Continuing professional development

Collin, K.; Heijden, B.I.J.M. van der; Lewis, P.

2012, Article / Letter to editor (International Journal of Training and Development, 16, 3, (2012), pp.
155-163)
Doi link to publisher: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2012.00410.x

Version of the following full text: Publisher’s version

Published under the terms of article 25fa of the Dutch copyright act. Please follow this link for the
Terms of Use: https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/page/termsofuse
Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/2066/112132
Download date: 2025-04-19

Note:
To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable).
bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Training and Development 16:3

ISSN 1360-3736
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2012.00410.x

Continuing professional development

Kaija Collin, Beatrice Van der Heijden and

Paul Lewis
Continuing professional development (CPD), when provided formally, is something
that is easy to recognize but perhaps rather more difficult to define. Theoretical and
empirical controversy surrounds the scope and understanding of the concept. Defini-
tion is made more elusive by the different conceptualizations in use but the common
denominator is that CPD concerns practices aimed at employees’ development beyond
that derived from their initial training. Moreover, there can be informal as well as
formal practices intended to develop professional expertise as well as professional
experience which generates learning without learning being an express objective. This
variety of forms makes conceptualization of CPD even more difficult, as it does the
conceptualization of training and development more generally. In addition, current
policies and practices in CPD are frequently based on assumptions about learning and
practice that are in urgent need of more empirical research (see Kilminster et al., 2012).
The starting point for this editorial, therefore, is the meaning and importance of CPD.
First, we enter into a conceptualization of CPD and discuss its importance in current
working life. Next, we consider the current practice of CPD. Subsequently, the papers
that form part of this special issue are summarized and reflected upon. We end with
some ideas for future research into CPD, briefly touching on the notion of CPD as an
academic subject.

The meaning and importance of CPD

Effective participation in contemporary, technology-based, knowledge society implies
an increasing importance for voluntary learning and development by employees
(Evers et al., 2011a; Maurer, 2002). This has been recognized by, for instance, the Euro-
pean Union which has promoted life-long learning and the necessity of continuing
development of knowledge and skills of workers since the acceptance of the Lisbon
Agreement (Council, 2000). Life-long learning has been defined by the OECD (2000,
p. 403) as: ‘All organised systematic education and training activities in which people
take part in order to obtain knowledge and/or learn new skills for a current or a future
job, to increase earning and to improve job and/or career opportunities in current or
other fields.’

❒ Kaija Collin, University Researcher, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, 40014 University of
Jyväskylä. Email: [email protected]. Beatrice Van der Heijden, Head of Department Strategic HRM
and Director of Responsible Organization Research Programme, Radboud University Nijmegen, Insti-
tute for Management Research, P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, the Netherlands; also affiliated with
the Open Universiteit in the Netherlands and the University of Twente, the Netherlands. Email:
[email protected]. Paul Lewis, Editor in chief, IJTD. Email: [email protected]

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Continuing professional development 155

ijtd_410 155..163
 Life-long learning or CPD is the means by which people maintain the knowledge
and skills related to their professional lives. CPD can manifest itself in various forms
from formal educational courses to learning through everyday work practices. In its
most easily recognized form CPD is perhaps the updating of professional knowledge
by means of formal, short courses by occupational groups such as, for instance, doctors,
lawyers and teachers. Usually these groups have their own professional body or insti-
tute and it may be that membership and a practising certificate issued by this body is
a prerequisite for practising the profession. There may be national or even international
law regulating the practice, but control may, in effect, be delegated to the professional
body, a system that has become known as self-regulation. In these sorts of contexts,
CPD is often compulsory and monitored by the professional body. CPD may even be
quantified, as in the legal profession in England.
On the other hand, many professionals belong to professional institutes where mem-
bership is not a condition for practising the profession. CPD may still be compulsory
for members, however, and may be monitored. These professional areas may include
some occupational groups that are more diverse and less well-defined, for example,
managers. An important conceptual issue is where to draw the boundary as to what is
meant by professional. At its most liberal, professional could mean anyone paid to do
a job, in which case CPD is concerned with the ongoing learning of all paid workers.
Indeed, it could even encompass the unpaid worker, for example, a retired qualified
professional working voluntarily for a charity. The narrow definition would restrict
professional, and thus CPD, to what we regard as ‘the professions’, that is, relatively
well-defined occupational groups sharing certain characteristics, for example, a body of
accepted practice and self-regulation by a professional institute. It might be argued that
the training and development context implied by this narrow view of profession is
very different from that implied by the more liberal model, particularly where the
narrow view assumes that the worker needs to have a licence to practice.
In terms of importance, it may be said that the professions, using the narrow con-
ceptualization, tend to deliver services rather than supply products, and the quality of
service is heavily dependent upon the professional possessing and properly using
high-level skills. Moreover, the potential impact of an inadequate service may have
serious consequences for the service user. This is obviously true for health services and
education but may also be true for other groups, for example, engineers, since the
quality of the service they provide is important for public safety.
Traditionally, further professional development was focused on education and train-
ing, in more or less formal classroom-based settings. Although problems regarding the
transfer to the workplace of skills learned during training have been recognized
(Baldwin & Ford, 1988), training is still assumed to be highly important for organiza-
tions (Smith et al., 2006).
Partly in reaction to the problem of transfer, the range of possible learning activities
has been broadened over time and currently includes informal learning activities in the
workplace as well as formal ones (Cheetham & Chivers, 2001; Eraut, 2004; Marsick &
Watkins, 2001). Marsick and Watkins (2001) defined informal learning as: ‘[ . . . ] not
typically classroom-based or highly structured, and control of learning rests primarily
in the hands of the learner’. The workplace is a typical place where informal learning
can occur, as the workplace context entails a wide range of more or less structured
environments, which are only rarely organized with learning in mind (Evers et al.,
2011b). The existence of informal learning opens up new avenues in research into
learning (Eraut, 2004).
Cheetham and Chivers (2001) emphasized the key contribution of informal learn-
ing to the acquisition of full professional competence. They saw CPD as a complex
process and thought that, often, employees are not aware of how and what they have
learned. A number of learning theories guide our understanding of informal profes-
sional learning, including behaviourism, cognitive approaches, mixed approaches (a
combination of behaviourist and cognitive principles), constructivism, discovery
learning and theories of adult development (see Cheetham & Chivers, 2001, for
elaboration).

156 International Journal of Training and Development

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 Moreover, life-long learning or CPD is only possible where employees have system-
atic and valid information about their capabilities, that is to say, if they are able to form
accurate self-perceptions, to carefully identify the qualities they need for future career
success, and if they are able to adapt their behaviour accordingly (Van der Heijde & Van
der Heijden, 2006; Van der Heijden et al., 2009a). For this to happen, more empirical
research using reliable and valid measures of CPD is of vital importance. Therefore, in
editing this special issue, we seek to disseminate knowledge stemming from academic
practices in the field of CPD, using sound empirical work in combination with knowl-
edge emanating from innovative practice. We see critical reflection upon the practices
employed as important in increasing our knowledge base and further illuminating
promising approaches to supporting employees’ CPD (see Appleby & Hillier, 2012, for
an exemplary outline of the benefits of ‘practice-research networks’).

CPD in practice
The subject of CPD is mixed and multifaceted. Almost everything which is going on in
terms of learning at the workplace can be CPD. However, it depends on the specific
profession what kinds of CPD options are available and how they are utilized in
different workplaces, as we will see in the contributions that follow. For some profes-
sions, continuing education and training are likely to be based on law and official
instructions (e.g. nursing and teaching). However, for most vocations in the labour
market CPD practices can have various forms depending on the current needs of
individual employees and employers.
There are a variety of CPD practices and tools including formal training courses and
coaching and mentoring. These are usually linked with human resource development
(HRD) practices, but some of them may also be conducted based on external funding.
An example of a successful mentoring program for the teaching profession is Osaava
Verme in Finland (http://ktl.jyu.fi/ktl/osaavaverme/mainenglish). It comprises a
collaborative network consisting of the Finnish teacher education institutions, the
vocational teacher education institutions and the teacher education departments of
universities. The main aim of this network is to promote a life-long continuum of
teachers’ professional development by building bridges between pre-service and
in-service teacher education (Heikkinen et al., 2012).
CPD practices may be directed, for example, by an employer or a professional body,
or be self-directed. Examples of the latter might be the reading of professional journals
in order to keep up to date with technical developments and the selection of and
attendance at short courses which meet the training needs that the professional himself
or herself has identified. Increasingly, it is expected that professionals will reflect on
their own practice and try to achieve continuous improvement. In some situations,
there may be human resource management policies in place which encourage CPD, for
example, peer observation of practice and developmental appraisal schemes. Feedback
from customers, clients, patients or students may also inform professional practice
and CPD.
Recent literature on workplace learning emphasizes that both individual learning
needs and collective prerequisites for learning should be taken into account simulta-
neously if the learning is to be successful (Collin, 2006; Fuller & Unwin, 2004; Hodkin-
son et al., 2008). Consequently, individual motivation and the will to learn or develop
oneself alone do not guarantee CPD. Or the other way around, opportunities for
development offered by the employer and one’s working organization do not neces-
sarily lead to sought outcomes (Collin, 2009). This is also shown in the contribution
below by Lambert, Vero and Zimmerman. The most recent developments in the area
also address the importance of balancing one’s working life and other spheres of life in
order to enable employees to construct professional identity (see Billett et al., 2008;
Paloniemi & Collin, 2010).
In addition to formal training activities, work organizations can facilitate employees’
CPD by providing a climate that encourages individual development and change
and by providing ample opportunities for informal learning (Bartram et al., 1993;

Continuing professional development 157

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Malcolm et al., 2003; Marsick & Watkins, 1990; Rowold & Kauffeld, 2009; Tannenbaum
et al., 2009; Watkins & Marsick, 1996). In a similar vein, Wexlberger (1993) proposed an
organizational structure which allows experience-based learning at work.
Previous research has shown that both types of learning – formal and informal –
reinforce each other, underlining the importance of including different forms of learn-
ing activities when aiming for CPD (see also Van der Heijden et al., 2009b). Nauta et al.
(2009) found that an organizational culture that strongly supports workers’ further
development is positively associated with employability (career potential), orientation
(operationalized as the workers’ receptivity towards employability within their current
organization) and, subsequently, with the employees’ future career success (Van der
Heijden et al., 2009a).
Professional learning and further development of competencies is inevitably an
individual process (Baitsch, 1998). However, individual development of competencies
is also linked to an organizational background and to social learning processes (Olbert-
Bock, 2002; Weiß, 1999), which suggest management in work organizations should pay
attention to promoting a sound and active learning climate (see also Bartram et al.,
1993). An active learning climate may be defined as a climate that stimulates employees
to ask questions, seek feedback, reflect on potential results, explore and experiment
(Garvin et al., 2008; Sessa & London, 2006), with the aim of increasing their learning or
making use of what is learned on the job (Noe et al., 2010). Spieß et al. (2002), in their
longitudinal study, found that in cases where organizational culture allows employees
to make errors and learn from them, effective employee development is more likely to
be possible.
Moreover, at a managerial level, leaders have to create a climate in which employees
are allocated time, support each other in all kinds of daily tasks and are provided with
ample opportunities for learning. Such climates generate situations that encourage
employees to continuously renew and/or update their existing knowledge and skills
and consequently contribute positively to their own employability (Ouweneel et al.,
2009; Taris & Kompier, 2005; Taris et al., 2003). Previous empirical research has shown
that, in the short term, learning climate contributes to the development of competencies
of individuals, and consequently their employability, as indicated by career success
(Nabi, 2001; Ng et al., 2005; Parker et al., 2004). An organizational climate that promotes
active learning is important in the light of employees’ requirements for CPD.

The papers making up this special issue of the IJTD

Following the need for both theoretically strong foundations and methodologically
sound data, one of the aims of this special issue is to report empirically founded CPD
research as well as insights flowing from innovative practice in the field. The editors
have selected seven pieces of work for inclusion here. Three of them report original
empirical research and the others report innovative practice. The latter are not put
forward or being judged as research. Rather, they are included because they make a
contribution by signalling good practice or some innovative development in practice.
The occupational groups covered by the research and practice reported here include
teachers (of various types), health workers, engineers and entrepreneurs. The countries
from which the papers are drawn are Canada, France, Thailand, UK (2) and the United
States (2).

Research articles
In reporting the three research papers, we start with a study by Lambert, Vero and
Zimmermann who made use of major national qualitative and quantitative survey
material in France and developed a capability-based conceptualization of CPD. In their
view, the responsibility for CPD should be shared among employees, employers and
public institutions, being important stakeholders. The outcomes of their empirical
work showed that the employee’s company environment is more decisive in determin-
ing the employee’s CPD than the employee’s previous training and career paths.

158 International Journal of Training and Development

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 Shanks, Robson and Gray, using a sequential mixed methods approach carried out in
the UK, explored the importance of the teacher’s individual learning dispositions and
argue for their inclusion in the design of induction training for new teachers. The
outcomes of their work suggest that a policy-driven formal programme of induction
for new teachers should be combined with an expansive learning environment with
supportive colleagues, herewith acknowledging the new teachers’ individual learning
dispositions (their learning biography, attitude towards learning opportunities and
engagement with learning opportunities).
St-Jean’s Canadian study focuses upon 360 entrepreneurs who took part in mentoring
arrangements. The aim of the study was to determine factors associated with the
effectiveness of mentoring of entrepreneurs. The mentor’s role relating to career
enhancement emerged as a major factor predicting employee learning, followed by
psychological functions and the function the mentor had as role model. Moreover, the
author reported the importance of trust and perceived similarity being important
mediators.
Reports of innovative practice
The four reports of innovative practice start with Helyer and Lee’s paper on the
mentoring of university teachers in the UK in order to improve their ability to engage
with business. The context is criticism of the extent to which UK universities engage
with business. Much CPD in universities is related to three core functions: teaching,
research and administration. In the light of the increasing need for collaboration
between universities and business, the authors advocate the continuing development
of business skills, and suggest a promising mentoring model.
Chio’s study of how to train health services leaders in countries with limited
resources, and particularly the absence of broadband, continues the sharing of knowl-
edge on innovative practice in CPD. The focus is upon effective practices in providing
online, in-service training. Moreover, Chio reminds us that CPD is responsible for the
delivery of management and leadership skills, over and above the professional exper-
tise that is needed for clinical work. These are not usually taught in the initial training
of professionals.
Sooraksa attempts to link training and development expertise among professionals
involved in developing online courses to the alleviation of poverty in the North of
Thailand. The policy aim is to develop e-learning among those involved in small and
medium-sized businesses (SMEs), and the author reports how information and com-
munication technology, in particular Moodle software, was used to train the people
involved in training those in the SMEs.
Finally, Baukal reports from the United States on good practice in determining
appropriate sourcing of CPD for engineering professionals. In particular, he distin-
guishes internal (the organization itself), external (university, professional/trade orga-
nizations, commercial education providers, government, equipment manufacturers
and engineers’ clients) and hybrid suppliers (a combination of internal and external).
The aim of his contribution is to consider the relative merits and demerits of each and
to arrive at framework within which organizations can develop their continuous engi-
neering education programs.*
* Note: the paper by Baukal, which was mentioned in the Editorial of IJTD 16:3, will be published in
IJTD 16:4. We apologise for any confusion caused by inclusion of the paper in this editorial.
Issues arising from the papers
The contributions that have been reported in this special issue lead to some important
insights. First, the empirical work by St-Jean and the report on innovative practice by
Helyer and Lee might be seen as confirming the importance of mentoring in occupa-
tions with high-level skills, and St-Jean reminds us that mentoring, like other forms of
training and development, requires evaluation and can be made more effective if
‘success’ factors can be identified. Second, Shanks et al. highlight the problem of rec-
onciling the development needs of the professional with the learning needs as defined
by others, particularly employers, who in any case may be operating within a frame-

Continuing professional development 159

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
work laid down by government. This is a potentially universal problem which may be
growing as governments lay down what they require from, in particular, health and
education suppliers and their staff.
Third, the issue of shared responsibility for CPD is also stressed by Baukal, and by
Lambert and colleagues who reported that the employee’s work environment (the role
of the company) is a stronger predictor of future learning and growth than the
employee’s learning and career background. Fourth, the papers by Sooraksa and Chio
emphasize the importance of e-learning in permitting access to training in poorly
resourced situations, herewith opening and further shaping the avenue for CPD, for
example, in remote areas.
Fifth, St-Jean’s focus on mentoring novice entrepreneurs, Helyer and Lee’s concern
with making academics more ‘business-facing’ and Sooraksa’s training aimed at devel-
oping SMEs and reducing poverty remind us that CPD is not solely about improving
the quality of professional services: it also has a role to play in economic development.
A corollary of this is that where CPD objectives go beyond the profession itself the
evaluation process may have to be wider, perhaps becoming more like academic
research than an organizational training evaluation.
Last but not least, the contribution by Chio alerts us to the increasing need in many
professions to develop management and leadership skills alongside expertise that
is inherent to the specific occupational field. Employability and career potential of
workers may be further enhanced by more generic knowledge and skills, such as
managerial and leadership expertise, herewith opening up the possibility of job change
in case of need. Given the fact that job qualifications are continuously changing at
an ever-increasing rate, employees who have the capability to develop, cultivate and
maintain fundamental qualifications are the ones that are able to perform optimally in
today’s labour market. CPD is the key to staying in the race as the qualifications that are
required for a job are becoming increasingly complex while, simultaneously, the ‘shelf
life’ of these qualifications is becoming increasingly shorter.

Future research in CPD

A normal starting point for any discussion of future research needs is the state of the
existing literature. Here we can comment on this only in a broad-brush sort of way,
recognizing that we are raising the question of the nature of CPD as an academic
subject. What we observe is a body of empirical research which is heavily structured by
profession and by country. The research seems to deal mostly with the practice of CPD
in a specific profession in a particular country. There does not appear to be much work
comparing a particular profession between countries or comparing different profes-
sions within a country. Clearly different contexts will need to be taken into account
when making comparisons but it does seem that this kind of research could generate
useful benchmarking and other results. Moreover, the current literature is dominated
by health services and teaching, yet we know that there is a massive amount of CPD
going on in other professions, seemingly without being underpinned by empirical
research.
In most papers that are reported in this special issue, CPD involves formal training
and education taking place at work and located in promotion of professional expertise.
CPD is thus largely understood ‘traditionally’ focusing on different kinds of educa-
tional and training efforts. However, simultaneously, many papers elsewhere suggest
that more studies are needed in order to determine and understand the multifaceted
nature of CPD. Qualitative methodology, especially, is called for in order to generate
in-depth conceptualizations and a better understanding of current forms of CPD.
Consequently, there seems to be an implicit need for approaching CPD more infor-
mally, incorporating the full range of practices that are used in order to operationalize
CPD.
Defining CPD broadly is not only a question of how to organize training and edu-
cation for professionals to develop their professional skills and competencies, but also
how to identify competent and skilled professionals as part of their working commu-

160 International Journal of Training and Development

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
nity (Billett et al., 2008). Once we have a better understanding of CPD, quantitative
approaches using psychometrically sound (reliable and valid) measures can be used to
determine CPD practices, determinants and outcomes, in terms of both individual
career success and organizational performance.
CPD could be defined as learning which takes place in workplaces and organizations
but we enter a caveat here because so much of the research appears to be in the health
services and teaching and these professions may not necessarily be an accurate para-
digm for professional work more generally. They are often characterized by large,
hierarchical organizations in the public sector operating within quite detailed govern-
ment policy guidelines. Moreover, the professionals are mostly, although not univer-
sally, employees. The scenario found in, for example, law and accountancy, is quite
different. There are, increasingly, large organizations, mostly in the private sector,
but in addition there is a preponderance of small firms, and many professionals are
self-employed or partners. The role of externally supplied CPD, which may also be
delivered outside the workplace, may be stronger in these professions. As Baukal
shows in his paper on CPD in engineering, CPD occurs in widely differing contexts: the
definition needs to be broad enough to allow for this.
CPD aims to increase professional expertise, professional competence and individual
well-being as well as to increase the competitiveness and effectiveness of organizations
and professions. It should take place continuously regardless of the given occupation or
profession, thus being a process as well as an outcome. Therefore, CPD needs to be
more strongly linked with organizational HRD practices and organizational learning as
a whole as well as with developments at the level of the profession. Thus, more studies
and practical innovations are needed to build on workplace learning pedagogies or
even a workplace curriculum (Billett, 2001) as part of organizations’ HRD practices and
to examine how these relate to developments at the level of the profession. It is a huge
contextual and methodological challenge for CPD to take the individual worker’s
learning and agency and the needs of the organization and the profession into account
at the same time, and to promote learning and development that benefits all parties.

References
Appleby, Y. and Hillier, Y. (2012), ‘Exploring practice – research networks for critical professional
learning’, Studies in Continuing Education, 34, 1, 31–43.
Baitsch, C. (1998), Viele tun’s und keiner merkts’s. Vom privaten Lernen für die Arbeitswelt. [Many do
and nobody notices. From private learning for the business world]. QUEM-report, 52, 13–20.
Baldwin, T. T. and Ford, J. K. (1988), ‘Transfer of training: a review and directions for future
research’, Personnel Psychology, 41, 1, 63–105.
Bartram, D., Foster, J., Lindley, P. A., Brown, A. J. and Nixon, S. (1993), Learning Climate Ques-
tionnaire (LCQ): Background and Technical Information (Oxford: Employment Service and
Newland Park).
Billett, S. (2001), Learning in the Workplace. Strategies for Effective Practice (Crows Nest: Allen &
Unwin).
Billett, S., Harteis, C. and Eteläpelto, A. (eds) (2008), Emerging Perspectives of Workplace Learning
(Rotterdam: Sense Publishers).
Cheetham, G. and Chivers, G. (2001), ‘How professionals learn in practice: an investigation of
informal learning amongst people working in professions’, Journal of European Industrial Train-
ing, 25, 5, 248–92.
Collin, K. (2006), ‘Connecting work and learning – design engineers’ learning at work’, Journal of
Workplace Learning, 18, 7/8, 403–13.
Collin, K. (2009), ‘Work-related identity in individual and social learning at work’, Journal of
Workplace Learning, 21, 1, 23–35.
Council (2000), ‘Presidency conclusions’, Lisbon European Council (23 and 24 March 2000).
Available at http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htm
(accessed January 2012).
Eraut, M. (2004), ‘Informal learning in the workplace’, Studies in Continuing Education, 26, 2,
247–73.
Evers, A. T., Kreijns, K., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. and Gerrichhauzen, J. T. G. (2011a), ‘An
organizational and task perspective model aimed at enhancing Teachers’ Professional Devel-
opment and occupational expertise’, Human Resource Development Review, 10, 2, 151–79.

Continuing professional development 161

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Evers, A. T., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Kreijns, K. and Gerrichhauzen, J. T. G. (2011b), ‘Organi-
sational factors and Teachers’ Professional Development in Dutch secondary Schools’, Journal
of European Industrial Training, 35, 1, 24–44.
Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2004), ‘Expansive Learning Environments: Integrating Organizational
and Personal Development’, in H. Rainbird, A. Fuller and A. Munro (eds), Workplace Learning
in Context (London: Routledge), pp. 126–44.
Garvin, D., Edmondson, A. and Gino, F. (2008), ‘Is yours a learning organization?’, Harvard
Business Review, 86, 109–16.
Heikkinen, H. L. T., Jokinen, H. and Tynjälä, P. (2012), Peer-Group Mentoring for Teacher Develop-
ment (Oxford: Routledge).
Hodkinson, P., Biesta, G. and James, D. (2008), ‘Understanding learning culturally: overcoming the
dualism between social and individual views of learning’, Vocations and Learning, 1, 1, 27–47.
Kilminster, S., Bradburg, H., Frost, N. and Zukas, M. (2012), ‘Critical perspectives on professional
lifelong learning’, Studies in Continuing Education, 34, 1, 1–4.
Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P. and Colley, H. (2003), ‘The interrelationships between informal and
formal learning’, Journal of Workplace Learning, 15, 7/8, 313–28.
Marsick, V. J. and Watkins, K. E. (1990), Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace (London:
Routledge).
Marsick, V. J. and Watkins, K. E. (2001), ‘Informal and incidental learning’, New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 25–34.
Maurer, T. J. (2002), ‘Employee learning and development orientation: toward an integrative
model of involvement in continuous learning’, Human Resource Development Review, 1, 1, 9–44.
Nabi, G. R. (2001), ‘The relationship between HRM, social support and subjective career success
among men and women’, International Journal of Manpower, 22, 457–74.
Nauta, A., Van Vianen, A., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Van Dam, K. and Willemsen, M. (2009),
‘Understanding the factors that promote employability orientation: the moderating
impact of employability culture’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82,
233–51.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L. and Feldman, D. C. (2005), ‘Predictors of objective and
subjective career success: a meta-analysis’, Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408.
Noe, R. A., Tews, M. J. and McConnell Dachner, A. (2010), ‘Learner engagement: a new perspec-
tive for enhancing our understanding of learner motivation and workplace learning’, The
Academy of Management Annals, 4, 1, 279–315.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2000), Where Are the
Resources for Lifelong Learning? (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development).
Olbert-Bock, S. (2002), Lernprozesse bei Veränderungen in Unternehmen [Learning Processes in Com-
panies] (Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag).
Ouweneel, A. P. E., Taris, T. W., Van Zolingen, S. J. and Schreurs, P. J. G. (2009), ‘How task
characteristics and social support relate to managerial learning: empirical evidence form Dutch
home care’, The Journal of Psychology, 143, 1, 28–44.
Paloniemi, S. and Collin, K. (2010), ‘Workplace Learning and Work-Related Identity Construc-
tions in a Clinical Setting’, in M. Caltone (ed.), Handbook of Lifelong Learning Developments (New
York: Nova Science Publishers), pp. 141–61.
Parker, P., Arthur, M. B. and Inkson, K. (2004), ‘Career communities: a preliminary exploration
of member-defined career support structures’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 489–514.
Rowold, J. and Kauffeld, S. (2009), ‘Effects of career-related continuous learning on competen-
cies’, Personnel Review, 38, 1, 90–101.
Sessa, V. and London, M. (2006), Continuous Learning in Organizations (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum).
Smith, E., Smith, A., Pickersgill, R. and Rushbrook, P. (2006), ‘Qualifying the workforce. The use
of nationally-recognised training in Australian companies’, Journal of European Industrial Train-
ing, 30, 8, 592–607.
Spieß, E., Geldermann, B., Hofmann, H. and Woschée, R. (2002), ‘Unterschiede zwischen
Lernkulturen in Unternehmen – Erste Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie zu neuen Lernkul-
turen in Unternehmen [Differences between Learning Cultures in Companies – First Outcomes
of An Empirical Study on Learning Cultures in Companies]’, in K. Jenewein, P. Knauth and
G. Zülch (eds), Kompetenzentwicklung in Unternehmensprozessen (Aachen: Shaker-Verlag),
pp. 197–200.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R., McNall, L. A. and Salas, E. (2009), ‘Informal Learning and Devel-
opment in Organizations’, in S. W. J. Kozlowski and E. Salas (eds), Learning, Training, and
Development in Organizations (New York: Routledge), pp. 303–32.

162 International Journal of Training and Development

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Taris, T. W. and Kompier, M. A. M. (2005), ‘Job Characteristics and Learning Behavior’, in P. L.
Perrewé and D. C. Ganster (eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being: Exploring
Interpersonal Dynamics (Amsterdam: JAI Press), Vol. 4, pp. 127–66.
Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., De Lange, A. H., Schaufeli, W. B. and Schreurs, P. J. G. (2003),
‘Learning new behaviour patterns: a longitudinal test of Karasek’s active learning hypothesis
among Dutch teachers’, Work & Stress, 17, 1, 1–20.
Van der Heijde, C. M. and Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2006), ‘A competence-based and multidi-
mensional operationalization and measurement of employability’, Human Resource Manage-
ment, 45, 3, 449–76.
Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., De Lange, A. H., Demerouti, E. and Van der Heijde, C. M. (2009a),
‘Employability and career success across the life-span. Age effects on the employability-career
success relationship’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 156–64.
Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Boon, J., Van der Klink, M. and Meijs, E. (2009b), ‘Employability
enhancement through formal and informal learning: an empirical study among Dutch non-
academic university staff members’, International Journal of Training and Development, 13, 1,
19–37.
Watkins, K. E. and Marsick, V. J. (1996), In Action: Creating the Learning Organization (Alexandria,
VA: American Society for Training and Development).
Weiß, R. (1999), ‘Erfassung und Bewertung von Kompetenzen – empirische und konzeptionelle
Probleme. In Arbeitsgemeinschaft Qualifikations-Entwicklungs-Management [Acquisition
and assessment of competencies – empirical and conceptual problems’, In working group
qualification-development-management]. (Hrsg.), Kompetenzentwicklung ‘99. Aspekte einer
neuen Lernkultur [Development of competencies ‘99. Aspects of a new learning culture].
Münster: Waxmann.
Wexlberger, L. P. (1993), ‘Lernen im Arbeitsprozeß [Learning in the Labour Process]’, in C.
Heidack (ed.), Lernen der Zukunft. Kooperative Selbstqualifikation – die effektivste Form der Aus- und
Weiterbildung im Betrieb (München: Lexika), pp. 299–310.

Continuing professional development 163

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.