humor, humor theory, and hrd

5
EDITORIAL Humor, Humor Theory, and HRD Who has more fun than us researchers? If you have been to a research confer- ence lately, you will probably say just about anybody. Humor and research may be compared with the most diametrical extremes of the universe: good and evil, truth and falsehood, telemarketing and moral consciousness. Want to get scorned in the editorial process of scholarly writing? Try placing humorous perspectives in your literature review (Berk, 1998). You will likely receive a stern reprimand from surly, positivistic reviewers blasting the inappropriate levity of your prose. As researchers, our scholarly pursuits and travails are described with pursed lips—after all, research is serious business, is it not? This brief editorial connects the strange bedfellows of humor and HRD research in two ways: it pokes fun at HRD research, and it seeks fresh insights into HRD research and practice with humor theory. Poking Fun at Research I have lurked in the bowels of scholarship for twenty-five years. I am a full professor, so publishing seemed preferable to perishing. After all, a guy’s gotta eat. Through trial and error, and after developing an extremely thick skin, my name eventually appeared in print. Everyone has his or her fifteen minutes of fame. My scholarly fame emerged from writing mundane articles for obscure, refereed journals that had a collective readership of 153 people. (Most of these journals are now extinct—but I swear my writing had nothing to do with it.) My writing style has fluctuated slightly over the years, but its quality has rou- tinely ranged from pond scum to sludge. My research paradigm consists of finding authors who agree with me and then citing them to substantiate my claims. As Wink (2000) noted, the antithesis does not affirm. I try to use cau- tion when I cite others because half the researchers I know are below average. If I cannot find other sources to substantiate my claims, I cite my previous articles—sometimes both of them. To pad my list of sources, I have been known to cite my conversations with myself as “personal communication.” (Ido not think this data source is treated in APA’s fifth edition.) Fre- quently these conversations with myself escalate into full-blown arguments. Although these disagreements may be painful, it always feels good when I make up. Anyway, my multiple realities make it easier for me to access sev- eral sources of data—I do not need to rely on other people, artifacts, or resources to achieve triangulation. 351 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 13, no. 4, Winter 2002 Copyright © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Upload: gene-l-roth

Post on 11-Jun-2016

219 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

E D I T O R I A L

Humor, Humor Theory, and HRD

Who has more fun than us researchers? If you have been to a research confer-ence lately, you will probably say just about anybody. Humor and research maybe compared with the most diametrical extremes of the universe: good andevil, truth and falsehood, telemarketing and moral consciousness. Want to getscorned in the editorial process of scholarly writing? Try placing humorousperspectives in your literature review (Berk, 1998). You will likely receive astern reprimand from surly, positivistic reviewers blasting the inappropriatelevity of your prose. As researchers, our scholarly pursuits and travails aredescribed with pursed lips—after all, research is serious business, is it not?This brief editorial connects the strange bedfellows of humor and HRDresearch in two ways: it pokes fun at HRD research, and it seeks fresh insightsinto HRD research and practice with humor theory.

Poking Fun at Research

I have lurked in the bowels of scholarship for twenty-five years. I am a fullprofessor, so publishing seemed preferable to perishing. After all, a guy’s gottaeat. Through trial and error, and after developing an extremely thick skin, myname eventually appeared in print. Everyone has his or her fifteen minutes offame. My scholarly fame emerged from writing mundane articles for obscure,refereed journals that had a collective readership of 153 people. (Most of thesejournals are now extinct—but I swear my writing had nothing to do with it.)My writing style has fluctuated slightly over the years, but its quality has rou-tinely ranged from pond scum to sludge. My research paradigm consists offinding authors who agree with me and then citing them to substantiate myclaims. As Wink (2000) noted, the antithesis does not affirm. I try to use cau-tion when I cite others because half the researchers I know are below average.If I cannot find other sources to substantiate my claims, I cite my previousarticles—sometimes both of them. To pad my list of sources, I have beenknown to cite my conversations with myself as “personal communication.”(I do not think this data source is treated in APA’s fifth edition.) Fre-quently these conversations with myself escalate into full-blown arguments.Although these disagreements may be painful, it always feels good when Imake up. Anyway, my multiple realities make it easier for me to access sev-eral sources of data—I do not need to rely on other people, artifacts, orresources to achieve triangulation.

351HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 13, no. 4, Winter 2002Copyright © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

352

Getting Serious About Humor and Humor Research

My present role as president of the Academy of Human Resource Development(AHRD) is fraught with irony. The stated intent of the academy is “to lead HRDthrough research.” Because I come from the land of the “tiny-brained folk,” Iam puzzled by the key terms lead, HRD, and research in this phrase.

The word lead will produce about a zillion hits with any search engine;leadership means different things to different people (Graham, 2002). The termHRD has myriad meanings around the globe. Authors who are much more elo-quent than I have not crafted a universal definition (Lee, 2001; McLean andMcLean, 2001; Ruona, 2002; Kaufman and Guerra, 2002; Walton, 2002).

As for research, various paradigms may be used to view the world. At thevery least we may say that quantitative researchers (quantnoids) and qualita-tive researchers (schmoozers) appear to be from different planets. I will givethem the benefit of the doubt and place them in the same galaxy.

About twenty definitions of HRD have been put on the table over the pastthirty years (Ruona, 2002). Although I may not be able to specify what HRDis, I know that it is bigger than a breadbox. As some authors bandy the termabout, seeking common ground, others have tried alternative means to graspthe concept. Short (2001) suggested exploring the role of metaphor in HRD asa creative means of examining theory and practice. However, as I glanced atthe examples of metaphor offered by the authors of his edited monograph, Inoticed a striking peculiarity: none of them were funny. Why not? Over theyears, several metaphors have been hurled my way, and a fair share of themhad humorous connotations (for example, Gene, I have seen better faces thanyours on iodine bottles; Gene, when it comes to cultural capital, you were bornwith chump change).

What prevented these monograph authors from citing humorousmetaphors to depict HRD practice? Was it an unsurfaced assumption that lev-ity and research do not mix? Swanson (2002) stated that metaphors are “lousyinquiry tools and great communication tools” and should only be used care-fully to communicate research results after “serious inquiry is complete”(p. 225). Hmm, there is that word serious again. This might be a stretch, butwhy not get serious about humor and humor theory as a means of surfacingnew insights about HRD theory and practice?

Humor theory resides in disparate disciplines, such as psychology,sociology, communication studies, education, and allied health. What makespeople laugh? Between thirty and eighty theories have been offered, depend-ing on whom you read. LaFave, Haddad, and Maeson (1996) reviewed anumber of experiments and offered connecting links between superiority andincongruity theory, two of the most frequently cited conceptual frameworksfor humor theory. They suggested that an adequate theory of humor shouldinvolve a “(1) sudden (2) happiness increment (such as a feeling of superior-ity or heightened self-esteem) as a consequence of a (3) perceived incongruity”

(p. 89). An unwritten rule states that most happiness increments shouldinvolve a banana peel.

Gruner (2000) crafted a comprehensive theory of humor and challengedscholars to disprove it. Based on the superiority theory of humor advanced byBritish philosopher Thomas Hobbes, Gruner surmised, “When we find humorin something, we laugh at the misfortune, stupidity, clumsiness, or moral orcultural defect, suddenly revealed in someone else, to whom we instantly andmomentarily feel ‘superior’ since we are not, at that moment, unfortunate, stu-pid, clumsy, morally or cultural defective, and so on” (p. 13). In other words,we laugh when something bad happens to some other poor sap instead of tous for a change. Gruner asserted that successful humor must include winningand sudden perception of that winning. He stated succinctly, “laughing equalswinning” and all humor is a game to be won (p. 9). Gruner traced the superi-ority nature of humor to the evolution of humans who became masters of theearth, the top of the food chain. This combination of aggressivity, competi-tiveness, curiosity, and resourcefulness feeds our penchant for viewing the mis-fortunes of others from a humorous, lofty perch. No offense to all the littlepeople.

Understanding HRD Contexts Through Humor

The world of human resource development can certainly be characterized asone of winners and losers. Each day HRD practitioners volley for their shareof scarce resources. Who is laughing at whom in the workplace, and what arethe artifacts of humor in HRD practice? The comic strip Dilbert that appears inmost U.S. newspapers provides a telling example of workplace humor. Thepopularity of this comic strip surged at a time when workplace climatesbecame seething tempests of reorganization. Mergers, downsizing, acquisitions,and other forms of deck-shuffling provided fodder for stranger-than-fictionaccounts of workplace shenanigans. Some executives have banned posting thecubicle humor of Dilbert because the punch lines hit below the corporate belt.Variations of reorganization humor have also surfaced on the Internet:

You have been sitting at the same desk for three years and have worked for fivedifferent companies.

Your company’s welcome sign is attached with Velcro.Your résumé is on a diskette in your pocket.Contractors outnumber permanent staff, and they are more likely to get long-

service awards.Humor theory may be aligned with critical theorists who problematize

power relationships in work settings (Wink, 2000). Organizational winnersand losers are described each day in the business section of the daily newspa-per. The stakes seem to be getting higher as Fortune 500 corporations arereduced to rubble because of the poor judgment of high-level decision mak-ers. Lefcourt (2001) noted the pervasiveness of humor and the diverse range

Editorial 353

354

of events that provoke it. He acknowledged humor as a vitally importanthuman characteristic for dealing with terrible conditions. Current global con-ditions are causing severe trauma to organizations, and some HRD practition-ers are caught in the middle of it. Perhaps humor and humor theory can helpus recognize the lesions below the skin in HRD contexts.

Humor has been recognized as an extremely healthy and powerful meansto gain perspective during difficult times (Sultanoff, 1995). The use of humoras a therapeutic device for patients is well chronicled. The scientific term gelo-tology refers to the study of the body’s reactions to humorous experiences(Fry, 1992). Sherman (1998) examined numerous benefits of humor to thehuman body and found it to be a positive coping tool for stress, illness, andpain. She highlighted approximately a gazillion ways in which humor benefitsthe body, mind, and spirit. Given its therapeutic role in the wellness ofhumans, why have we not paid more attention to how it might positively influ-ence sick organizations? Hudson (2001) took this very approach as the CEOand president of an old-line Midwestern company. She incorporated fun as acore strategy to “promote an open, collaborative, and trusting can-do atmos-phere” (pp. 46–47) and stressed that “a company can be fun and friendly forits employees and fierce with its competitors” (p. 53). Hudson asserted thatcrafting a fun environment can contribute to both strong business performanceand a robust work culture. Goodman (1983) made the analogy to a localplumber’s advertisement: “A flush beats a full house.” He suggested flushingthe accumulated stress from our lives to make more space for joy, optimism,and good relationships. This might be a helpful metaphor for getting both ourtheories and our pipes to hold water.

Humor was described by Ned Rorem as “the ability to see three sides ofone coin” (cited in Berk, 1998, p. 5). Someone with a good sense of humorcan see the third side of the coin and recognize things that others fail to see.If HRD is the third side of the coin, how can humor help us question sacredassumptions so that breakthrough thinking might occur? Humor andresearch offer a dialectical tension that can lead to fresh insights. Wink(2000) describes a dialectic as that which stimulates “seeing and articulatingcontradictions; it is a process of learning from the oppositional view” (p. 47).I am a researcher. The ironies and contradictions of the workplace can makeme chortle. They can also make me look at the undercurrents of who is win-ning and who is losing. What are the incongruent workplace phenomenathat elicit responses from slight smirks to uproarious convulsions? Perhapshumor and humor theory can help us decode HRD contradictions, unravelthem, and pose questions worthy of inquiry. But I suppose there are limitsto any good idea—we probably do not want too many knock-knock jokes inHRDQ.

GENE L. ROTH

GUEST EDITOR

References

Berk, R. (1998). Professors are from Mars, students are from Snickers. Madison, WI: Mendota Press.Fry, W. (1992). The physiologic effects of humor, mirth, and laughter. JAMA, 276 (13),

1857–1858.Goodman, J. (1983). How to get more smileage out of your life: Making sense of humor, then

serving it. In P. McGehee & J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Graham, P. (2002). Perspectives on the ethical standards of the academy. Human Resource Devel-opment Quarterly, 13 (2), 227–230.

Gruner, C. (2000). The game of humor: A comprehensive theory of why we laugh. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction.

Hudson, K. (2001, July-August). Transforming a conservative company—one laugh at a time.Harvard Business Review, pp. 45–53.

Kaufman, R., & Guerra, I. (2002). A perspective adjustment to add value to external clients,including society. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13 (1), 109–115.

LaFave, L., Haddad, J., & Maeson, W. (1996). Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceivedincongruity humor theory. In A. Chapman & H. Foot (Eds.), Humor and laughter: Theory,research, and applications. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Lee, M. (2001). A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4 (3),327–341.

Lefcourt, H. (2001). Humor: The psychology of living buoyantly. New York: KluwerAcademic–Plenum.

McLean, G., & McLean, L. (2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define itin an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4 (3), 313–326.

Ruona, W. (2002). What’s in a name? Human resource development and its core. In T. Egan &S. Lynham (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Academy of Human Resource Development Annual Con-ference (pp. 9–16). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Sherman, K. (1998). Healing with humor. Seminars in Perioperative Nursing, 7 (2), 128–137.Short, D. C. (2001). Shining a torch on metaphor in HRD. In D. C. Short (Ed.) Advances in

developing human resources, Metaphor in human resource development (pp. 297–309). Bowl-ing Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Sultanoff, S. (1995). Levity defies gravity: Using humor in crisis situations. Therapeutic Humor,IX (3), 1–2.

Swanson, R. A. (2002). Keep your metaphor . . . please! Human Resource Development Quarterly,13 (2), 225–226.

Walton, J. (2002). How shall a thing be called? A debate on the efficacy of the term HRD. InT. Egan & S. Lynham (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 Academy of Human Resource DevelopmentAnnual Conference (pp. 1–8). Bowling Green, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Wink, J. (2000). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Editorial 355