The first of three papers from this symposium, "If We Can't Define HRD in One Country, How Can We Define It in an International Context?" (Gary N. Mc Lean, Laird D. McLean), questions the possibility of defining human resource development (HRD) in a worldwide context. Several factors were found that influence a country's and an individual's definition. The most common U.S. definitions have influenced definitions around the world, yet definitions are influenced by the context in which they have emerged. A definition based on comparison of many definitions is proposed. The second paper, "A Refusal to Define HRD" (Monica Lee), argues that although it is necessary at times to define HRD for political reasons, HRD should not be defined on philosophical, theoretical, professional, and practical grounds because HRD is a process of becoming, not of being. The final paper, "HRD: The Power of Definitions" (John Walton), subjects the 1995 position statement on the emerging concept of HRD produced by the University Forum for HRD to a critical discourse analysis. It evaluates why the statement was produced in the first instance and the discursive practice it reflected. The analysis surfaces issues associated with developing a replacement version today. (Contains 77 references.) (KC)