A. The View From… (HRD Hall of Fame)
Audience-facing reflections from HRD Hall of Fame winners
Length: 500–800 words.
Tone: Conversational, reflective; not an academic paper; no references required.
Focus:
Key priorities for HRD research and practice now, and why.
Vision: Where is HRD going?
Advice for HRD scholars and practitioners based on a lifetime in the field.
Required:
Title.
Author name, affiliation, email.
150-word bio and headshot.
3–5 keywords and 1–2 domains/tags.
B. Practitioner Insights (Case studies, interviews, profiles)
Practice-focused cases, interviews, or profiles.
Length: 500–800 words.
Core elements:
What question or challenge did you set out to address?
Brief description of context: organization/sector, roles, geography.
Key themes that emerged from experience, interviews, or qualitative data.
Illustrative stories or brief quotes (e.g., “speak bubbles”).
Your own insights and “where do we go from here?” for practice and/or research.
Data sources can include: practitioner experience, qualitative interview themes, stakeholder experience.
Required:
Title, author information, bio, headshot.
3–5 keywords; 1–3 domains/tags.
C. Authors’ Corner – Insights from Books
Short reflections on books relevant to HRD research and practice.
Length: 500–800 words.
Core elements:
Book image (cover).
Very brief summary (1–2 sentences): what is this book about?
Context: why this book matters to HRD practitioners and HRD researchers.
1–3 key insights for HRD practice.
1–3 key insights for HRD research.
Full citation and/or link to where to source the book.
Required:
Title, author information, bio, headshot.
3–5 keywords; 1–3 domains/tags.
D. Insights from Research – Empirical/Conference Submissions-Papers, Posters
Translational pieces based on empirical research (published or work in progress).
Length: Approximately 800 words.
Structure (drawn from the empirical template):
a. Main research question and (if relevant) sub-questions.
b. Why this matters for HRD / L&D practice, policy, or society; practical challenge addressed.
c. Research method (e.g., survey, experiment, case study).
d. Theories used.
e. PICOC table (can be adapted into prose or a table in the post): population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, context.
f. Definitions of key concepts/variables (present in a brief table if possible).
g. Main findings in plain language, including direction and strength of key effects (low/medium/large).
h. Practical recommendations for managers/practitioners (bullet list or boxed summary).
i. Visual representation of recommendations, where possible: steps, model, framework, decision tree, or simple infographic.
j. If relevant: interventions suggested; implications for policy or society.
k. 5 keywords.
l. Citation and link if the study is already published.
m. Author bio (150 words) and headshot.
Style:
a. Plain language, minimal jargon.
b. Use headings, tables, and infographics where possible.
c. References as footnotes or endnotes; keep them light.
E. Insights from Research – Systematic/Literature Reviews
Translational pieces based on systematic reviews, rapid evidence assessments, or literature reviews.
Length: Approximately 800 words.
Structure (from the review template):
a. Main review question and (if relevant) sub-questions.
b. Why this matters for HRD / L&D practice, policy, or society; practical challenge addressed.
c. Theories used (if applicable).
d. PICOC table adapted for review question (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, context).
e. Main findings from the review in clear, grouped statements.
f. Practical recommendations for managers on each key factor or theme.
g. Visual representation of recommendations: steps, model, framework, decision tree, or infographic.
h. If relevant: suggested interventions; implications for policy or society.
i. 5 keywords.
j. Citation and link if the review is already published.
k. Author bio (150 words) and headshot.
Style:
a. Plain language, short sentences, clearly signposted sections.
b. Tables and infographics strongly encouraged to summarize evidence.
Cross-cutting editorial standards
Apply these to all submission types.
Audience: HRD practitioners, scholar-practitioners, and researchers interested in actionable insights.
Voice: Accessible, applied, and reflective of real-world practice, not written as a journal article.
Clarity:
o Define key terms in plain language.
o Make explicit “so what?” implications for practice and policy.
Formatting:
Use headings and subheadings.
Use bullet lists where they aid readability.
Include tables/boxes/infographics where appropriate.
Word formatted documents
Permissions and copyright:
Authors are responsible for securing permission to use images, figures, or long quotes.
For published research, cite the original article and provide a link.
Conference Poster Adaptations
Please include:
• A clear and engaging title
• Author name(s) and affiliation(s)
• Short author bio (100–150 words)
• Headings/subheadings when appropriate
• Minimal citations/references unless necessary
Formatting recommendations:
• Use short paragraphs
• Avoid excessive jargon
• Use bullet points sparingly and purposefully
• Submit in Word or compatible document format
Keywords and Categories
Authors should provide 3–5 keywords and select one primary content category.
Suggested categories include:
• Research to Practice
• Leadership & Management
• Learning & Development
• Organizational Development
• Workforce Well-Being
• Talent Management
• Coaching & Mentoring
• Action Research
• Scholar-Practitioner Perspectives
• Student Voices
• Emerging Trends