The division of disciplines into hard or paradigmatic and soft or paradigmatic, pure or applied, social professions and science-based professions (Biglan, 1973; Kolb, 1984; Becher, 1989) only emphasized the integrity and the duality of the physical education study field (Van Hilvoorde et al., 2010) borrowing knowledge from other sciences and disciplines: medicine and health (hard-applied), social sciences (soft-applied), life sciences (pure-hard) (Biglan, 1973; Becher, 1989; Leta, Rosa, 2012). Searching a way to gain new knowledge, a shift was made to a holistic, integrated physical education as a kinesiology discipline (Reeve, 2007; Twietmeyer, 2012; Tinning, 2013) and sport science phenomenon (Wilber, 2000; Skurvydas, 2008), which had led to the perception that taken one discipline is not able to solve global problems (Gill, 2007; Krishnan, 2009). Knowledge of physical education are applied and created in the areas: medicine and health, sport, and education (Kirk, 2009; Naul, 2003; Leta, Rosa, 2012). Such versatility of the field underlines the relevance of the fields of study covering (creating and applying) knowledge of physical education and the manifestation of identity of students from such fields of study. An abundance of names and terms relating to the physical education study field (sport science) affects not only the existence of this field in the universities but leads to the self-recognition, interactions, conflicts between theoreticians and practitioners of the... [to full text] / Disciplinų skirstymas į kietąsias, arba paradigmines, ir į minkštąsias arba prieš-paradigmines, grynąsias ir taikomąsias, socialines ir mokslines profesijas (Biglan, 1973; Kolb, 1984; Becher, 1989) tik pabrėžė kūno kultūros žinių integralumą ir šio tyrimo lauko dvilypumą (Van Hilvoorde et al., 2010), žinių skolinimąsi iš kitų mokslų ir disciplinų: medicinos ir sveikatos (kietosios-taikomosios), socialinių (minkštosios-taikomosios), gyvybės mokslų (grynosios-kietosios) (Biglan, 1973; Becher, 1989; Leta, Rosa, 2012) bei lauko pavadinimų kaitą (Lawson, 2007; Kirk, 2010; Zeigler, 2014). Tyrimai, susiję su kūno kultū¬ros žinių ir universitetinių studijų kontekstu (Henry, 1964; Park, 1989; Newell, 1990; Filho, 2000; Kirk, 2009; Freeman, 2012), atskleidė kūno kultūros (sporto mokslo) lauko problemas aukštajame moksle ir jo kompleksiškumą. Ieškant naujų žinių kūrimo būdų, buvo pereita prie holistinio, integruoto kūno kultūros lauko kaip kineziologijos disciplinos (Reeve, 2007; Twietmeyer, 2012; Tinning, 2013) ir kaip sporto mokslo fenomeno pažinimo (Wilber, 2000; Skurvydas, 2009), nes susivokta, kad viena disciplina yra nepajėgi išspręsti globalių problemų (Gill, 2007; Krishnan, 2009). Tyrimai (Kirk, 2009, Naul, 2003; Leta, Rosa, 2012) rodo, kad kūno kultūros žinios kuriamos ir taikomos šiose srityse: medicina ir sveikata, sportas, švietimas ir ugdymas. Toks kūno kultūros (sporto mokslo) lauko įvairiapusiš-kumas pabrėžia žinias (Kirk, 2009, 2010; Freeman, 2012; Schary, 2014) ir... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

Woven within the pages of HRD’s historical literature, a variety of scholarly voices can be found drawing attention to the increasing inconsistency in the language of the field. Within the literature, we also find evidence of a long-standing discord and debate regarding the field’s definition and identified boundaries. This is the first study that attempts to elevate the conversation of HRD’s definition to that of an exploration of what is shared, and what makes the discipline’s members unique. Utilizing Li’s (2009) lens of disciplinary identity and elements of Gee’s (1999) theory of Discourse, this study presents a concept of what HRD’s disciplinary identity may look like at the macro level. This study also investigates the construct from both the academic and practitioner lens, in an attempt to include perspectives and influences at the micro level regarding the discipline’s enacted identity in both scholarship and practice, which may aid the relationship between theory and practice. Embedded within the larger aim of this study was the goal of revealing current similarities and differences in academic and practitioner labels-in-use within the field of Human Resource Development. To that end, this study employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design that began with a quantitative collection and analysis of text from the Association for Talent Development’s (ATD) website and the Academy of Human Resource Development’s (AHRD) website. A second, qualitative phase was then conducted consisting of interviews of a diverse group of academics and practitioners from institutional/organizational contexts that were believed to provide greater insight into the potential contextual nuances behind the quantitative results. Mixed analyses of the quantitative and qualitative findings found a variance in the language-in-use, as well as indications that the discipline’s espoused identity may not reflect what is actually lived. These findings also suggest insights into the discipline’s social actions and interactions at the micro level, providing support for a proposed cultural model of HRD at the macro level. Although this study is a first step in trying to better understand HRD’s language-in-use and overall disciplinary identity, it also provides evidence that viewing HRD’s language-in-use in this way warrants further investigation.