ABSTRACT Reviewing is the science and art of scholarly judgment, which forms a core pillar of knowledge production. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) poses a risk to this judgment during the review process. Evidence from outside HRD shows that AI‐assisted reviews are generally more lenient and converge on one another. This editorial develops reviewer‐facing guidance for human resource development (HRD) by identifying three points at which AI might enter the review process: the transmission of the manuscript, the expression of the report, and the formation of judgment. Transmission is prohibited across nearly all current policies; expression may be assisted and disclosed; and judgment must remain the reviewer's own. The argument we make here rests on research into cognitive offloading and expertise, and therefore on what a reviewer loses by delegating parts of this process to AI. We close with a research agenda to explore the potential for responsible AI use in reviewing.

Human Resource Development QuarterlyEarly View EDITORIAL From foundations to frontiers: 35 years of human resource development at HRDQ Sewon Kim, Corresponding Author Sewon Kim [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-9514-8256 State University of New York, New York, New York, USA Correspondence Sewon Kim, State University of New York, New York, NY, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorToby Egan, Toby Egan University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USASearch for more papers by this author Sewon Kim, Corresponding Author Sewon Kim [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-9514-8256 State University of New York, New York, New York, USA Correspondence Sewon Kim, State University of New York, New York, NY, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorToby Egan, Toby Egan University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 28 May 2024 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21543Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES Egan, T., & Kim, S. (2024). Celebrating 35 years of human resource development quarterly. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 35(1), 7–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21522 10.1002/hrdq.21522 Google Scholar Kim, S., Egan, T. M., & Akdere, M. (2022). Advancing social science standards and communities for the future of HRDQ and its impact. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 33(1), 7–10. 10.1002/hrdq.21474 Google Scholar Swanson, R. A. (2024). Origins of the human resource development quarterly. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 35(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21524 10.1002/hrdq.21524 Google Scholar Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue ReferencesRelatedInformation

AbstractThis editorial article examines how generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) can bridge various human resource development (HRD) processes. As GAI adoption increases in human resources practices, understanding its potential to integrate different HRD activities becomes more important. The article reviews recent literature on Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications in HRD and explores GAI‐enabled links between key HRD processes. The linkages include data‐driven decision‐making, real‐time skill gap analysis, job crafting with GAI, GAI‐supported personalized development plans, GAI‐powered employee sentiment analysis, GAI chatbots, GAI‐enabled virtual reality simulations, and GAI‐supported social network analysis in talent and organization development contexts. By highlighting these GAI‐enabled interconnections, the article provides insights into a more integrated approach to HRD. It also discusses implications for HRD practitioners and researchers, analyzing specific applications of GAI in HRD and recommending future research.

Human Resource Development QuarterlyEarly View EDITORIAL Celebrating 35 years of Human Resource Development Quarterly Toby Egan, Toby Egan University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USASearch for more papers by this authorSewon Kim, Corresponding Author Sewon Kim [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-9514-8256 Business, Management and Leadership, State University of New York, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA Correspondence Sewon Kim, Business, Management and Leadership, State University of New York, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Toby Egan, Toby Egan University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USASearch for more papers by this authorSewon Kim, Corresponding Author Sewon Kim [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-9514-8256 Business, Management and Leadership, State University of New York, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA Correspondence Sewon Kim, Business, Management and Leadership, State University of New York, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 02 March 2024 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21522Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Summer 2023 has sparked what is now a constant reminder that our planet is experiencing unprecedented warming that has long been attributed to human action. In fact, cumulative July temperatures were recorded to be the hottest ever on record several days before the month ended (Politico, 2023). Although the focus on the sources of the greenhouse gas problem has been on our global human-built infrastructure (IPCC, 2014), there are broader concerns—including the deeper source of the problem internal to our human systems and the potential for human resource development (HRD) to contribute to positive change. There are many ways to consider the extant global environmental degradation, including through an HRD lens. One long-standing foundational discipline amidst the array of interdisciplinary elements associated with HRD is economics. One need only spend a short time within any large privately held corporation focused on quarterly shareholder returns, foundation or nonprofit relying on investment portfolio results, to recognize the growth-obsessed economic models that are the foundation of our global system. Although HRD scholar–practitioners often embrace growth from an economic and development perspective, we have some work to do to differentiate essential, ethical human development from the exploitation of our finite planetary resources. The central question for HRD is—How might we address the overexploitation of natural resources and the degradation of our planet's ecosystems from a foundational HRD perspective? Among many important areas is the broadening and reframing of basic economic principles in our approaches to research, theory, and practice. Herman Daly, a former World Bank senior economist and influential ecological economist, dedicated his life advocating the idea of a steady-state economy. This concept embodies a vision that challenges the dogma of sustained growth embedded in traditional economic theory. Daly's emphasis on ecological sustainability, environmental protection, and the pursuit of the true well-being of all people represented a revolution with far-reaching implications. An important part of Daly's thinking is his critique of the current global system, which has failed to meaningfully consider the consequences of a growth without limits economic approach to climate change and biodiversity loss. Daly's emphasis on the steady-state economy consistently calls for a more holistic approach to development that respects the limits of the earth's carrying capacity and recognizes the impact of economic, social, and ecological systems. This push for sustainable development includes accounting for what Daly calls the “uneconomic growth” of our current system. Daly's ideas support the view that HRD should be linked to the development of public policy in various ways. Although National HRD has been discussed and researched in the HRD literature, there are many untapped opportunities for broader discussion, critique and research on policies related to HRD. This involves expanding and analyzing policies and decisions based on short-term benefits, which often ignore long-term environmental and social impacts. By exploring and supporting sustainable business, nonprofit/non-governmental organization and governmental principles, HRD can be a key contributor to sustainable development by supporting the creation of environmental regulations at various levels (individual, group, organizational, local, state/provincial, national, and international justice). Daly's ideas encourage us to build a better future by moving from promoters of economic growth to stewards of our planet. Herman Daly's core ideas in ecological economics transcend economic boundaries and have implications across geographies and disciplines. A visionary, he encouraged us to rethink our notions of progress and development, advocating for changes that lead to social stability and well-being. This economic reframing invites consciousness about the multigenerational impact of the current economic system—and how current practices present major risks for today's children and tomorrow's grandchildren. In this article, we explore the implications of Daly's HRD-related ideas and their impact on researchers and practitioners. Daly's work contrasts common economic assumptions to principles of sustainability. These comparisons illuminate the differences between foundational economic assumptions. In summary, the contrasts between mainstream economic principles and Herman Daly's ecological economics reveal fundamental differences in their approaches to growth, welfare measurement, externalities, intergenerational equity, and resource constraints. Since Daly's early work, a growing number of scholars have been commended for their efforts to address the need for changing economic principles and related change, including: Bina Agarwal (India)—A renowned development economist and environmental scholar. Agarwal's (2010) book “Gender and Green Governance: The Political Economy of Women's Presence Within and Beyond Community Forestry” explores the role of gender in the management of natural resources. Walden Bello (Philippines)—A sociologist and environmental activist. Bello's (2004) book “Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy” describes an alternative economic framework prioritizing social and ecological sustainability above globalization. Kanchan Chopra (India)—A highly regarded economist and environmental researcher. Chopra has contributed extensively to the field of ecological economics, emphasizing the need for integrative and sustainable development. Chopra's (2002) article “Green Accounting for Indian States” illustrates the integration of environmental considerations into economic accounting. Marina Fischer-Kowalski (Austria)—A groundbreaking ecologist known for her research on societal metabolism and resource flows. Fischer-Kowalski and Hüttler (2011) co-authored “Society's Metabolism: The Intellectual History of Material Flow Analysis, Part I, 1860–1970,” which elaborates upon the historical development of material flow analysis. Clive Hamilton (Australia)—An author and professor of public ethics. Hamilton has written extensively on the environment and economic growth/development. Hamilton's (2003) book “Growth Fetish” criticizes the obsession with economic growth and advocates for a better, more sustainable economic model. Ravi Kanbur (India)—An economist, former World Bank executive, and development researcher. Kanbur has written several articles on environmental economics and social justice. Kanbur's (2000) article “Environmental Kuznets Curves: Implications of Nonlinearity” discusses the relationship between economic growth, income inequality, and environmental pollution and degradation. Wangari Maathai (Kenya)—The first African woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for her environmental and social activism. Maathai's (2003) book “The Green Belt Movement: Sharing the Approach and the Experience” documents her grassroots efforts to promote sustainable development and community empowerment in Africa. Maria Mies (Germany)—A feminist economist who has written extensively on ecological and social issues. Mies's (1986) book “Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale” explores linkages between capitalism, patriarchy, and ecological destruction. Elinor Ostrom (USA)—Nobel Prize Winner in Economics for her work on common-pool resource management. Ostrom's (1990) book “Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action” explores the importance of community-centered governance for sustainable resource management. Juliet Schor (USA)—A highly regarded economist and sociologist known for her research on alternative economic models and sustainable consumption. Schor's (2010) book “Plenitude: The New Economics of True Wealth” explores strategies for achieving ecological sustainability and human well-being. Based on the efforts of many scholars and practitioners, sustainability is a growing topic in HRD literature and related practices. Incorporating sustainable HRD practices involves the recognition that growth-oriented models of development most often prioritize economic gains at the expense of the environment in the form of pollution and degradation. Scholar–practitioners in HRD can contribute to sustainable development by advocating for practices that foster eco-consciousness within governments, for-profit and nonprofit organizations, and communities. This involves including specific elements of sustainability in the “economic maximization” orientation of strategic planning and organizational norms. There are opportunities to research and design learning and development programs that promote environmental stewardship, encourage sustainable leadership, and integrate strategic decision-making processes with ecological considerations. In support of the recalibration of economic principles, HRD scholar–practitioners need to elaborate upon the ways in which steady-state and other sustainability-oriented economic viewpoints challenge prevailing notions of success. Such economic assumptions are often tied to endless expansion and consumption. Scholar–practitioners can play a central role in the promotion of alternative performance indicators/metrics of success emphasizing employee social impact, well-being, and environmental responsibility. By aligning organizational goals with sustainable values, HRD professionals can help create a sense of purpose and fulfillment among employees, citizens, and community members. The impact of economic growth on employee well-being is already an area of careful consideration within HRD and probably one of the related areas that has been most developed by HRD scholar–practitioners. In the pursuit of constant expansion, organizations may neglect the mental health and work-life balance of their employees. This awareness was expanded during COVID-19 when employees and managers began to talk more openly about the importance of mental health issues and how they can be better addressed in the workplace. HRD professionals and scholars can conduct research leading to advocacy for research-to-practice-based policies. Such policies may include emphasis on employee well-being, coaching and mindfulness programs, and flexible work arrangements that support resilience and mental health in the face of challenging times. HRD has long been engaged in leadership development and related research and championed the importance of ethics in HRD. This pathway supplies the potential for reimagining of economic systems and emphasizing the role of ethical leadership in creating a more sustainable future. Scholar–practitioners in HRD can contribute to the development of ethical leaders who prioritize social and environmental responsibility. HRD programs can include modules on ethical decision-making, responsible leadership, and the importance of considering long-term consequences. Sustainability principles are well aligned with inclusivity, diversity, and social justice. As scholar–practitioners in HRD, we have a responsibility to ensure that our practices and policies embrace diverse perspectives and voices. Inclusive organizations are more likely to consider the broader societal impact of their actions and contribute to sustainable development. There are many ‘outside-of-the-box’ elements of sustainability that will lead to broader definitions of inclusivity, diversity, spirituality, and social justice. Naturalistic, indigenous, and depth perspectives related to sustainability need to be better clarified as key elements of HRD epistemology, theory, research, and practice. HRD can facilitate a culture of continuous learning and innovation that is aligned with Daly's and the aforementioned scholars' visions for sustainability. Organizations need to adapt to changing environmental challenges and innovate in ways that minimize resource consumption and environmental impact. HRD professionals can support this process by fostering a learning culture and promoting innovation initiatives that embrace sustainability principles. Scholar–practitioners in HRD have a unique platform to advocate for policy changes that align with steady state economics and sustainability. HRD scholars and practitioners can engage with policymakers, industry leaders, and community stakeholders to promote sustainable practices, raise awareness about ecological constraints, and advocate for policy shifts that prioritize long-term well-being over short-term gains. As elaborated in Table 1, whether HRD scholar–practitioners, researchers, teachers/professors, chief learning officers or active citizens, describing and advocating for exploration of underlying principles in our economic systems, thinking and models to include the ideas and practices outlined above are essential for the future success—and ultimately the credibility of HRD. Embracing these ideas and related practices requires a shift in mindset—one that prioritizes ecological sustainability, social well-being, a reconsidering of epistemological principles and ethical leadership over relentless economic growth. Scholar–practitioners have the power to lead the way by integrating the aforementioned sustainability-related principles into their practices, fostering sustainable HRD, and championing responsible community and organizational behavior. By doing so, HRD can contribute to a more equitable, resilient, and environmentally conscious future for organizations and society at large. As HRD scholar–practitioners, we have a responsibility to equip the next generation with the tools to tackle complex challenges, including climate change, poverty, and inequality. The vision of the aforementioned broadens the scope of economics, social sciences curricular and broader learning and development systems, inspiring students, practitioners, citizens, and scholars to engage with interdisciplinary approaches and encouraging them to look beyond traditional growth-centric economic models. By incorporating these principles into HRD, we can nurture a generation of informed and responsible citizens who prioritize the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. Toby Egan is an Associate Professor and Senior Executive Fellow in the School of Public Policy (SPP) and the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. A former executive with Korn Ferry, he has an extensive US domestic and international consulting portfolio. A diversity advocate for over 30 years, he has consulted with dozens of organizations and facilitated anti-racism and inclusion training for over 35,000 employees in groups of 25–30 at time. Dr. Egan has managed more than $30 million in US-based and international externally funded projects and teamed with colleagues to launch a $35+ million donor funded university institute. The only three-time recipient of the Richard A. Swanson Research Excellence Award, he is the first to chair three Academy of Human Resource Development Dissertation of the Year Awardees and was recently named SPP researcher of the year. Dr. Egan has also served as Associate Editor for Human Resource Development Review and Regional Editor for the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. Sewon Kim is Professor of Management and Department Chair in the Faculty of Business, where he teaches core organizational behavior/human resources courses for the School for Graduate Studies at the State University of New York (SUNY) Empire State. He received his Ph.D. from Texas A&M University. Dr. Kim's research and teaching interests center around coaching, strategic talent management, organizational behavior and development, and global management and leadership, and his recent recognition includes the SUNY Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Scholarship and Creative Activities. Dr. Kim currently serves as an Editorial Board Member of the International Journal of Human Resource Management, the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, and the Journal of Managerial Psychology and is a Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Human Resource Development Quarterly Journal. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Action-oriented approaches to HRD are rooted in practices, theory, and research that preceded its emergence - among these is action learning. An important element of many organisational practices today, action learning has been researched widely and consistently over several decades. The purpose of this study was to elaborate upon the changing landscape of action learning research and practice through a systematic literature review. Employing selection criteria to control for the quality of the articles, we identified 65 empirical action learning studies published 2008-2021. Five key themes were identified to be most prominent in terms of presence and quality: action learning in higher education, action learning research, entrepreneurial action learning, critical action learning, and virtual action learning. In an analysis of the five key themes, we used Coghlan and Coughlan's four quality criteria for research on action learning: engagement with problems, collaboration with organisational members and stakeholders, reflection on the iterative cycles of an action learning process, and actionable outcomes. This systematic review presents the changing landscape of action learning research and practice manifested in five themes and provides an informed outlook, with expanded scopes and possibilities, to envision the future.

Purpose As a part of a larger study, the purpose of this study was to explore the learning outcomes for the “manager as coach” when exemplary managers are engaged in coaching their respective employees. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative, multi-case study using an adaptation of the critical incident technique (CIT) and semistructured interviews was employed with 12 managers and their respective direct reports totaling 24 interviews. Content and constant comparative analyses were used to analyze the data. Findings A total of five themes and 19 subthemes were identified regarding managers’ learning outcomes from managers’ perspectives. From the perspectives of their employees as coachees regarding their managers’ learning outcomes, one theme with three subthemes emerged. Originality/value Limited empirical research has explored the developmental outcomes for managers who serve as coaches for their employees. This study examined the outcomes associated with managerial coaching from both the perspectives of the managers who coach and their direct reports. The findings of this research provide more insight into the benefits managers derive from coaching their employees.

Human Resource Development QuarterlyEarly View EDITORIAL Advancing scholarly-practice and theory through participatory inquiry and prospective theorizing Toby Egan PhD, Toby Egan PhD School of Public Policy and Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USASearch for more papers by this authorSewon Kim PhD, Corresponding Author Sewon Kim PhD [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-9514-8256 State University of New York (SUNY), Saratoga Springs, New York, USA Correspondence Sewon Kim, State University of New York (SUNY), 113 West Ave, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMesut Akdere PhD, Mesut Akdere PhD orcid.org/0000-0002-6346-1790 Purdue HRD Virtual Lab, Faculty Lead, HRD Undergraduate Program, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USASearch for more papers by this author Toby Egan PhD, Toby Egan PhD School of Public Policy and Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USASearch for more papers by this authorSewon Kim PhD, Corresponding Author Sewon Kim PhD [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-9514-8256 State University of New York (SUNY), Saratoga Springs, New York, USA Correspondence Sewon Kim, State University of New York (SUNY), 113 West Ave, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866, USA. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMesut Akdere PhD, Mesut Akdere PhD orcid.org/0000-0002-6346-1790 Purdue HRD Virtual Lab, Faculty Lead, HRD Undergraduate Program, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 November 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21519Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat REFERENCES Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299 Ameka, F., & Terkoufafi, M. (2019). What if…? Imagining non-Western perspectives on pragmatic theory and practice. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.04.001 Bero, L., Lawrence, R., Leslie, L., Chiu, K., McDonald, S., Page, M. J., Grundy, Q., Parker, L., Boughton, S., Kirkham, J. J., & Featherstone, R. (2021). Cross-sectional study of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation. BMJ Open, 11, e051821. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051821 Bierema, L. L., Callahan, J. L., Elliott, C., Greer, T., & Collins, J. (2023). Human resource development: Critical perspectives and practices. Routledge. Block, R. A. (1990). Cognitive models of psychological time. L. Erlbaum Associates. https://books.google.com/books?id=RtIivgAACAAJ Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & Van Der Heijden, K. (2005). The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37(8), 795–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003 Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The world Café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter ( 1st ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92. G. R. Bushe, & R. J. Marshak (Eds.). (2015). Dialogic organization development: The theory and practice of transformational change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Byrd, M. Y. (2009). Telling our stories of leadership: If we don't tell them they won't be told. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(5), 582–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422309351514 Byrne, D. S. (1998). Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction. Routledge. K. S. Cameron, & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford University Press. Chalmers, D. J. (1997). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford University Press. Chilisa, B. (2019). Indigenous research methodologies. Sage Publications. Cooperrider, D. L. (2021). Prospective theory: Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for understanding and enhancing organizational innovation. NRD Publishing. https://books.google.com/books?id=WHiqzgEACAAJ Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. https://books.google.com/books?id=sTl9HgheQBgC Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486 Dennett, D. C. (1991). Real patterns. Journal of Philosophy, 88(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/2027085 Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 17–39). Rand McNally. Endenburg, G. (1998). Sociocracy: The organization of decision-making: “No objection” as the principle of sociocracy. Eburon. Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research. Apex Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=jHqpPwAACAAJ Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=M4MQAAAAYAAJ Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science, 317(5843), 1351–1354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144161 Graeber, D., & Wengrow, D. (2022). The dawn of everything: A new history of humanity. Penguin Books. Gümüsay, A. A., & Reinecke, J. (2022). Researching for desirable futures: From real utopias to imagining alternatives. Journal of Management Studies, 59(1), 236–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12709 Hammond, M. (2018). ‘An interesting paper but not sufficiently theoretical’: What does theorising in social research look like? Methodological Innovations, 11(2), 205979911878775. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799118787756 Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049700300302 Horton, M. (2003). The Myles Horton reader: Education for social change. University of Tennessee Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=jcOWnPYmjxQC Horton, R. (2015). Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma? The Lancet, 385(9976), 1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60696-1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis–summary for policymakers. IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Longmans, Green and Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/10851-000 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2 Laszlo, C. (2021). Prospective theorizing: Researching for social impact. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 18(6), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.51327/OBNX5448 Laszlo, C., Cooperrider, D., & Fry, R. (2020). Global challenges as opportunity to transform business for good. Sustainability, 12(19), 8053. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198053 Laszlo, E. (1972). Introduction to systems philosophy: Toward a new paradigm of contemporary thought. Gordon and Breach. https://books.google.com/books?id=p5wOAAAAQAAJ Lewin, K. (1943). Psychology and the process of group living. Journal of Social Psychology, 17(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1943.9712269 Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource development profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/1532-1096(200022)11:2%3c159::aid-hrdq5%3e3.0.co;2-e McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. (2001). If we can't define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860110059339 Morin, E., & Montuori, A. (2008). On complexity: Advances in systems theory, complexity, and the human sciences. Hampton Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=frQkAQAAIAAJ Otto Scharmer, C., & Kaeufer, K. (2010). In front of the blank canvas: Sensing emerging futures. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(4), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756661011055159 Owen, H. (1997). Open space technology: A user's guide ( 2nd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Free Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=0MwVAAAAIAAJ Paves, I., Godwin, L., & Spreitzer, G. (2021). Generative scholarship through prospective theorizing: Appreciating the roots and legacy of organization development and change to build a bright future. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(4), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/00218863211049836 Porter-O'Grady, T., & Malloch, K. (2003). Quantum leadership: A textbook of new leadership. Jones and Bartlett. Revans, R. W. (1982). The origins and growth of action learning. Bratt-Inst. für Neues Lernen. https://books.google.com/books?id=iFajAAAACAAJ Rind, D. (1999). Complexity and climate. Science, 284(5411), 105–107. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5411.105 Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176879 Schmidt, J. J. (2022). Geography and ethics I: Placing injustice in the Anthropocene. Progress in Human Geography, 46(4), 1086–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221097104 Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. Free Press. Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 119–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612474317 Storberg-Walker, J. (2006). From imagination to application: Making the case for the general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Human Resource Development International, 9(2), 227–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860600616420 Storberg-Walker, J. (2022). Relating differently: Exploring how a relational ontology might catalyze transformative and emancipatory action-oriented MSR research. In Y. Altman, J. Neal, & W. Mayrhofer (Eds.), Workplace spirituality (pp. 261–276). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110711349-018 Swanson, R. A. (2001). Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860110059311 Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods in inquiry. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. United Nations (UN). (2015). Millennium development goals report. https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf Upton, M. G., & Egan, T. M. (2010). Three approaches to multilevel theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 9(4), 333–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310380333 Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376 Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2000). Future search: An action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a socio-cultural practice and theory of education ( 1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605895 Woodall, J. (2001). HRDI special issue: Defining HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 287–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860110062137 Zubizarreta, R. (2014). From conflict to creative collaboration: A user's guide to dynamic facilitation. Two Harbors Press. Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue ReferencesRelatedInformation

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.