Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative research: toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(4), 432-451.
Schaefer, S. M., & Alvesson, M. (2020). Epistemic attitudes and source critique in qualitative research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(1), 33-45.