Maria Beltran-Figueroa (Refugee Resource & Research Institute, Indianapolis) & Rey Ty (International Training Office, Northern Illinois University). (2011). Critical Human Resource Development (HRD) and Culturally Appropriate Human Rights-Based Projects for Refugees. Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development. Chicago: Academy of Human Resource Development. more

Running head: CRITICAL HRD, CULTURE & HUMAN RIGHTS OF REFUGEES Critical HRD and Culturally Appropriate Human Rights-Based Projects for Refugees Maria Beltran-Figueroa Refugee Resource & Research Institute of Indiana, Inc. Rey Ty International Training Office, Northern Illinois University Copyright © 2011 Maria Beltran-Figueroa & Rey Ty Abstract Critical HRD, along with its specific variants of culturally appropriate and human rights-based approaches, promotes research and action that benefit refugees. The cultural approach stresses sensitivity to historical, social, and ethnic backgrounds and changes. The human rights-based approach focuses on non-discrimination, justice and empowerment. Using a culturally appropriate and human-rights based approach to development work, this study investigates the role of human resource development that benefits refugees. Keywords: critical human resource development, culture, human rights, refugees Critical HRD and Culturally Appropriate Human Rights-Based Projects for Refugees Relevance to the HRD Field of the Problem Due to economic, political, and cultural crises occurring in different parts of the world, there are streams of international refugees who move from their countries of origin to countries of temporary sanctuary and finally to host countries which accept them. This paper addresses a realworld, real-time opportunity facing organizations to collaboratively integrate refugees from around the world into their social system in ways that may yield new ideas and innovations. While performance and learning are important purposes of human resource development (HRD), they are insufficient, as international refugees face problems specific to them, as they have to move beyond borders and to live in complex, multiple cultural, sometimes conflicting, contexts. There are few academic works that directly relate human resource development to refugee work (Cortes, 2005; Jacobsen, 2010). This study, specifically, focuses on change, as practiced, and problematizes human resource development from a culturally sensitive and human rights-based approach. Next it presents the research questions, discusses the framework, and explains the research methods, after which, it presents the research findings and ends with the conclusion and implications. Significance of the Issue There is a direct and dialectical relationship between philosophy, theory and research on the one hand and action and practice on the other hand. Guided by the critical HRD philosophy, this article presents a case study based on action and practice, upon which the scholars who authored it reflect. HRD’s ability to facilitate creative approaches to working across real and imagined socio-cultural boundaries in all the functions of society and within organizational settings is critical to realizing the potential benefits of diasporas that result from unfortunate circumstances, a way of flattening the world that provides some sense of hope in apparently hopeless times for refugees who may any day, be any one of us. The co-authors of this article are HRD professionals who foster critical discourse and provide innovative ideas for HRD practice. Integrating theory, research, and practical experience, the co-authors of this article join the conversation about the purpose of HRD by including both cultural appropriateness and human rights as basis for HRD-related work. On the one hand, refugee services reproduce the structures and functions of U.S. society. Refugee service providers make available knowledge and skills that refugees need to fill the labor force, based on their class, ethnicity, and gender. In terms of performance, refugee service providers performance functions based on their mandates. In turn, they expect refugees to be at their peak performance in the workplace, mostly in factory work. In terms of learning, they reproduce the dominant interests and culture, as they decide what knowledge, language, and values the refugees need to accept. By expecting the refugees to learn the new knowledge, skills, and values so that they assimilate to the mainstream society, refugee service providers also legitimize the economy, politics, and ideology of the state. On the other hand, the co-authors here, using the critical perspective (Giroux, 1983), are skeptical of the reproduction of and challenge the standard practices of providing services to the refugees. What is needed is not only performance and learning but more importantly change in the practice of refugee services. As is, the dominant practice of training and development in HRD is one of “social control” (Cunningham, 1988, p. 133). Research Questions The issues addressed in this study are the following 1. 2. What is the situation of refugees, in particular, the Karens in Indiana? How is the farm project a culturally sensitive and human rights-based human resource development approach for refugee work? Limitations of the Study A limitation of this study is that it discusses a case study. Because this case study deals with a single unit, the findings cannot be generalized. Specifically, no generalizations must be made about the automatic applicability of the farm project to other communities, Karen or otherwise, in a different time or place. The intent of this study was to share lessons learned and identify best practices from which people in other social or cultural contexts can learn. In particular, lessons can be learned from the Karen farm project. The detailed description of this case provides “a vivid portrait” that “can become a prototype that can be used” (Eisner, 1991, p. 1999). The authors of this article are not the ones who will determine the applicability of this case to other contexts. Rather, “the reader” will be “reconstructing the knowledge in ways that leave it…more likely to be personally useful” (Stake, 2000, p. 442). Conceptual Framework This section gives a definition of the major concepts in this paper, namely, human rights and refugee, which are the focal points of this study. The first word is human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of the United Nations (U.N.) (2002) explains the (1) principles as well as (2) enumerates a list of those rights. In terms of principles, the preamble of the UDHR explains that human rights are the foundation of liberty, social justice and peace. They are meant to give due recognition to the human dignity of everyone, regardless of one’s color, country of origin, sex, age, social status, economic station in life, and other differences. The thirty articles of the UDHR enumerate five components of human rights: economic, social, cultural, civil and political. Economic rights include, among others, the right to work, free choice of work, equal pay for equal work, just compensation, and union membership. Social rights include the right to an adequate living standard, health, food, housing, medical care, social services, and social security. Cultural rights include the right to education, participation in cultural and artistic life, share in scientific advancement, and protection of interests in any artistic, literary or scientific work of which one is the author. The second concept is refugee. Article 1 of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 Protocol defines a refugee as: "A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it." Literature Review and Framework of Analysis This section presents a survey of the literature on human resource development (HRD), performance, learning, change, as well as the culturally appropriate and human rights based approaches to HRD work. HRD is defined as “a process for developing and unleashing human expertise through organization development and personnel training and development for the purpose of improving performance” (Swanson & Holton, 2001, p. 4). A review of literature reveals that there are debates about the purpose of human resource development (HRD). The definition cited above shows the unity of performance and learning. But some authors focus on performance primarily (Wood & El Mansour, 2010; Zhang & Zheng, 2009). Other authors stress learning (Moeller, Harvey & Williams, 2010). Absent in the above definition is change: however, some other authors emphasize change, diversity, social responsibility, or social justice (Alfred & Chlup, 2010; Becker, Carbo, & Langella, 2010; Cunningham, 2004; Kormanik & Rajan, 2010; McDonald & Hite, 2010; Thomas, Tran & Dawson, 2010). “[O]rganizational interests… dominate HRD; there is very little critique of society, within the dialogue of our field” and “the field” is now “challenged” for “this non-critical orientation” and “for failing to engage in critical discourse and praxis” (Callahan, 2007, p. 77). “Theoretical dilemmas of a critical HRD” include “ideological contradictions between the radical orientation of critical theory and the managerialist or performative frames to which much HRD is accountable” (Fenwick, 2004, p. 193). Critical HRD critiques the “predominant focus on ‘the principle of performativity which serves to subordinate knowledge and truth to the production of efficiency” (Fournier & Grey, 2000 p. 17). Critical HRD “challenge[s] the subjugation of human knowledge, skills, and relationships to organizational or shareholder gain and focus on transforming workplaces and HRD practice toward justice, fairness, and equity” (Fenwick, 2004, p. 193). Critical HRD practitioners do not concentrate exclusively on ameliorating organizational performance; rather, they deal with hitherto unmentionable matters, such as power, class, sexism, national chauvinism, dominant cultural hegemony, racism, ageism, and heterosexism (Githens, 2007) as well as the struggle for justice and empowerment. The human rights framework provides tools useful for fighting against all forms of discrimination on which critical HRD directs its attention. There lies the direct and close linkage between human rights and critical HRD. There are debates within critical HRD, but looking into the bigger picture, critical HRD practitioners in general are concerned about “purposes of workplace reform aligned with equity, justice, and organizational democracy; knowledge treated as contested, political, and nonperformative; inquiry focused on denaturalizing organizational power and knowledge relations, and methods of reflexivity and critical challenge to prevailing conditions” (Fenwick, 2005, p. 225). In addition, critical approaches to action research give room for practitioners to apply critical approaches in HRD practice (Githens, 2007). This paper applies critical approaches involving human rights and culture to HRD practice. Being concerned with social justice and social transformation, critical HRD puts emphasis on the struggles of people who do not belong to the hegemonic or dominant groups (Cunningham, 2004). With a view to empower and give voice to the grassroots, critical HRD views organizational practices from the lenses of class, ethnicity, gender, religion, and other differences (Cunningham, 2004). This paper gives a critique of the current refugee service practices that only promote performance and learning, based on their limited mandate, and presents a case study that advances changes in the HRD practices. The authors of this paper view organizational practices not from the perspectives of organizations but from the points of view of refugees themselves. Guided overall by the critical HRD perspective, this research questions the existing HRD practices of refugee services that subjugate refugees’ knowledge, skills, and relationships to refugee service organizations. This research gives an illustration of a case study of refugee service that does not focus only on improving organizational performance or learning but questions the power relations between refugees and refugee service providers. It presents a case study of an HRD practice of change, by dialoguing with refugees and implementing a project that empowers the refugees and respects and puts into use their culture, knowledge, and skills. Under the umbrella framework of critical HRD, this research combines two specific but interrelated frameworks: culturally sensitive project designs and human rights-based programming and approach to development. See figure below. Figure 1. Framework of Analysis Far from casually using them as frameworks, the culturally appropriate and human rights based approaches are legitimate HRD frameworks actually being used extensively on the ground in different parts of the world in order to promote change which ensures justice, human rights and empowerment take place. More and more international organizations (IOs), regional organizations, governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and research institutes use the human rights based approach to guide their HRD work. Some of these organizations include BetterAid (2010), the Danish Institute for Human Rights (Boesen & Martin, 2007), the the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2006), Oxfam (2009), the United Nations Development Programme (2006), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (Frankovits, 2006). In addition, at least one organization in Chicago uses the human rights based approach in their HRD work, namely the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights, which, among others, provide refugee services. Heartland Alliance was set up in 1888, when Chicago was the second city set up a Travelers Aid organization. The Heartland Alliance (2010) “advances the human rights and responds to the human needs of endangered populations— particularly the poor, the isolated, and the displaced—through the provision of comprehensive and respectful services and the promotion of permanent solutions leading to a more just global society (2010). It is also involved in refugee resettlement program of the U.S. government. As far as cultural sensitivity in designing and implementing projects is concerned, Thoraya Obaid, the Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2010) wrote: “Human rights is our frame of reference. And we use culturally sensitive approaches to promote human rights in ways that people can identify with and can internalize in the context of their own lives.” The UNFPA (2010) adds that cultural sensitivity involves the following: invest time in knowing the culture in which one operates; hear what the community has to say; show respect; be patient; gain the support of local power structures; be inclusive; provide solid evidence; rely on the objectivity of science; avoid value judgments; use language sensitively; work through local allies; assume the role of a facilitator; honor commitments; know our adversaries; find common ground; accentuate the positive; use advocacy to effect change; create opportunities for women; build community capacity; reach out through popular culture; let people do what they do best; nurture partnerships; celebrate achievements; and never give up. Developed at the Inter-Agency Workshop on a human rights-based approach in the context of United Nations reform, from May 3 to 5, 2003, the human rights-based approach to programming (Jensen, 2006, p. 2) “is a conceptual framework and a methodological tool to ensure that human rights principles are reflected in policies and national development frameworks.” Human rights determine the relationship between rights holders and duty bearers, strengthening the capacities of rights holders to make their claims and of duty bearers to meet their obligations. Through the systematic use of human rights-based programming, Refugee Resource seeks to empower refugees to exercise their human rights. This is achieved by supporting programs aimed at all refugees, women, men, young and old—the rights holders—the information, life skills, and education they need to claim and enjoy their human rights. The following are the rationale for a human rights based approach to program development: reduction of gap in equity and equality; reliance on broad participation; targeting marginalized and excluded groups; empowerment of both duty bearers and rights holders; addressing the root causes of human rights violations; concern for budget allocations and public accountability; promotion of gender equality; cultural sensitivity; contribution to a climate conducive to human rights; keeping up with international standards; and assurance of sustainability. It also contributes to capacity-building among public officials, teachers, health-care workers and others—the duty bearers—who have a responsibility to fulfill these rights. In addition, Refugee Resource aims to strengthen civil society organizations, which often serve as intermediaries between the government and individuals, and promotes mechanisms by which duty bearers can be held accountable. Research Process Case Study Research Design. This study uses a qualitative case study research design, which is a fundamental research strategy in HRD and other applied disciplines (Dooley, 2002). According to Hammersley & Gomm (2000, p. 1): “The phrase ‘case study’…is not used in any standard way.” This article adopts Stake’s (2000, p. 435) definition of a case study as “a choice of what is to be studied,” in short, the unit of analysis or a bounded system, which is a single entity around which there are boundaries. A “case is a specific, complex, functioning thing” (Stake, 1995, p. 2). The system is bounded by historical time, contextual space or components or number of participants comprising the case. A case study by nature is a detailed study of a phenomenon within its real context (Yin, 2003). In this qualitative research, the co-authors, who are involved in meaning-making, are the primary instruments of collection, analysis and interpretation of data. The selection of a case is purposefully made, in this instance, of a program, based on features that appeal to the co-authors. A case study is useful when one “seeks an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon because of its uniquess” (Ellenger, Watkins, & Marsick, 2005, p. 330) and when “little is known about a phenomenon” and “current perspectives seem to be inadequate because they have little empirical substantiation” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 548). Here, the case, the unit of analysis or the bounded system here is the unique farm project about which little is known, as it is the first refugee project that uses a human-rights framework and culturally appropriate approach for the integration of Karen refugees in Indianapolis. In this ethnographic case study, research is focused on presenting the social, economic, political and cultural description and interpretation of a particular cultural group, in this instance, the Karen refugees. The selection of this case is based upon the lessons the co-authors want to learn and their significance both to theory expansion and improvement of practice. The research findings are presented as a comprehensive description of the case. On the one hand, the structural-functionalist perspective (Durkheim, 1961; Parsons, 1959) is a sociological and political framework that account for the existing historical, social, economic, political, and cultural structures of the status quo which perpetuate and transmit the existing norms, values and attitudes. From a structural-functionalist perspective, refugee services are structures of consensus which retain and reproduce existing patterns of behavior and values of the society. When problems arise, modifications are made to regain functional equilibrium. On the other hand, this critical ethnographic case study examines and exposes the tension between the functionalist assimilation and critical cultural pluralism of Karen refugees in the United States, particularly in Indianapolis. Research Data Collection Methods. Research data are collected through participatory action research, fieldwork, participant observation, community dialogue, artifacts, and archival documents related to the refugees’ farm projects in Indianapolis, Indiana. The practice allowed for testing of the traditional approaches to refugee services as well as the application of the culturally appropriate and human rights-based approach for HRD work, in this case, refugeerelated work. Positionalities of Co-Authors. In this section, the authors address their biases, as they have been involved in human rights work since the 1980s and are familiar first-hand with work related to internally displaced persons and international refugees. Both co-authors have been exposed to or worked with different refugee service organizations: Beltran-Figueroa in Indianapolis and Ty in the Chicagoland. The authors here “are interested in co-producing… knowledge by focusing on the interaction between themselves and their informants” (Ferraro, 2006, p 114). The culturally appropriate and human rights based approaches consistently.guide the professional HRD work of both co-authors. As the founder and executive director of Refugee Resource, the lead author is the project leader of the different farm projects of the refugees in Indianapolis, Indiana. Since 2003, the second co-author works at the International Training Office of Northern Illinois University, which Dr. Lina Ong directs, where he has been training international participants the culturally appropriate and human rights based approaches in international training programs (Ty, 2010). As a staff member, he went on program-related field visits to refugee service organizations and dialogued with refugees in both Illinois and Indiana. He also went on a field visit to the Chin and Karen refugees’ farm projects as well as interacted with major stakeholders—both refugees themselves and the refugee service providers—in a town hall meeting in Indianapolis. Findings Practice, Setting, and Organizational Needs Linked to the Issue: Situation of Refugees and Problematizing the Resettlement Practices The Karens from Burma. The Karen is one of the largest ethnic groups in Burma. Predominantly rice farmers, they live in the eastern lower Burma, along the Thai border. Throughout their existence, they have based their lives on the cultivation of rice paddies. Their villages move from one location to another in order to harvest rice, which is the most important part of their diet. While many are rice farmers, those in the delta use a different technique in planting vegetables and other different crops compared to people in other parts of Burma. “In the mountains and forest regions, Karen farmers practice shifting rice and crop rotation, using hand tools. In the plains and lower areas, they practice wet rice cultivation using oxen and buffalo” (Ranard & Barron, 2007, p.29). Under normal circumstances, people want to stay in places where they were born, lived, and worked. But when persecution and armed conflict victimize hundreds or thousands of people on a national scale, people leave their countries and become refugees in foreign lands. Many Burmese go to Thailand or Malaysia as their second country as refugees, prior to being resettled in a third country. Refugees are torn between two worlds. Resettlement from the home country to a third or host country of their choice, as such, is not a problem, but a preference over being persecuted in their home countries or being refugees forever in a second country. The problem is the type of refugee services they receive in the second and third countries. Some refugees stay in the second country (say, Thailand) for over ten years. Many Karens from Burma are resettled in Indiana where refugee service providers assist them in their resettlement. See figure below. Figure 2. The Making of a Refugee The Karens in Indianapolis. Indianapolis received the first wave of Karen arrivals in 2005. Many more have been resettled since then. There are now over three hundred families living in the South side, North side and the Speedway area. The Karen’s persecution started after World War II when after fighting the Japanese, the occupying British government denied them autonomy which was promised to them. Displacement has been widespread in the Karen areas because of war and human rights abuses since the Burmese government launched offensives against the ethnic minorities in the 1970s. Villagers have not only fled immediately after the Burmese attacks but they also had to leave their houses because of forcible relocation, forced labor, arbitrary taxation and other human rights violations. The Inadequate Practice of Refugee Services. In general, staff members and volunteers of refugee service organizations work within the limited boundaries of their grant, where the priority is to find employment for refugees as soon as they arrive. This was confirmed to be the case in both in Indiana and Illinois, where service organizations provide refugees with services related to (1) initial resettlement adjustment and (2) employment, corresponding to the learning and performance objectives of HRD, respectively. There are two resettlement agencies in Indianapolis. In Illinois, there are several refugee service organizations, among which are the Catholic Charities of Rockford, Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights, Rock Valley College Refugee and Immigrant Services, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), and World Relief. The mandate of resettlement agencies is to find employment for refugees as soon as possible. As in other parts of the country, there are not enough jobs in Indianapolis. In short, refugee service organizations in their HRD work, provide the performance and learning needs of the refugees, two of the three purposes of HRD. However, program planning and implementation of mainstream HRD work are based on the individual deficit model (Cunningham, 1998, p. 141) and refugee services are not an exception. For instance, refugees are referred to employers for jobs. Given that refugees have different levels of English language capabilities, refugees who speak English fluently are hired as refugee service workers and double as interpreters. In so doing, class division and power relations are created, based on language skills. In terms of learning, other refugees take English Language Learning (ELL) courses, work in jobs that do not require much English language abilities, or are provided with free interpreting services. Refugees are taught how to act, behave, speak, and dress up like a typical mainstream European American—in short, they are taught to assimilate. The notion of matching work in the host country, the U.S., that leverages skills and leaves identity intact is sensible: the fact that it does not happen with terrible frequency is an indicator that there are practical obstacles that must be overcome. Resettlement agencies are doing what they are doing, such as the setting up of apartments, job placement, and taking them to their health screenings, because these activities are part of their mandate under the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2010). However, the traditional resettlement services do not take into consideration the culture, qualifications and skills of refugees. Most of the time, resettlement agencies offer employment services that do not match the diverse needs and background of refugees (Oh & Stouwe, 2008). For example, refugees who were farmers, entrepreneurs, engineers, or doctors in their home countries are offered jobs as factory workers or taxi drivers. This is the gap in refugee services. Change, as the third purpose of HRD, need to take place in most refugee resettlement services. Just like the Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights in Chicago, the Refugee Resource in Indianapolis uses HRD as an agent for social change, both of which use the human rights based approach in their operations. The obstacle to providing services “outside the box” was overcome, when thinking outside the standard refugee service box, Refugee Resource, in consultation and with the consent of the Karen refugees themselves, proposed the Karan farm project to the Department of Agriculture. In practical terms, this process paved the way for changes, which is one purpose of HRD, as it opened up new possibilities and realities for refugee services. See table below. Table 1 HRD and Refugee Services Number One Two Three HRD Purpose Performance Learning Change Traditional Refugee Service Mandates Pre-Conceived Employment Services: Entry-Level Factory Work Preconceived Adjustment based on Assimilation None Outside-the-Box Refugee Services Livelihood based on the Skills and Cultural Practices of Refugees, e.g. Farming Integration but Not Assimilation; Recognition of Cultural Pluralism Culturally Appropriate & Human Rights Based Projects Karen Farm Project. With little or no English at all, Karen refugees benefit from projects that address their economic needs that are also culturally uplifting, not demeaning, and are human rights based. One such project is the Karen farm project. The size of the farm is three acres. It is a part of a fifty-acre productive “u-pick farm” owned by the Waterman Farm Market. There are no conditions attached to the use of the land. The Watermans liked the concept and they made three acres available to the Karen. There are ten families involved in the farm. Refugee Resource made it known to the Karen refugee community that there is a threeacre farm available for their use and they chose among themselves who would participate in the project. Together with many women, the leader of the Karen farm is a full-time farmer of the Karen farm, while others have day jobs in factories. The Karen farm does not employ any staff but it is run by Refugee Resource with funding from the USDA. The grant is used to buy farm equipment, seeds and marketing materials. It is also used to pay for an ESL tutor and a marketing coordinator. There are ten families involved in the farm project and it is up to those ten families to share the crops with other families or to sell them. Last summer, some of the produce was sold at the Refugee Farmers Market that Refugee Resource set up in the two apartment complex, where most of the refugees live. Practice Design Addressed Organizational Need and Incorporated Existing Theory and Research on Subject The Karen Farm Project has a two-year grant from the Farmers Market Promotion Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Refugee Resource monitors the project to ensure its sustainability and submits three progress reports required by the grant. The farmers are expected to be able to run the project with minimal assistance on the third year until they can be on their own and have developed a sense of ownership of the project. Families who decide not to participate in the project are expected to recommend other families who are willing and committed to participate. The project was conceptualized in 2006, a year after a huge number of Karen refugees were resettled in Indianapolis. Coming from an agricultural background, the Karen had a hard time getting jobs in a manufacturing environment. Refugee Resource initiated a meeting with their pastor who also serves as the community leader to discuss a farming project. The Karen Farm Project was proposed to the Watermans and was immediately accepted. Starting with ten Karen families and with donated seeds from other local farmers, the project was implemented in 2008. The vegetables that they plant in the farm are mostly vegetables that are familiar to them. With the grant, they are able to order seeds from an seed company in California that carries Asian vegetables such as long beans, roselle, amaranth, bitter melon and some Asian herbs such Thai Basil. While the original plan was to sell the produce in the City Market of Indianapolis where they are given a free booth, the Karen decided to sell to their community. The apartment complex that is home to most of the South East Asian refugees in Indianapolis, has given them permission to set up a refugee farmers market in the complex grounds. Through the leader of the farmers, the Karens said that farming makes them happy and it reminds them of what they used to do in Burma and that they are grateful for the opportunity to be able to farm again. Practice of Culturally Appropriate and Human Rights-Based HRD Approach for Refugee Work How is the farm project a culturally sensitive and human rights-based human resource development approach for refugee work? A practice, namely the Karen Farm Project, allowed for testing of existing research and theory. The Karen Farm Project in Indianapolis, as designed and implemented, fulfills several objectives. First, it provides the Karen community in Indianapolis an agricultural land where they can farm. Their resettlement in the city would be less alienating and less traumatic if they can continue to farm than if they merely do some perfunctory factory work. Second, it allows the Karen to continue to practice their farming tradition while navigating the new systems in a new environment. Third, it provides the Karen an opportunity to market their produce that reflects their history and their culture. Fourth, it provides the Karen an opportunity to market their produce that reflects their history and their culture. Fifth, it contributes to the slow food movement where local consumers would be made aware where their food comes from. This is also an opportunity for local farmers, other food growers and consumers to learn and appreciate other vegetables and other farming methods. Sixth, it assists the Karen in generating income from farming until this project becomes a sustainable source of their livelihood. A local farmer provides a group of Karen refugees in Indianapolis access to a part of their farm where they are allowed to practice their traditional farming methods and grow herbs and vegetables familiar to them. Having been uprooted from an agricultural environment and the trauma of being in refugee camps for a long time, the Karens face many challenges in adjusting to life in the city. Life in the city has been alienating and traumatic at the same time. Accountability Significance of Accountability to the Karen Farm Project in General. During the first phase of the project, the accountability of all those concerned were discussed. All the stakeholders understood that the success of the project depends largely on how each party takes responsibility in maintaining the good will that made this project even possible at all. The participants are grateful that they had a chance to take part in this project where they take charge of the land they till, which is a semblance of what they used to have in Burma before they fled to the refugee camps. Accountability of Individuals, Including the Refugees Themselves. The responsibility of the Karen refugees is to maintain the farm and make sure it doesn't become a liability to the Waterman Farm Market. This means that they make sure that their plants are well taken care of, weed-free and healthy. All the stakeholders agreed that if individual refugee farmers can no longer attend to the farm for some reason or another, they should notify Refugee Resource so replacements who are eager to farm can participate in the farm project. The leader of the Karen refugee farm project and Refugee Resource engage in an ongoing dialogue about every concern, challenge, and need, so that they can be addressed in a timely and culturally sensitive fashion. An example is when some of them insisted on farming during the rain. The farm owners told them that it is too wet to work in the farm. The Karens told farm owners that in Burma, rain is a good thing for the crops they wanted to plant. Hence, cultural differences in farming practices were discussed to the satisfaction of all parties involved. Accountability of the Farm Owner. The owners of the Waterman Farm Market is hosting the Karen Farm Project for free. They make the land the available to the Karen refugee farmers and provide them exposure and training in farm practices in Indiana. Accountability of Organizations That Affect and Are Affected by This Work. Refugee Resource is responsible to three entities in regards to this project: the Karen refugees, the Waterman Farm Market, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. First of all, Refugee Resource found a farm owner to host the Karen farm project and made sure that the Karens and the host farmer maintain a good working relationship so they can work freely in a manner that is beneficial to both groups. Second, Refugee Resource's responsibility to the farm owner is to make sure that the farm project contributes positively to their already well-established farm market business. One way that this is being done is by always giving them the due acknowledgement in all presentations pertaining to the farm project. Third, since the farm receives a Farmers Market Promotion Program Grant from the USDA, Refugee Resource is accountable to the requirements of the grant, such as financial and narrative reports. Every penny in that grant is used towards the project. Description of Practice Outcomes The Karen farm project has three outcomes: (1) therapy, (2) income generation, and (3) integration. Each is discussed below. Enhanced Therapy Outcome. The host farmers share in the belief that the Karen’s resettlement in the city would be less alienating and less traumatic if they can continue to farm, as they were originally farmers in their homeland. Farming reconnects them to what is familiar to lessen the trauma of resettlement. Being connected to the land is a huge part of the Karen’s cultural identity and for them to be able to farm again is tantamount to taking back a part of who they are that was taken away when they were forced to leave their country. Restoring one’s identity back through a practice/tradition (in this case, farming) that is a huge part of their cultural definition is helping them restore their dignity as human beings which is a fundamental human right. Farming including everything that goes with it from tilling the land, planting the first seeds to marketing the produce offers a variety of opportunities for the Karens to gain control over their lives. During the planting season, friends and relatives of the participants helped in the farm. They have verbally expressed their gratitude to Refugee Resource. One female participant actually said: "Thank you, I happy in the farm. It's very like my life in Burma." Increased Income Generation Outcome. Gaining control over one’s life promotes selfemployment and income generation. There is not much room for growth in most of the jobs where refugees are employed. Being used to living in groups, farming for the Karen will be a venue for family involvement. They have mentioned that their children will be helping in the farm which would make work more of a family and community activity. This project also promotes food security and community integration which will allow them more exposure to the English language and other aspects of life in their host country. Being an established farm with an already established and loyal following, the farm owners are also going to train and guide the Karens in the business side of farming. There are over 6,000 Burmese refugees in Indianapolis and they all live in the area where the farm is. The vegetables they plant are sold to this community, other Asian immigrants and the local community. They also sold vegetables to an international supermarket carrying items from different parts of the world. With the money they made from the farm during the last season, they bought a freezer so they can continue selling even during the winter season. They also said that their grocery bills have tremendously gone down because they used some of the vegetables they planted. The farmers themselves expressed their intention to continue to farm until it becomes a main source of income. Improved Integration Outcome. During resettlement, refugees arrive in this country with nothing, except memories and scars of persecution that possibly includes torture, rape, detention and other human rights abuses. Unemployment remains high and additional jobs such as farming do not figure in the employment choices of resettlement agencies. Farming for the Karen is a way to start again in an environment where they will be allowed to take back a part of their cultural identity that was lost. Hence, they do not assimilate (as in the melting pot metaphor) but integrate to society, based on the principle of unity in diversity (as in the salad bowl metaphor). The Karen farm, being a part of a bigger farm, allows them to the chance to have contact with the local community. They are able to foster some good working relationship with the members of the host community and get used to the sound of the English language, as spoken by the locals, since they are also given a place in the farm where they can sell their produce. Waterman Farm Market is a landmark in Indianapolis and it is a destination especially during the summer and fall. Guided tours are given to students and groups. With the permission of the participants, the Karen Farm Project has been included in the tour and the Karens have become active participants in the question and answer (Q & A) portion of the tour. They have been invited to discussion groups, conferences, food festivals, art festivals and other activities in the city not only to present the farm project but to tell their stories. The other expectation is that after two years, the Karen will be handling most of the running of the farm. They will start creating and penetrating other markets. Hosted by the Waterman Farm Market, this project is for the Karen refugees of Burma to be able to reconnect to their past, their culture and their identity as a people and the same time a way to help heal the trauma brought by human rights violations they have endured during their persecution by their own government. It is one fundamental way to continue their livelihood with which they are familiar. In summary, HRD has three purposes. When HRD focuses primarily on the performance objective, it is conservative, as the refugees assimilate to the mainstream society, hook, line, and sinker, stressing the bottom line. Some training programs often “reproduce or even worsen inequalities” that exist in the larger U.S. society (Apple, 2008, p. 243). Refugees assimilate to become an integral part of the melting post. They lose their culture, identity, dignity, and their past: they instantly belong to the working class engaged in menial labor and toiling drudgingly in factories. When HRD focuses on the learning objective, it is liberal, as individuals are treated as capable of learning to integrate into the mainstream and at the same time to keep, share, and be proud of their identities and cultures. When HRD focuses on the change objective, it is critical, as the focus is not the service providing organizations but the refugees themselves. Dialogically, refugees share their wants, needs, and frustrations with critically-minded service providers who then act as a catalyst for change in refugee resettlement work, proposing work as refugees envision work to be. Critical HRD practitioners collaborate with refugees, question existing practices, and go outside the box in planning for and implementing services. Below is a summary, in the form of a chart, of the ways in the different purposes of HRD are fulfilled in refugee resettlement services. Table 2 Refugee Service Practices in Relation to HRD Purposes Ideology Critical HRD Elements Purposes Change Social Transform structures Refugees As subjects with human dignity endowed with prior knowledge, skills and values and agency to accept and resist Integration as Refugee empowerment & function of service provider refugee services accountability Knowledge Skills Values Practice Outcomes Be proud of and use prior knowledge Do what they do best for self-fulfillment Human rights that take into account gender, ethnicity, class and other differences Refugee services which are culturally appropriate & ensures human-rights based empowerment of refugees Liberal HRD Learning Reform As individuals with distinct identities capable of learning Learning about U.S. society, economy, and culture; salad bowl metaphor Learn new skills needed for work Fill Labor Needs of the Economy Tolerance & mutual respect Refugee services that provide refugees with improved learning to integrate into the mainstream Conservative HRD Performance Status Quo People as vulnerable objects needing help Assimilation; melting pot metaphor Knowledge for assimilation to society A good worker Adapt to the dominant culture, values and language Refugee services provide increased job opportunities Conclusion Summary Documenting their HRD practice, HRD scholar-practitioners focus their work on performance, learning, and change. Change includes adding social responsibility, social justice, diversity, or inclusiveness. This article chronicles a case study of a farm project that benefits refugees in Indiana. Dialectically linking theory with practice, it enters into the conversation about change as a purpose of HRD. Specifically, this study finds performance and learning as HRD purposes as wanting and therefore problematizes and analyzes human resource development critically from a culturally sensitive and human rights-based approach through an analysis of a case study involving the Karen Farm Project. Based on the co-authors’ exposure to and experiences with refugee services in Indiana and Illinois, there are lessons learned in the Karen farm project which provide fodder for future action. Traditionally, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has the primary responsibility for dealing with refugees. With grants from the Office of Resettlement, civil society organizations directly provide refugee with resettlement services. Practical obstacles relate to the mandate under which refugee resettlement provders operate. Refugee Resource surmounted these obstacles in practical ways by thinking outside the box and entering into a dialogue with Karen refugees who were farmers in their homeland in Burma and developed a farm project that received assistance from the Department of Agriculture. Based on the co-authors’ exposure to and experiences with refugee services in Indiana and Illinois, there are lessons learned in the Karen farm project which provide fodder for next steps or future action. Lessons Learned and Next Steps for Practice There are many lessons learned prior to, during, and after the Karen farm project was put in place. First of all, staff members and volunteers of refugee service organizations are dedicated and well-intentioned personnel who work under constraints for the betterment of refugees. However, they are limited by their mandate, which is to job placement, refugee performance as workers, and refugee learning about integration into the mainstream society. Performance and learning alone while necessary are not sufficient. Refugee Resource embarked on change, which the third purpose of HRD, in this case, changing the practice of refugee services. Refugees’ cultures must be respected, including their practices prior to resettlement in the host country. Karen farmers rediscover their identity when involved in the farm project. In the farm project, their human rights are respected. They are empowered to determine for themselves what they want to do, namely engage in collective farming, selecting the crops they want to plant, and decide for themselves how to distribute or sell the produce. Implications for HRD Theory and Practice Implications for HRD Theory. Performance, learning, and change in general are important purposes of HRD. This article specifically establishes the importance of two important theoretical frameworks. They include (1) culturally appropriate model and (2) human rightsbased approach as frameworks to guide HRD work, in this case, specifically in reference to refugee-related work. This assertion is based on the success of the Karen Farm Project in Indiana. Practitioners have much to offer to the academia, such as the culturally appropriate and human rights based approach to HRD, in the same way that the academics have must to offer to practitioners, such as the conduct of positivist, interpretive, and critical research. Neither practitioners nor people in the academia have a monopoly of knowledge: cross pollination between the two is healthy and productive for the production of new knowledge and practice. In this case study, real-world practice-based frameworks, such as the culturally appropriate and human rights based approaches, can inform the academia in general and research in particular. People working in international, governmental, non-governmental, and local organizations widely use these frameworks in different continents. It is about time that academics in the field of HRD seriously consider the real-world human rights-based approaches as legitimate frameworks for theoretical and practical work. Implications for HRD Practice. The Karen farmers and their families are also being given access to the other facilities of the Farm Market, such as picnic tables, rest rooms, and also farm machineries, if they wish to learn how to operate them. As part of the next steps, the host farmers are converting one of the buildings in the farm for English Language Learning (ELL) tutorials, Arts and Crafts Classes for Children, and Weaving for Women using their traditional designs and fabric. Utility for HRD Practice. Following the success of this project, as part of its next steps, Waterman Farm Market is considering expansion to include other refugee groups, including the Meskhetian Turks, Somalis, Eritreans, Chins and Iraqis in the program, if they so desire. Showcasing different farming methods and varied crops of the different refugee groups is beneficial for the community as a whole. HRD practitioners can learn lessons from this case study involving a farm project, noting that refugee services need not be limited to traditionally recognized roles of (1) employment referrals (performance) and adjustment to the host country (learning) only. To improve services, organizational actors need to think outside the box and change practices which are necessary but not sufficient. Recommendations Three sets of recommendations are provided here. The first set of recommendations is related to the traditional service of job placement. One instead of simply offering all refugees jobs in a factory just because there are many openings there, resettlement agencies must offer job placements that match or meet the diverse needs of refugees, such as recertification and jobspecific sourcing. Whatever their previous jobs or careers were, refugees can perform what they perform best in the host country as well. They must not only be expected to perform well as factory workers, especially if they had different professions in their countries of origin. The second set of recommendations is related to the challenges with which the farm project is confronted, namely the farm size, management, marketing, transportation and language barrier. The farm project can be expanded so that more Karen farmers can participate. More Karens need to be involved and emerge as leaders in managing the project so that with their help the farm project can be replicated in other areas and with other groups as well. The Karen farmers need more marketing exposure and training so that they can sell their farm produce beyond their own communities. In face, there are distributors who commit to buy produce from the Karen farm project. As most of the Karen refugees neither drive nor have means of transportation and as the farm project is not in the route of the public transportation system, the community members organized to solve the problem. Currently, they contracted car owners from the community to provide transportation to and from the farm. However, service providers can solicit donation of a vehicle that the Karen farmers can use to minimize their transportation problem. Two, the other challenge is language. There is not one participant who speaks English. Refugee Resource established an agreement with three members of the community who can be called to help with translation. Meetings and consultations with the participants were conducted with the help of interpreters. In order to surmount the language barrier, we recommend that future farm project grant proposals must have budgetary allocations for interpreting and learning, both English-Karen and Karen-English, for English and Karen speakers. The third set of recommendations is related to matters not discussed in this article. The Karen farm project is an important social experiment with potentially significant implications. There are refugees other than Karens, such as Eritreans, Iraqis, and Somalians, some of whom were originally villagers, while others urbanites, and therefore have very different historical and social contexts in their home countries. We recommend that research be undertaken to find out their situation, problems, needs, and wants so that refugee service providers will be able to respond to the actual needs of refugees, and not simply impose their ready-made responses on the refugees. See table below. Table 3 Government, Service Providers, and Refugees in Relation to HRD Purposes Government Agency Civil Society Service Provider Catholic Charities of Rockford, Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights, Rock Valley College Refugee and Immigrant Services, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), and World Relief. Refugees Served Approaches HRD Purposes & Services Provided 1 Office of Refugee Resettlement All refugees in their Traditional communities Resettlement adjustment and assimilation (learning) and employment (performance) 2 Department of Agriculture Refugee Resource 3. Next steps: Other government agencies? All refugees in the community NonTraditional Eritreans, Iraqis, Somalians & other refugees? NonTraditional Culturally appropriate resettlement adjustment based on human rights approach, specifically a farm project for Karen refugees (change) Culturally appropriate resettlement adjustment based on human rights approach. Specifically…? References Alfred, M. V. & Chlup, D. T. (2010). Making the invisible, visible: Race matters in human resource development. In Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 332-351. Apple, M. (2008). Can schooling contribute to a more just society? In Education, citizenship and social justice, 3(3), 239-261. Becker, W. S., Carbo II, J. A., & Langella, I. M. (2010). Beyond self-interest: Integrating school responsibility and supply chain management with human resource development. In Human Resource Development Review, 9(2), 144-168. BetterAid. (2010). Development effectiveness in development cooperation: perspective. Brussels: BetterAid. Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage. Boesen, JK & Martin, T. (2007). Applying a rights-based approach: An inspirational guide for civil society. Copenhagen: The Danish Institute for Human Rights. Callahan, J. L. (2007). Gazing into the crystal ball: Critical HRD as a future of research in the field. In Human Resource Development International, 10(1), 77-82. Cortes, K. (2004). Are refugees different from economic immigrants? Some empirical evidence on the heterogeneity of immigrant groups in the United States. In The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(2), 465-480. Cunningham, P. (1998). The adult educator and social responsibility. In R. G. Brockett (Ed.), Ethical Issues in Adult Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Cunningham, P. (2004). Critical pedagogy and implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(2), 226-240. Dooley, L. M. (2002). Case study research and theory building. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 335-354. A rights-based Durkheim, E. (1961). Moral education: A study in the theory and application of the sociology of education. E. K. Wilson & H. Schnurer (Trans.), E. K. Wilson (Ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. Ellenger, A. Watkins, K. E. & Marsick. V. J. (2005). Case study research methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton III, (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 327-350). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Fenwick, T. (2004). Toward a critical HRD in theory and practice. In Adult Education Quarterly, 54(3), 193-209. Fenwick, T. (2005). Conceptions of Critical HRD: Dilemmas for theory and practice. In Human Resource Development International, 8(2), 225-228. Ferraro, G. (2006). Cultural anthropology: An applied perspective. (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. Finnell, S. S. (2009 November 17). Sharing the bounty. In Indiana Women Magazine, pp. 65-67. Fournier, V. & Grey, C. (2000). At the critical moment Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. In Human Relations, 53(1), 7-32. Frankovits, A. (2006). The human rights based approach and the United Nations system, UNESCO, Paris. Githens, R. P. (2007). Critical action research in human resource development. In Proceedings of the International Research Conference in the Americas of the Academy of Human Resource Development. Indianapolis: AHRD. Giroux, J. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257-293. Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights. (2010). Mission and history. Retrieved November 16, 2010 from http://www.heartlandalliance.org/whoweare/history/. Jacobsen, K. L. (2010). Making design safe for citizens: A hidden history of humanitarian experimentation. In Citizenship Studies, 14(1), 89-103. Jensen, L. (2005). Human rights-based programming: What it is. New York: United Nations Population Fund. Kormanik, M. B. & Rajan, H. C. (2010). Implications for diversity in the HRD curriculum drawn from current organizational practices on addressing workforce diversity in management training. In Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 367-384. McDonald, K. S. & Hite, L. M. (2010). Diversity in HRD curriculum: Thoughts and next steps. In Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 385-391. Moeller, M., Harvey, M., & Williams, W. (2010). Socialization of inpatriate managers to the headquarters of global organizations: A social learning perspective. In Human Resource Development Review, 9(2), 169-193. Obaid, T. (2010). Culturally sensitive approaches: Tips for development practitioners. United Nations Population Fund. Retrieved August 23, 2010 from http://www.unfpa.org/culture/tips.htm. Oh, S. A., & Stouwe, M. van der. (2008 November). Education, diversity, and inclusion in Burmese refugee camps in Thailand. Comparative Education Review, 52(4), Education in Conflict and Postconflict Societies, 589-617. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2006). Frequently asked questions on a human rights-based approach to development cooperation, United Nations, New York & Geneva. Parsons, T. (1959). The school class as a social system: Some of its functions in American society. Harvard Educational Review, 29, 297-329. Ranard, D. A. & Barron, S. (2007). Refugees from Burma: Their backgrounds and refugee experiences. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (2nd ed.) (pp. 435-454). Thousan Oaks, CA: Sage. Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. III. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Thomas, K. M., & Tran, N. M., & Dawson, B. L. (2010). An inclusive strategy of teaching diversity. In Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(3), 295-311. Ty, R. (Ed.). (2010). Philippine youth leadership program: Building a new generation of citizens as catalysts for social change—Training manual. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University International Training Office. United Nations. (2002). Human rights: A compilation of international instruments: Universal instruments. Volume 1 (First part) Universal instruments. New York and Geneva: United Nations. United Nations Development Programme. (2006). Indicators for human rights based approaches to development in UNDP programming: A users’ guide. New York: United Nations Development Programme. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). (2010). Guide to working from within: 24 tips for culturally sensitive programming. New York: United Nations Population Fund. U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Mission. Retrieved November 16, 2010 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/about/mission.htm. Wood, E. D. & El Mansour, B. (2010). Performance interventions that assist Chinese Expatriates’ adjustment and performance: Toward a conceptual approach. In Human Resource Development Review, 9(2), 194-218. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods—applied social methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zhang, J. & Zheng, W. (2009). How does satisfaction translate into performance? An examination of commitment and cultural values. In Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(3), 331-351.