哪位好心人帮我翻译一下呀。。。万分感谢

The purpose of this paper is to add to this debate by offering a critique of the conceptual standing of HRM. The argument is that without careful definition HRM can be seen as what Markusen (1999, p.870) describes as a ‘fuzzy concept’, which in turn promotes ‘sloppy thinking’. This argument will be explored through a consideration of the way in which the employment relationship in small firms has been analysed and a questioning of whether, in this context, an HRM framework can be adopted in an uncritical fashion. The search for HRM in small firms has been focussed on finding practices deemed to signal an HRM approach—usually those which reflect what occurs in large firms (Taylor, 2005). But doing so means that when such formal policies and practices through which HRM is articulated are not found, then the conclusion is often that labour management practices in small firms are somehow lacking. An alternative way of thinking could of course be that the uncritical and simplistic search for HRM in this context exposes the paucity of HRM theory. The purpose of this paper is to explore these options.
There is now a growing literature around how size influences labour management in small firms (see Marlow, Patton, & Ram, 2005, for an overview). In the case of the UK, this is rarely conceptualised as an analysis of HRM, with some exceptions (see Bacon, Ackers, Story, & Coates, 1996). This is largely because mainstream debate suggests a normative version of HRM linked to strategy formation and performance enhancement; characteristics not considered to reflect the usually informal, idiosyncratic approach to labour management evident in many small firms (Ram, Edwards, Gilman, & Arrowsmith, 2001). However, this is not the case elsewhere; for example, the North American literature is more likely to examine small firm labour management practices within an HRM framework (see, for example, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice special edition; Fall 2000) and this is also evident to some degree, in Australia (Mazzarol, 2003). This raises the question as to whether there is some discernable degree of difference in kind regarding how employees are managed in small firms in developed nations or in fact, whether there is slippage in the conceptual underpinnings for such studies. The difficulty of definition is recognised by Katz, Aldrich, Welbourne, and Williams (2000 p.8) musing, “With so many ways to define HRM and the SME, almost anything could be studied. Therein lies our dilemma”.