Quality of CIPD online discussions

This is my first foray into the mist of CIPD online discussions and I have to admit to being a bit disappointed with the quality of some discussion for debate. 

Not to say that the items listed are not relevant but I think it would be better to have an 'advice section' for those individuals who have simple questions about practice to be answered? 

Then the space for discussions can be recogised and valued more as one where real debate will occur.

Parents
  • Another most-valid contribution, Heather.


    This ties in aptly with just what I was reflecting the other day - what a meaningless concept 'quality of discussions' really is !


    What frame of reference ought one to use ??


    - intellectual rigour and challenge ?


    - cutting-edge HR practice ?


    - scholarly / academic prowess ?


    One might point a finger at say The Sun newspaper and say that their  quality of reporting, especially of political and economic events, is rubbish.


    Perhaps so: if that's what a reader seeks, then perhaps they should go read The Times or The Economist.


    The fact remains that, like it or loathe it,  The Sun provides most of its readers in general  with all that they require of a newspaper....


    In similar vein, our Communities might be regarded as the work-related Facebook of CIPD members, and, unsurprisingly, it covers the entire spectrum of personalities / levels of expertise / levels of tolerance / senses of 'humour' / lightheartedness / pomposity etc etc etc


    Not much point bemoaning this fact - it's somewhat inevitable that such a diverse / motley bunch allied with the similar nature of 'HR' problems will result in such a diverse and motley  range of discussions.


    Rather, the question perhaps ought to be: Is reading and / or participating-in Communities Discussions at least sometimes useful in undertaking my tasks at work ?


    Heather for one has I think given the answer.


     

Reply
  • Another most-valid contribution, Heather.


    This ties in aptly with just what I was reflecting the other day - what a meaningless concept 'quality of discussions' really is !


    What frame of reference ought one to use ??


    - intellectual rigour and challenge ?


    - cutting-edge HR practice ?


    - scholarly / academic prowess ?


    One might point a finger at say The Sun newspaper and say that their  quality of reporting, especially of political and economic events, is rubbish.


    Perhaps so: if that's what a reader seeks, then perhaps they should go read The Times or The Economist.


    The fact remains that, like it or loathe it,  The Sun provides most of its readers in general  with all that they require of a newspaper....


    In similar vein, our Communities might be regarded as the work-related Facebook of CIPD members, and, unsurprisingly, it covers the entire spectrum of personalities / levels of expertise / levels of tolerance / senses of 'humour' / lightheartedness / pomposity etc etc etc


    Not much point bemoaning this fact - it's somewhat inevitable that such a diverse / motley bunch allied with the similar nature of 'HR' problems will result in such a diverse and motley  range of discussions.


    Rather, the question perhaps ought to be: Is reading and / or participating-in Communities Discussions at least sometimes useful in undertaking my tasks at work ?


    Heather for one has I think given the answer.


     

Children
No Data