Human resource development (HRD) as a scholarly endeavor and as a practice is often criticized in the adult education (AE) literature and by AE scholars as manipulative and oppressive and, through training and other interventions, controlling workers for strictly economic ends (Baptiste, 2001; Cunningham, 2004; Schied, 2001; Welton, 1995). Similarly, although less vocal and antagonistic, HRD scholars have been critical of AE's "academic" and "theoretical" elitism vs. the pragmatic and socially responsive practice of AE. To address the tension resulting from the lack of harmony between the disciplinary conceptual foundations that exists between HRD and AE, and assuming this tension results in a lack of understanding and possible beneficial cooperation, we propose that critical traditions (critical theory and criticality) may provide a bridge between the two disciplines. To fully define and provide support for this proposition, this paper is divided into and presented in two parts. [For part 2, see EJ983779.]