One of the macro challenges faced by HRD is attaining professional recognition as a separate entity from HR, which comes through research based theories. Practice of theories is not focused towards client needs. It is because HRD jobs are given to people who don’t possess knowledge of the core HRD theories; HRD as a profession is not given due importance like other departments in an organisation. Strenuous efforts are needed to bring recognition by developing a sense of respect in organisations for HRD as a special area of research and practice. Swanson (2001)) remarked, “HRD practice does not come close to what we know from sound theory" (p. 309). For that efforts should be made in nurturing the ethics, values, standard practices and developing competencies for initiating research and practice in the right direction (Short et al. 2010).
For gaining professional recognition (Lynham 2000), some unknowns in the body of knowledge demand attention for building theory in HRD. First, the outwardly philosophical assumptions are missing besides the required structure to lead the function of theory building in HRD. Second unknown is the reported lack of well documented, tested and outward multi-paradigm methods of theory building in HRD. Third unknown is the lack of collective and common comprehension of the basic concepts of theory and theory building in HRD. In discussing methods of research and practice in HRD, the issue of sound and good knowledge of the field needs to be tackled. For meeting the task and challenge of strict and contextual theory building in HRD, a multi-attributed discussion is foremost. So far it has been missing in theoretical practice and scientific research in the absence of multi-paradigm methods. It has highlighted the problem of lack of professionalism needed to bring recognition to HRD as a different