Share this content
Introduction
Disciplinary boundaries can limit understanding and creativity. New insights frequently occur at the boundaries of conventional thought and action. For example, research in quantum physics, which occurs at the boundary of physical reality, has revealed that the basis of physical reality is, in fact, not exclusively physical (Stapp, 2011). Research on near-death experiences, which occurs at the boundary of life and death, has offered provocative insights into the nature of consciousness (Greyson et al., 2009). Research on creativity in organizations has demonstrated that it is more likely to occur at the boundary of core organizational social networks where peripheral forces can exert their influence (Cattani & Ferriani, 2008). This volume of Research in Human Resource Management (not yet under contract) seeks to explore, question and expand the boundaries that limit research in human resource management (HRM) and related fields (e.g., organizational behavior) in order to widen our thinking about the possibilities of HRM and advance our understanding of the assumptions, values and worldviews that govern and constrain the development of theory, research and practice related to the human side of organizations.
The objective of this volume is to challenge conventional thinking in HRM and related fields by presenting bold, even audacious, possibilities that stretch the boundaries that characterize conventional thinking in HRM. For example, we welcome manuscripts that propose that workplace spirituality should be the basis of HRM, that in exchange for their salary employees should be expected to forego any rights to workplace privacy, or that human resource departments should be eliminated altogether. This volume will represent a collective brainstorming session. We may not agree with the theme of the individual manuscripts, but that is fine. Our goal is to “shake things up” by presenting daring, controversial ideas that challenge boundaries and offer new frontiers for research and practice in HRM and related fields. Manuscripts may challenge standard practices, accepted theories, or even the underlying scientific paradigm within which research in HRM is conducted. Empirical and theoretical manuscripts will be considered.
Some examples of topics that would be suitable include (this is by no means an exhaustive list):
- What role does HR play in a world without growth?
- Should HRM initiatives extend beyond the organization to serve families, communities, and societies?
- If organizations truly valued employee health and well-being, what HR policies would be required?
- Should HRM practices and policies place health and well-being above strategic alignment and performance?
- In what ways might HR formally be integrated with accounting in order to measure and “account” for the development of employee health and well-being?
- Should training and development be focused on personal growth as opposed to employee skills?
- Should HRM abandon a focus on policies and strategic HRM and focus instead on cultivating the appropriate work context such as the right climate and culture.
- How could emotional display rules be changed in the workplace to foster greater humanity? For example, why is crying at work considered unprofessional?
- What would happen if we eliminated credentials in hiring decisions in favor of experience, skills, or even just the right attitude?
- In what ways might the legal system need to be modified to better support desirable HR-related outcomes?
- What is the future of HRM research when artificial intelligence (AI) can increasingly do it all?
- How will strategic HRM be changed by AI?
- What are the implications of letting AI or machines make hiring, performance management, and other key HR decisions.
- What are the future implications of advances in communication technology that blur the boundaries between work life and home life?
- How can, and should, HR promote outcome-only work, ending the traditional focus on presence and hours, and the contemporary focus on (remote) monitoring (i.e., mouse clicks)?
- Should human resource departments focus primarily on ethics, much the same way some hospitals have ethics departments?
The above examples focus on challenges to HRM issues that involve “frame-bending” in that they may broaden the boundaries of existing HRM practice, theory and research. We also encourage empirical and theoretical manuscripts that involve “frame-breaking” by exploring and challenging the paradigms within which practice, theory and research in HRM occurs.
Paradigms represent the contexts within which theories are formulated. Paradigms are the agreed-upon intellectual structures within which, and the building blocks on which, the phenomena of the world are considered to be legitimately understood and studied. As suggested by Kuhn (1970), a paradigm can be conceptualized as “the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community” (p. 175). Paradigms consist of consensually validated assumptions underlying reality and the accepted bounds within which research is to be conducted. They serve as “screens that permit certain phenomena to be considered valid objects of inquiry and rule others out” (Olthuis, 1989, p. 27). As suggested by Rehman and Alharthi (2016), paradigms reflect “our way of understanding the reality of the world and studying it” (p. 51).
A concept similar to the paradigm is the worldview. Olthuis (1989) suggests that a worldview “is a framework or set of fundamental beliefs through which we view the world and our calling and future in it… It is the integrative and interpretive framework by which order and disorder are judged; it is the standard by which reality is managed and pursued; it is the set of hinges on which all our everyday thinking and doing turns” (p. 29). We can consider paradigms and worldviews as synonymous.
The paradigm/worldview that underlies contemporary research and theorizing in human resources reflects “the modern worldview” or “modernist paradigm”. Tarnas (1991) explains that the modern worldview is characterized by a view of the universe as an impersonal, mechanical system that is “governed by regular natural laws and understandable in exclusively physical and mathematical terms” (p. 285, emphasis added). De Witt et al. (2016) note that the modern worldview involves secular materialism, an ontology based on mechanistic, random principles and an epistemology embracing scientism, a position which regards materialism as fundamental to existence (Smith, 2003). In such a worldview, matter is the main or sole basis of reality (Tarnas, 1991).
The potential limitations of the modernist paradigm are nicely summed up in Armstrong’s (1994) review of Griffin et al.’s (1993) book on constructive postmodern philosophy:
Modern [thinking] is flawed primarily by two inadequate doctrines. First, modern [thinking] is based on a materialistic (anti-animistic) doctrine of nature, according to which the ultimate units of nature are vacuous, without any kind of self-motion. Nature is thoroughly mechanistic. Secondly, modern [thinking] is based on a sensationalist doctrine of perception, according to which all perception is based on sense-perception. The failure of modernism is exhibited in… it’s inability to encompass all of human experience. Inconvenient types of evidence, such as religious experience, are simply ignored (p. 333).
Thus, the modern worldview places boundaries on research and practice of HRM which may constrain our full understanding of human activity in organizations. However, other paradigms exist. For example, Indigenous worldviews involve heart, mind, body and spirit, with materialism as only one aspect of a broader reality. Similarly, eastern worldviews such as Hinduism challenge the modern worldview by postulating consciousness as fundamental to existence (Dreyfus & Thompson, 2007), a position that some argue finds support in the research on quantum physics (Heisenberg, 1958). Consistent with the emerging field of possibility studies (Glăveanu, 2023), research in HRM would be advanced by considering the possibilities afforded by paradigms that extend our understanding of human behavior in organizations.
Therefore, in addition to manuscripts that question and extend the boundaries of existing HRM theory and practice, we also welcome original manuscripts that inform human resources and related fields (e.g., organizational behavior) by presenting works that advance our understanding of the paradigms/worldviews that underlie these fields and their implications for theory, research and practice. Examples of topics that could be suitable for this volume include (again, this is not an exclusive list):
- What are the various ways in which the modern worldview impacts practice, theory and/or research in HRM?
- What paradigmatic assumptions underlie HRM and research in HRM and what value might there be in challenging these assumptions?
- In comparison to the modern worldview, what are the implications of alternative worldviews for management practice and organizational behavior?
- What are the paradigm-shifting implications of anomalous research findings in areas such as psi phenomena and near-death experiences and what are the practical implications for studying and managing people in organizations?
- What is the nature of the relationship between theory and paradigms and how does it impact research on HRM?
- In what ways do different understandings of the fundamental nature of consciousness have implications for organizational activities such as leadership?
- How does materialism and alternatives to materialism impact our understanding of proper conduct in organizations?
- The scientific worldview privileges knowledge grounded in physicality, but other worldviews, such as Indigenous and spiritual worldviews, accept as legitimate additional forms of knowing. How might epistemological paradigms that go beyond physicality inform our understanding of research in HRM?
- How does a worldview such as panentheism, which regards spirit and both transcendent and immanent, inform our understanding of HR and organizational functioning?
In sum, this volume of Research in Human Resource Management seeks to expand our understanding of human resources and related fields by examining, questioning, and pushing the boundaries of conventional practice, theory, and research in HRM and the paradigms within which these occur. Manuscripts should present bold, unconventional perspectives, not merely modifications or refinements of common theories, perspectives or practices.
The Use of Artificial Intelligence
It is expected that all writing will be the authors’ own and not generated by AI. The use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process must be disclosed by adding a statement at the end of the manuscript before the References list. The statement should have the heading: ‘Declaration of AI and AI- assisted technologies in the writing process’ and indicate that: “The author(s) used [NAME OF AI TOOL/SERVICE] in order to [EXPLANATION]. The author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) complete responsibility for the content of this document”.
Submissions that include content that suggests it was produced by AI, such as hallucinated references, will be rejected.
Submission and Review Process
Authors are asked to submit a short proposal to the guest editor to determine if the proposed manuscript would be suitable for review. Proposals will be considered from now until December 15, 2026 and should be sent to the Volume Editor, Jamie Gruman, at [email protected]. Proposals should detail the content and contributions of the full chapter. Proposals should be double-spaced and include no more than five pages of text. References and tables do not count against this page limit. Please do not send complete papers, although you may note in the proposal that you have a draft.
If you have questions about a potential submission, please contact Jamie Gruman at [email protected]. Full papers, which should be no more than 8,000 words including references, will be double blind reviewed by at least two peer reviewers. Authors may be asked to review one manuscript.
Key Deadlines
Deadline for Proposals: December 15, 2026
Deadline for Final Manuscript: October 30, 2027
Please send proposals and manuscripts to Dr. Jamie Gruman at [email protected]
About the Research in Human Resource Management Book Series
Founded in 2016, Research in Human Resource Management is an annual book series designed to advance theory, research, and practice in Human Resource Management (HRM), and the related fields of Organizational Behavior, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and Research Methods. The overall goal of the series is to publish items that (a) improve the effectiveness of HRM processes and practices, (b) develop HRM theory, (c) provide critical reviews of HRM theory and research, (d) enhance the methods used in HRM research, and (e) increase the degree to which individuals have satisfying and fulfilling careers in organizations. Each volume contains items that are consistent with these goals.
Series Editors
Dianna L. Stone, Universities of New Mexico, Albany, and Virginia Tech;
James H. Dulebohn, Michigan State University;
Brian Murray, University of Dallas;
Kimberly M. Lukaszewski, Wright State University
References
Armstrong, S. J. (1994). Reviewed Work(s): Founders of constructive postmodern philosophy: Peirce, James, Bergson, Whitehead and Hartshorne by David R. Griffin. American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, 15(3), 332-337.
Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). A core-periphery perspective on individual creative performance: social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19(6), 824-844.
De Witt. A., de Boer, J. Hedlund, N., & Ossweijer, P. (2016). A new tool to map major worldviews in the Netherlands and USA, and explore how they related to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 63, 101-112.
Dreyfus, G., & Thompson, E. (2007). Asian perspectives: Indian theories of mind. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, & E. Thompson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 89-114). Cambridge University Press.
Glăveanu, V. P. (2023). Possibility studies: A manifesto. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1), 3-8.
Greyson, B., Williams Kelly, E., & Kelly, E. F. (2009). Explanatory models for near-death experiences. In J. M. Holden, B. Greyson, & D. James (Eds.). The handbook of near-death experiences: Thirty years of investigation, pp. 213-234. Preager Publishers.
Griffin, D. R., Cobb, J. B. Jr., Ford, M. P., Gunter, P. A. Y., & Ochs, P. (1993). Founders of constructive postmodern philosophy: Peirce, James, Bergson, Whitehead and Hartshorne. SUNY Press.
Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The revolution in modern science. Harper & Row Publishers.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd Ed., Enlarged). The University of Chicago Press.
Olthuis, J. H. (1989). On worldviews. In P. Marshall, S. Griffioen, & R. J. Mouw (Eds.), Stained glass: Worldviews and social science (pp. 26-40). University Press of America.
Rehman, A. A., & Alharthi, K. (2016). An introduction to research paradigms. International Journal of Educational Investigation, 3(8), 51-59.
Smith, H. (2003). Scientism: The bedrock of the modern worldview. In M. Zarandi (Ed.), Science and the myth of progress (pp. 233 – 248). World Wisdom.
Stapp, H. P. (2011). Mindful universe: Quantum mechanics and the participating observer (2nd Ed.). Springer.
Tarnas, R. (1991). The passion of the Western mind: Understanding the ideas that have shaped our world view. Ballantine Books.
Share this content