Defining “talent” : insights from management and migration literatures for policy design
Taking the case of defining “talent,” a term that has been widely used but its definitions differ by discipline, organization, policy sector, as well as over time, we demonstrate how the basic definition of a policy subject may affect policy design and the assessment of policy outcomes. We review ho...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| 其他作者: | |
| 格式: | Article |
| 語言: | English |
| 出版: |
2020
|
| 主題: | |
| 在線閱讀: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/144536 |
| 標簽: |
添加標簽
沒有標簽, 成為第一個標記此記錄!
|
| 機構: | Nanyang Technological University |
| 語言: | English |
| 總結: | Taking the case of defining “talent,” a term that has been widely used but its definitions differ by discipline, organization, policy sector, as well as over time, we demonstrate how the basic definition of a policy subject may affect policy design and the assessment of policy outcomes. We review how “talent” is defined in two sets of literature, talent management and migration studies, and find that definitions fall under one of two categories: binary (“talent” as qualities) or composite (“talent” as a relational concept). The implications of our findings are epistemological and ontological; the findings point to diverse epistemological effects of definitions through developments of indicators, as expected, and they also reveal the policy designers’ ontological starting points. Ontological perspectives are significant because they ultimately determine whether the policy assessments carried out differ in degrees or in kind. In the case of defining “talent,” this means determining which objectives the designers would set (e.g., recruiting vs. cultivating vs. introducing competition), the policy instrumentation for achieving the goals (migration measures vs. education vs. lifelong learning vs. human resource policy), and the type of assessment for measuring policy outcomes (single vs. multiple indicators, qualitative vs. quantitative). |
|---|