Edwards Irj05

Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKIRJIndustrial Relations Journal0019-8692Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005 2005364264282Original ArticleThe challenging but promising future of IRPaul Edwards

Industrial Relations Journal 36:4, 264–282 ISSN 0019-8692

The challenging but promising future of industrial relations: developing theory and method in context-sensitive research Paul Edwards ABSTRACT Industrial relations (IR) in the UK are often seen as being in a state of some disarray. Yet analytical advances can also be detected. This article takes one part of IR, contextsensitive research, to suggest ways of building on such advances. Its focus is the intellectual core of the subject, and not its institutional position. The particular route identified is to link IR to the programme of critical realism and thereby to make methodological progress and strengthen links with social science. Policy relevance may also be enhanced. Whether IR’s possibilities are realised remains uncertain, and whether an intellectual programme leads to institutional advance is even harder to predict.

INTRODUCTION Assessments of the state of industrial relations (IR) research in the UK over a period of 30 years have pointed to an emphasis on institutional description at the expense of theory (Bain and Clegg, 1974; Berridge and Goodman, 1988; Kelly, 1998; Towers, 2003; Winchester, 1983). In the words of Ackers (2002: 2), IR ‘has proved generally incapable of restating or revising its core paradigms, as they were established in the 1970s’. Ackers and Wilkinson (2003a: 2) identify ‘a strong sense of intellectual marginalisation’ of IR. IR research received no serious mention in the report of the Commission on the Social Sciences (2003). Kaufman (2004a) finds six factors accounting for the decline of IR in America, and argues that these apply, albeit with less force, in the UK. He concludes his assessment of the subject at a global level by identifying ‘reasons for both optimism and pessimism’, though ‘probably the scales tilt in the direction of the latter’ (p. 621). The present concern is not to review this powerful and largely convincing argument. It is to pursue one aspect of an optimistic view. The article builds on the conclusions of Whitfield and Strauss (1998: 294) who argue that the ‘tide engulfing industrial relations is strong’ but that a distinctive position can

❒ Paul Edwards is Professor of Industrial Relations, University of Warwick. Correspondence should be addressed to Paul Edwards, Industrial Relations Research Unit, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK; email: [email protected] This is an extensively revised version of a plenary article given to the British Universities Industrial Relations Association Annual Conference, Leeds, July 2003.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA.

The challenging but promising future of IR

265

be sustained and indeed developed through stronger research design ‘allied to changes in conceptual tools, a broadening of scope, and possibly a modification of the field’s title’. The article does not directly address the ‘tide’. As a referee of an earlier draft notes, the tide’s components include the possibly greater apparent relevance of human resource management or organisational behaviour to business schools, a relevance heightened by the ability of scholars in such fields to target leading journals that count highly in the Research Assessment Exercise. Symptoms include the renaming of degree programmes. Some remarks on the institutional position of British IR have been offered elsewhere (Edwards, 2005). They suggest some positive elements, though certainly do not constitute a rebuttal of the more downbeat view; one further comment is made below. The present concern is largely the intellectual position of IR, which, it is argued, is more robust than might appear. The focus is thus IR analysis in general, and not specifically the state of research in the UK, though many of the examples given are British-based. This task will be pursued by focusing on one strand of research based on contextsensitive explanatory approach. This label signifies two things. First, IR institutions and processes are grasped in context so that, to take a familiar example, the meaning of ‘trade union democracy’ is different in different countries and indeed within countries. Second, there is a concern to offer systematic explanation of, and sometimes generalisation from, the cases chosen for study. Examples are given below, but the label is intended as no more than a reflection of much that is taken for granted in IR. The classic study of the car industry by Turner et al. (1967), for example, addressed this particular context and showed that key IR characteristics, notably strike levels, varied within the industry and between the UK industry and those of other countries; explanations thus turned on embedded features of particular IR arrangements rather than generic features of the industry. ‘Cases’ can plainly be workplaces, industries or countries. Locke and Thelen (1995) use the term ‘contextualised comparison’, a term borrowed here, to capture this approach. There are several reasons for this delimitation. First, the aim is not to review the whole field of IR research. Nothing is said about, for example, historical methods, large-scale survey research or interpretivist or social constructivist approaches. Some research within such traditions is consistent with the analysis developed below, but this point is not argued out. The purpose is simply to address one style of research that captures important elements of the core of IR as traditionally practised. Second, such issues as the definition of the field and what might constitute ‘IR theory’ are addressed only very briefly. Third, the relationship with approaches such as that of human resource management is not considered. The Ackers and Wilkinson (2003b) volume addresses these last two points. Finally, nothing is said about the teaching of the subject. The central reason for the focus is to concentrate on one issue: the development of research that offers genuinely explanatory accounts derived from context-sensitive analysis. Such research has an ontological and epistemological base in the programme of critical realism (CR), and there are some specific methodological tools on which it can draw. It offers a way forward in relation to: new challenges within the field of IR, such as how to incorporate gender relations; and the making of connections between IR and wider social science disciplines. In international comparative context, UK IR is in a potentially strong position. According to Kaufman (2003a; 2004a), IR in the USA developed earlier than was the case in the UK, and a clear focus was identified, but an ironic result was that IR cut © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

266

Paul Edwards

itself off from wider developments in social science and management studies and thus found itself in a narrow conceptualisation from which it could not escape. In continental Europe, by contrast, ‘industrial relations has not become an independent academic discipline’ (Frege, 2003: 242). The UK tradition is somewhere between these extremes, though arguably it needs to link its own insights into the employment relationship with the wider ‘socio-political’ (Frege, 2003: 256) emphasis of other countries. The article proceeds in three main stages. First, developing conceptual, epistemological and empirical themes are reviewed. Second, challenges within IR and in making links with social science are discussed. Third, methodological prospects are indicated. IR has always been a practical subject, however, and the implications of the suggested approach for policy relevance are also briefly sketched.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES Analytical development is addressed in three steps. First, IR has a conceptualisation of its core focus, albeit one that may need some relabelling. Second, an IR approach constructively illustrates some leading approaches to social science, though this has rarely been recognised. Third, conceptualisation and epistemology can be illustrated by developing empirical research. Conceptualisation of the employment relationship There seems to be widespread acceptance, as illustrated by the texts cited above and several others (Blyton and Turnbull, 2004; Edwards, 2003a; Kaufman, 2004b), that IR studies employment relations or the employment relationship. Conceptualisation of this subject has proceeded under two heads (Ackers and Wilkinson, 2003a: 20; Kochan, 1998).

•

•

The employment relationship as a contested terrain, embracing conflict and consent. From an employer point of view, there is an inherent management of uncertainty. For employees, concerns include dignity and justice as well as economic interests; and employees tend to develop moral economies rather than operating as purely individually rational actors. At a more concrete level, the web of formal and informal rules and expectations governing the conduct of work and the negotiation of order. This provides a powerfully political understanding of how order is negotiated and uncertain.

The standard definition of IR was the ‘study of the rules governing employment’ (Clegg, 1979: 1). This remains a remarkably robust statement, if ‘rules’ are understood to embrace a complex and shifting set of expectations and norms involving the use of power and if influences from outside the employment relationship that shape the rulemaking process are taken into account. A ‘modification’ (Whitfield and Strauss, 1998: 297) of title might now use the popular term ‘governance’ to signal at least two things: the relations of power, politics and contest that are central to the regulation of employment; and the fact that regulation occurs at many levels including supranational and national regimes as well as what goes on directly in the employment relationship itself. The ‘governance of employment relations’ could thus be one label. This label embraces the proper concerns of writers such as Kelly (1998), that issues © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

The challenging but promising future of IR

267

such as injustice and exploitation be kept central, for the employment relationship is seen as an inherently contested one. The uncertainties of the contested terrain have been underlined by Nolan (2003; also Nolan and Wood, 2003) in his analysis of the work of the ESRC Future of Work Programme. Drawing on a long tradition of scholarship (e.g. Hyman, 1987), Nolan argues that unidirectional and mono-causal accounts of the evolution of the employment relationship are inaccurate and that there are inherently contradictory tendencies at work. There are contradictions within any approach to the employment relationship and between the specifics of employee management and the wider context of firms in capitalist markets. In relation to the former, the concept of contradictions has also been applied explicitly by Korczynski (2002: 58) to the analysis of service work, which is a particularly important case given that IR is sometimes equated with the ‘old’ world of manufacturing. Korczynski identifies a series of tensions, some of which are arguably generic to any kind of employment (e.g. between quality and quantity), and some of which, notably the pressures around the customer, are distinctive to service work. The wider context has been powerfully highlighted by Thompson (2003: 371), who points to ‘the interrelated impacts of globalisation, the shift to shareholder value in capital markets and systemic rationalisation across the whole value chain of firms’ as reasons why firms find it hard to keep their promises in terms of high commitment systems. In short, a perspective informed by the politics of the employment relationship can be applied to developing issues such as the nature of service work and understanding the effects of globalisation. Theory and ontology The strength and weakness of IR is its lack of a closed paradigm. This gives it an openness to a range of intellectual approaches and sensitivity to day-to-day realities. But by the same token IR has lacked attention to ‘fundamental issues concerning the nature and purpose of social science theory and research, as raised in the philosophy and sociology of science literature’ (Godard, 1993: 284). Anyone searching for theory in IR would have to be aware of the tacit nature of theoretical statements. Becker’s (1998: 3) fond account of the work of Everett Hughes has strong echoes. Hughes always threatened to write a ‘little theory book’, containing the essence of his theoretical position. [His students knew] that we were learning a theory, though we couldn’t say what it was. [Hughes never wrote the book] because he didn’t have a systematic theory in the style of Talcott Parsons. He had, rather, a theoretically informed way of working.

Theory can nonetheless be found. For example, reviewing IR theory in general Dabscheck (1989) found five established ‘theoretical approaches’ plus a developing one while Adams (1988) identified nine. Giles (1989: 130), addressing theories of the state and IR, saw four theories ‘lurking beneath the weight of descriptive writing’. A second consideration is that IR is a relatively specialised field drawing on several disciplines, so that its theoretical developments should not be compared to those of a whole discipline such as economics or sociology. If we look at Godard’s ‘philosophy and sociology of science’ one approach seems pertinent to IR. This is CR. It is laid out clearly by Sayer (1992; 2000), while Godard (1993) and Fleetwood (1999) are among the few IR scholars to consider it.1 This is 1

Critical realism (CR) is also known simply as realism; the label of CR has become the preferred term, following its introduction by Roy Bhaskar (Sayer, 2000: 7). © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

268

Paul Edwards

an approach to the philosophy of science that demonstrates that the contrast between scientism and naturalism is false. One can be scientific without aping the natural sciences (or to be more exact, a stereotypical view of what the natural sciences are supposed to be like). CR takes a stance against both positivism and relativist approaches such as constructivism and most variants of postmodernism. Positivism is faulted for addressing only empirical regularities rather than the underlying mechanisms producing these regularities; its basis in deductive-nomological approaches prevents it from asking why things occur as they do. Relativism treats the social world as wholly socially constructed and neglects the causal influences of structures that lie outside processes of social construction. Critical realism argues that there are real, if unobservable, forces with ‘causal powers’ and that it is the task of science to understand the relevant mechanisms. The social world is seen as being different from the natural because it requires human intervention, but it does not follow that society is wholly the product of human design or discourse: rules, norms and institutions develop with logics independent of the choices of individual actors. CR stresses that causal powers are not necessarily activated and is thus very sensitive to the importance of institutional context. It aims to move beyond the discovery of empirical regularities to understand the mechanisms that not only produce these regularities but also determine when they will occur and when they do not. Critical realism has been advocated in relation to management studies in general (Ackroyd and Fleetwood, 2000)2 and as an ‘underpinning philosophy’ for the area of operational research (Mingers, 2000). The latter example is pertinent, for that field is, like IR, often seen as simply one driven by practical problems, and yet a deeper social science base can be discerned. Sayer (2000) gives examples of realist research in practice. One with resonances with IR debates is drawn from Morgan and Sayer (1988). Conventional, ‘taxonomic’, approaches use large data sets to seek invariate relationships between independent factors and performance. But such relationships rarely exist because of the ‘openness of systems’. Morgan and Sayer switched to an intensive methodology, treating firms in causal rather than taxonomic categories. [E]xplanations as to why firms behaved as they did were in fact easier to come by than would have been possible through seeking determinate statistical relationships [Sayer, 2000: 24].

A further IR example would be the link between unemployment and union membership. Much UK and US research finds an inverse link, but studies in other countries found no such link or even a positive one, for reasons to do with their systems of unemployment insurance; an alternative approach to the links between unions and the development of capitalist economies then addresses sets of institutional conditions including the unemployment insurance system (Western, 1997). The explicit use of CR is, however, rare. Whitfield and Strauss (2000) studied the methods deployed in articles in leading IR journals between 1952 and 1997. They identified a shift towards deductive approaches, which would generally but not necessarily be associated with positivism rather than CR. Larouche and Audet (1993) identified 158 ‘theoretical contributions’ published between 1897 and 1988 that 2 This book contains six chapters offering illustrations of CR in practice. It admits that three of them, including the two closest to IR, do not use the language of CR explicitly. The two are an extract from the work of Peck (1996) on the structuring of labour markets and an article by Rubery (1994) on the British production model as a distinct societal system.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

The challenging but promising future of IR

269

addressed what ‘IR is’, and mapped them onto the well-known typology of philosophical approaches laid out by Burrell and Morgan (1979). The great bulk (139) fall into the ‘functionalist group’. This group would be largely positivist in orientation, though some might be consistent with CR. We may also assess the extent of CR in recent publications, by looking at three IR journals over a five-year period (1997–2001). Of the 353 articles reviewed, none used the term CR but 27 might be seen as clearly consistent with the approach on the criterion that they are interested in causal mechanisms and underlying causal factors. In similar vein, Fleetwood (1999: 474), in providing a CR-based critique of economic models of trade union behaviour, says that ‘something akin to’ his preferred approach can be identified in a small number of extant studies. Four illustrations may be given, chosen simply on the criteria that they appeared in this Journal, that they exemplify different concrete methods, and that they illustrate context sensitivity.

•

•

• •

Ortiz (1998) used case study methods to examine teamwork in General Motors in Spain. He framed the analysis in terms of largely critical views of teams from a union and worker viewpoint in the USA and UK and more favourable responses in Germany and Sweden. He showed that Spain fell between these two extremes, which he explained in terms of the way in which the IR system allowed negative features to be contained and positive features to be developed. In CR terms, teamwork has causal powers of positive and negative kinds, and how they are actualised depends on specific conditions. Note also that a single case can offer general lessons because it is placed in the context of other cases so that the ways in which causal influences operate in different contexts may be analysed. Grimshaw et al. (2001) compared the gender pay gap in the UK and Australia, using statistical and institutional evidence on two occupations. They showed that there was a complex interaction between the national pay-setting regime and occupation-specific forces. An average pay gap in a country reflects the interaction of different forces. Traxler (2003) analysed the nature of national systems of coordinated collective bargaining. Arguing that many quantitative studies ‘neglect the manifold qualitative differences’ (p. 196) of coordination, he offered detailed comparison of four countries that were selected systematically to illustrate different patterns. Edwards (1987) studied strikes and payment by results (PBR) systems using survey data. Theory often asserts that PBR tends to promote strikes but in some circumstances the expected association is absent. The survey identified sets of conditions such as the size of workplaces and their industrial sector that affected the operation of the ‘causal powers’ of PBR systems, and case study research was used to explain how these powers may or may not be actualised.

Note that a ‘CR’ approach is wholly consistent with quantitative methods; it is not statistical modelling to which CR objects but the weak model of causality that is sometimes displayed in this area (Godard, 1993: 292; Mingers, 2000: 1266). The Traxler study is notable in this regard, for it builds on a previous meticulous largescale quantitative analysis (Traxler et al., 2001). I am not arguing that all IR researchers are critical realists without knowing it, still less that research articles should rehearse their ontological assumptions. It is reasonable to claim, however, that context-sensitive institutional research does fit a broad CR programme. CR is useful at minimum in giving a grounding to the instincts of © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

270

Paul Edwards

many IR researchers who shy away from positivism and interpretivism. More constructively, it encourages researchers to think about different levels of causal powers and about the kinds of arguments that they wish to address. For example, when different outcomes are identified under different institutional conditions, what reasons are adduced?

Empirical progress A previous review identified illustrations of research reflecting empirical advance in areas including managerial strategy and IR in small firms (Edwards, 1995; 2003b). Further development can be detected in both areas, for example, in the analysis of the complex ways in which strategies are devised and implemented and in the study of new organisational forms (e.g. Beynon et al., 2002) and the improved understanding of employment relations in small firms (Ram and Edwards, 2003). The following illustrations also highlight a context-sensitive ‘theoretically informed way of working’. In the area of total-quality management and teamwork much research has tended, to use the terms of Wilkinson et al. (1997), to offer bouquets (extravagant praise) or brickbats (extreme condemnation). IR research has, first, contributed to improved conceptualisation of these practices by studying them as interventions in the contradictions of the employment relationship. They may be understood as ways of managing the inherent tensions between control and consent, and hence, as strategic interventions that, as Ortiz (1998) implied, have their effects in the context of a wider set of relationships (Geary, 2003). Empirical studies have also located teams in a theoretical view of the workplace—seeing them, in the words of Geary and Dobbins (2001), as new elements of the contested terrain and, hence, as neither wholly new nor simply part of an unchanging struggle for control. Second, therefore, it has been possible to show that teamwork has a number of forms. Several dimensions have been proposed including contrasts between lean production and socio-technical work designs (Fröhlich and Pekruhl, 1996). The ‘teamwork dimensions model’ identifies three dimensions, the technical, governance and normative, through which to understand different types of team and their linkage to wider aspects of IR (Findlay et al., 2000; Thompson and Wallace, 1996). Finally, research has identified sets of conditions that are likely to shape the results of teamwork experiments (e.g. Marchington et al., 1994). The outcome is that it is possible to grasp two key and apparently puzzling results. Overall, the use of teams seems to have no observable effect on employee commitment or autonomy (Harley, 2001) while under certain conditions it can bring specific, if limited, benefits to workers (Geary, 2003). The explanation is that, overall, the language of teams covers many things, with rhetoric often being stronger than substance, but that under given conditions there may be negative (work intensification) or positive (autonomy and job interest) results for workers (Edwards et al., 2002). It can of course be debated how far such insights depend on or are peculiar to an IR approach. But it can reasonably be claimed that the perspective that it brings to bear, stressing the uncertainties of managerial strategies and the importance of context, has helped to develop an explanation of teams that would otherwise have been the weaker. Looking upwards to cross-national issues, development is also clear. Early research on corporatism devoted a huge amount of effort to the measurement of the degree of centralisation of IR systems, and was never able to deal with the anomalies that this approach produced (e.g. Calmfors and Driffill, 1988). An alternative approach focused © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

The challenging but promising future of IR

271

on coordination rather than centralisation and indicated the causal powers of systems of coordination in countries such as Germany (Soskice, 1990). The work of Traxler et al. (2001) developed this idea through rigorous theoretical analysis and detailed quantitative testing. As noted above, this research has subsequently been deployed to address the embedded nature of bargaining coordination. It is also now clear that certain initial expectations, for example, that global forces will erode national distinctiveness, have been rejected. Research has pointed to the mutual shaping of global and national forces and to the significant extent of sectoral and local variation. To take two examples, comparative research on the car industry has shown how production systems vary between countries and indeed companies and plants (Kochan et al., 1997). Studies of multinational companies (MNCs) have shown that they are not the bearers of fixed home country characteristics but instead interact actively with their home and host country environments: the globalisation dynamic is intrinsically played out through the medium of interacting, internally heterogeneous, nationally rooted MNCs, seeking to draw their international competitive advantage from the distinctive and variegated institutional configurations, including systems of employment relations, in which they are embedded [Ferner and Quintanilla, 2002: 249, emphasis original].

Particularly notable here is the work of Locke and Thelen (1995), who lay out the method of ‘contextualised comparisons’ in explicit contrast to that of ‘matched comparisons’. The latter typically compares an issue such as industrial restructuring in two or more countries. But it tends to assume that external forces are of similar import in different economies. Yet countries differ in their position in the international division of labour, so that such shocks will be experienced differently. (One might add that subsequent contrasts between coordinated and liberal market economies have been overly impressed with some structural similarities within each group, to the neglect of different ways in which such liberal economies as the UK, the USA and Canada are inserted into the global economic system.) Moreover, the ‘same’ issue has different meanings depending on context. Comparisons of industrial restructuring may conclude that the issue is central in one case and not another, and conclude that the latter reflects successful institutional responses to global challenges. But such challenges may arise in other domains. On the basis of analysis of four such domains across four economies, the authors demonstrate that ‘seemingly different, nationally specific conflicts are in fact analytically analogous’ (p. 359). This article does not, however, explicitly ground itself in a CR perspective. Its approach also works well when we are comparing distinct national systems with reasonably known characteristics. How far it could be sustained when the unit of analysis is the company or workplace, and when issues might not fall into neat sets, is less clear. The approach is none the less a powerful illustration of explanatory possibilities. Moving up to another level, we have the question of supra-national systems of regulation. What in particular does European integration mean for IR? There seems to be a reasonably distinctive ‘IR’ contribution in this area, an emphasis on ‘bottomup’ rather than ‘top-down’ issues. Political science tends to offer the latter, addressing, for example, state decision making. IR complements this by considering what happens on the ground: not only the extent to which top-level initiatives are frustrated by issues of implementation but also the active importance of ‘bottom-level’ processes in creating new sets of demands and in contributing to the processes of ‘multilevel governance’ (Sisson et al., 2003). In this context, an IR perspective has a particular strength, because it is sensitive to the politics and uncertainty of negotiation. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

272

Paul Edwards

ANALYTICAL CHALLENGES Challenges within the field of IR A CR-informed perspective can help us grapple with the issue of broadening the scope of IR, as underlined by Whitfield and Strauss (1998) and Ackers (2002). One key example is the field’s responsiveness to the study of gender relations, for gender is evidently central to understanding employment relations and yet its neglect has been amply demonstrated (Greene, 2003; Wajcman, 2000). Wajcman points to the development of theoretical perspectives in other fields of study. This is true, but it is also true of other areas relevant to IR such as theories of power or the nature of the capitalist state. We should not set the impossible task of generating wholly new social theories of work. What it is reasonable to expect is that IR analysis should throw light on the distinctive ways in which gender works within IR institutions such as trade unions. It should thus be able to inform and develop core theories of gender relations rather than merely apply them (just as an analysis of workplace power relations should inform theories of power). If IR is opened to gender perspectives, is there an answer as to what other influences such as ethnicity and family origins need to be addressed? One possible answer is that IR is concerned with the politics of the employment relationship and not social identity more generally. In pursuing this concern, it should be attentive to the resources that are brought into the process, recognising that in the past it tended to neglect some of the most important of these. In the language of CR, it neglected their causal powers. Perhaps the clearest argument remains that of Emmett and Morgan (1982) in discussing the Manchester ethnographies. They showed that in some workplaces, for example, engineering workshops, religious identity had little salience, whereas in the clothing sector such identity played a significant role in the construction of workplace solidarities. They argued that the walls of the workplace are a ‘semi-permeable membrane’ filtering out some external influences and allowing others through. A more exact statement would be in terms of mediation or interaction, for it is not a case of external influences simply entering the workplace unchanged, but of their being constituted through workplace processes, which in turn reflect back on ‘external’ relations. For example, Westwood (1993) demonstrates the gender solidarity and space that women factory workers are able to generate, while Glucksmann (1990) shows how women semi-skilled workers were constituted in social class terms through the interaction of workplace and other processes. It then becomes part of the task to consider in particular cases how the politics of the employment relationship are shaped by influences such as gender and ethnicity. How, then, might one develop a research programme informed by gender? A CRinformed approach stresses the need to ask what aspects of gender relations interact with IR processes, and under what conditions. IR is, for example, centrally concerned with worker mobilisation and the extent to which, and conditions under which, solidarity emerges. We might thus begin with this level of analysis and ask when gender and ethnic resources generated in the wider society contribute to the process. For example, the gender resources of workers may tend to provide a basis of social cohesion; such gendered cohesion has been noted in studies of female workers, as in the studies just mentioned, and also male workers (Collinson, 1992). Yet the causal power of these resources is not fixed by the mere fact of gender characteristics; workers who have developed certain identities through schooling may operationalise the © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

The challenging but promising future of IR

273

resource in different ways from those with different educational experiences. Moreover, the use of the resource will be shaped by the workplace context, so that gender solidarity may mean one thing in a manufacturing context and quite another in a managerial environment, and the nature of the solidarity may be variable (e.g. when workers identify around ethnic divisions, and thus define solidarity through the exclusion of others). We might then ask to what extent workers in modern employment conditions define themselves in gender terms and why might some workers do so more than others. We might then proceed to ask about the consequences, for example, for the kinds of issues that reach the surface as specific bargaining issues. Appropriate contextualised comparison could address such questions.

Industrial relations and social science Turning to IR’s links with social science, the need for interdisciplinary analysis is widely noted (e.g. Grimshaw and Rubery, 2003). IR research has profound messages for ‘mainstream’ disciplines. These have been spelt out several times. They include: the substantial amount of IR research on pay structures, that reveals processes that are captured at best very imperfectly in labour economics (see Rubery, 1997); research on the psychological contract and the employment relationship (Guest, 2003); and studies of workplace relations that address sociological theories of power, the labour process and patriarchy (Armstrong et al., 1981; Pollert, 1996). But the impact has not been impressive. For example, a special issue of an economics journal on the effects of the national minimum wage (NMW) contained no reference to institutional IR research (Oxford Bulletin, 2002). Yet, as a key article remarked, ‘the low wage labour market is more complex than the straightforward text book model would have us believe’ (Metcalf, 2002: 580). And there is now institutional research both in general (as reviewed by Rubery, 1997) and in relation to the NMW (Gilman et al., 2002) that suggests how the labour market can be understood. Yet there is also evidence of some openness to institutional research. In the USA, the National Bureau of Economic Research developed its ‘pin factory’ initiative (see http://www.nber.org/programs/pr). The objective was to persuade economists to engage in field research, drawing on Adam Smith’s archetypical pin factory, in order that they can understand the dynamics and complexity of concrete cases. Discussing the benefits, Helper (2000: 228) remarks that ‘understanding the setting can help explain differences in findings between cases, by making clear the mechanism by which variables are linked’, thus touching on a theme widely rehearsed by IR researchers and also unconsciously expressing a core tenet of CR. As to how to improve impact, some modest suggestions may be made. First, we might keep spelling out the distinct contribution, for example, in showing how the NMW has variable effects within firms. Second, IR researchers may be able to help themselves by sharing experience as to attempts to make connections that seem to work and any noticeable impact. Third, the pin factory example points to scholars in related areas who may be open to institutionally informed IR analysis. It may, for example, be possible to use journal special issues or edited volumes rather than ‘cold’ submissions to journals to promote an IR view. Perhaps particularly constructive, though also difficult, would be an attempt to move beyond general perspectives to empirical projects that address puzzles faced by cognate fields that might be resolved © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

274

Paul Edwards

with an IR view. Crucially, we would be seeking analyses that count as explanations, rather than as simply interesting empirical facts. IR may thus not advance any freestanding ‘theory’ but can contribute to theoretically informed inquiry by showing how its approaches help to address theoretical gaps left by core disciplines.

MAKING IT WORK: METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES A key methodological challenge is, in line with CR, that of developing plausible causal accounts and then developing a research programme of cumulative analysis. Consider the debate on trade unions and productivity: once it was recognised that the linkage between the two depends on context (Freeman and Medoff, 1984: 179), it was hard to proceed much further with conventional techniques. CR would argue that the solution lies, not in more and more refinements to surveys or individual case studies, but in identifying relevant causal mechanisms and then using an appropriate mix of methods to elucidate their operation. In certain areas such as the analysis of teamwork an implicit cumulative programme has emerged, but there is now a need to be more systematic. The method of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as laid out by Ragin (1987) and also Becker (1998: 182–194) has some potential here. QCA is a complex method involving the use of Boolean algebra but in essence it is quite simple, as Ragin’s own example (which as it happens is an IR one) shows. Suppose that an analyst wants to know whether strikes are successful or not. Three possible conditions are identified: a booming product market, labelled A; the threat of sympathy strikes, B; and a large strike fund, C. The various combinations of A, B and C are related to strike outcomes, and it can be shown whether, for example, success depends on both A and B being present but not C, or whether C alone is sufficient. The value of this way of thinking is that it encourages the analyst to identify logical possibilities and then go through the evidence systematically to see what combination of factors is necessary and sufficient for a given outcome. It also invites development of new research. In this case, it may be that information is not available on all the logical possibilities of the combination of A, B and C, so that research should then seek out missing cases. The qualitative comparative analysis has generally been applied to macro questions such as differences between nation states. In this context, Goldthorpe (2000: 51) identifies three problems. First, the approach is highly deterministic, with prior conditions always being required to produce one outcome or another. Second, it reduces complex characteristics to simple binary yes/no attributes. Third, analysis is highly dependent on the correct coding of a country, with a single change of classification having potentially major effects. These are key points, and QCA is not a magic solution. But it has the merit of helping thinking about a given case in the light of others. Suppose that a researcher conducts a study of teamwork and concludes that it has ‘failed’. The first need is to have clear criteria of failure rather than the rather vague accounts that can be found in the literature. Second, what factor or combination of factors seems to account for the failure? Is there a systematic causal account of the case itself ? Third, how does this account marry with others in the literature? For example, if ‘middle management resistance’ is identified, where is the evidence of this phenomenon in the case, does it appear in other cases, and does it seem to be important in itself or only when other conditions exist? Finally, further case study research can then be armed with clear © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

The challenging but promising future of IR

275

expectations, for example, that middle management resistance seems to have been important where teamwork had one form rather than another, so that new research would seek cases where the relevant phenomena varied in key ways and where new explanations might thus be developed. The recent article by Roscigno and Hodson (2004) is instructive here. This takes Hodson’s database created by developing quantitative indicators from a set of workplace ethnographies and deploys QCA along with more conventional methods. It relates patterns of conflict to characteristics of workplace regimes and then identifies three distinct types of regime. A key issue in relation to individual cases is to try to select them with a clear view in mind, ahead of time, as to what lessons can be drawn. What is the answer to the question, ‘what is this a case of, that is, from what class of things is this case drawn, and hence what does it tell us about processes in this class of things?’ If we look, for example, at the mass of recent work on call centres, we need to move beyond the starting point of holding up reality against some model such as the electronic sweatshop to ask whether particular results are, say, specific to non-union call centres in Scotland, or likely to hold in all non-union cases, or relevant to non-union cases where the work has a quasi-Taylorist form but not where a more ‘high skills’ vision is pursued. If this is done with precision, then a single new case can have important wider lessons. A second aspect of methodology relates to different levels of analysis. A wellestablished point about much IR case research is that the focus has been on concrete events at micro level rather than the wider structural conditions that shape behaviour (Purcell, 1983). Thompson (2003) underlines the point in identifying a small number of case studies that examine the different levels at which employment restructuring occurs. Linking workplace experience to other levels of change is a key route forward. Turning to issues of research technique, it may be an appropriate time to look at the tried and trusted method of interview-based case studies. They have limitations in terms of process and outcomes. In relation to process, they rely on reports rather than direct observation of behaviour and they tend to depend on retrospective accounts that may be coloured by events. O’Mahoney (2000) conducted by contrast a longitudinal study in which he reports that respondents claimed, after a new system of work organisation was in operation, that they had always been in favour of it, whereas interviewed earlier they had been highly sceptical. Bonazzi’s (1998) observational study of supervisors is also instructive, for it asks about the impact of changes on their work not by asking for their accounts but by observing what they did and thus showing how their tasks had changed. In relation to outcomes, reports have obvious limitations. Some studies carefully collect outcomes data, but more can be done to identify the outcomes of interest and ways of measuring them. Considered attention to the design of ethnographic studies will also contribute to the integration of gender perspectives, for, as Greene (2003: 313) notes, the relevant processes in organisations are ‘hidden’ and thus require ‘in-depth qualitative research’. In relation to international comparisons, we know in broad terms that global forces are shaped in numerous ways. We now need to show more exactly how and why one sector differs from another, and thus develop causal explanations of the ways in which such shaping takes place and the conditions leading to one form rather than another. The issues of research design here are very large, for they embrace differences between countries, sectors and companies, and interactions between all three. Yet, as argued above, research has progressed considerably, and there is no reason why further development cannot be made. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

276

Paul Edwards

THE CHALLENGE OF RELEVANCE The above reflections have a strong practical relevance. From 1979 until the mid-1990s, the relevance of IR research may have seemed small. Managements confidently pursuing what Kessler and Purcell (2003) characterise as the dominant cost-minimisation strategy would have had little time for employee relations. The government agenda was also largely deregulatory. Yet we now see two lines of development. First, cost minimisation may have reached its limits. Evidence points to a widespread sense of insecurity (Heery and Salmon, 2000) and to growing employee awareness of extensive and increasing use of monitoring and performance targets (Felstead et al., 2002; Green, 2001). One recent study finds that pressures to attain targets are substantial even for managers (Ogbonna and Wilkinson, 2003). As Green (2003: 145) concludes, ‘intensification of effort is hardly viable as a long-term strategy for sustainable growth’. Second, consideration of alternative views is illustrated by the TUC and CBI agreeing that a ‘climate of mutual trust’ between managers and employees is essential to organisational success (CBI-TUC, 2001) and by growing interest in ‘partnership’. We might also place IR in the context of major debates about corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. As a recent symposium (BJIR, 2003) on the former shows, these bring to the centre of attention such questions as the rights of ‘stakeholders’ (including employees), the ethical responsibilities of firms, and the degree of transparency of decision making and systems of auditing. Such debates are evidently ones in which IR concerns with employee voice could play a part. Adding to the company perspective are the external context and the position of employees. The most obvious of the former are new information and consultation requirements. But there are also wider arguments about competing models of capitalism and the benefits of coordinated market economies. Governance is indeed multilevel, and there is a growing need for clear analysis of the linkages between levels. There is thus a context in which critical analysis, that is one that is aware of contradictory pressures rather than proffering immediate solutions, has a role to play. Consider, for example, the following aphorisms (Becker et al., 2001: 32, 39): ‘HR performance drivers’ are ‘unique to each firm’; and strategy ‘implementation, rather than strategy content, differentiates successful from unsuccessful firms’. IR academics are particularly well-placed to elucidate the important truths in these remarks. The wealth of research on why performance-related pay or total-quality management often do not work in practice speaks volumes about the importance of implementation, consistent messages, trust and, above all, understanding change programmes in the context of past history and the socially structured expectations that shape responses to new initiatives. An understanding of the contradictions of the employment relationship may be of particular value to practitioners struggling to make sense of a complex world and doing so moreover when their own employment situations are increasingly affected by pressures of rationalisation and restructuring.

CONCLUSIONS Industrial relations’ traditional inductive and problem-oriented approach has been its strength and its weakness: a strength in addressing concrete questions without being confined to a particular discipline, but a weakness in lacking explicit theory and in at best responding to rather than driving forward new intellectual agendas. This article © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

The challenging but promising future of IR

277

has focused on the context-sensitive aspects of IR to argue that there have been analytical advances, and hence, that the weaknesses are not as disabling as is sometimes claimed; offer some lines of future development around philosophical bases and methodological approaches; and suggest that such development has an affinity with IR’s practical focus, which focus may also be of growing salience. It would be fanciful to suppose that there is an agreed research paradigm or that practical relevance will be readily demonstrated. Yet it is also true that there is more potential than is sometimes realised. Within IR itself, the integration of a gendered perspective remains an issue, and one way forward in this area is comparative analysis, for example, of different conditions promoting or retarding gender-based solidarity. IR research has developed a research programme in such areas as the nature of teamwork, but it has not been a planned one. For the future, a more careful selection of comparative cases, together with attention to the kinds of data collected and the research techniques used to generate them, is a key issue. Such points also pertain to the issue of international research. Here, advances have been made in showing how new forms of work organisation vary on national, sectoral and individual company lines. Yet the next challenge is substantial: to move beyond showing that there are such variations towards a stronger explanation of just how and why they exist. As for demonstrating the potential of IR traditions, two complementary routes suggest themselves. One is to work with scholars from related areas in business studies. Some researchers on call centres, for example, argue that if we are to place labour relations issues in their context we may need to work with people from operations management, the better to understand the technical division of labour and, hence, its links with the social. The second is to work with researchers in ‘mainstream’ social science disciplines to tease out the theoretical contribution of IR. This is not just a question of using IR to ‘solve’ puzzles for the disciplines, for such intellectual arrogance may seem presumptuous. It is a matter of contributing to debates while also taking from the disciplines new themes from which IR can learn. Industrial relations research can look back with a degree of satisfaction, in particular, in the light of the obvious and varied challenges that it has faced. We do not need a major rethinking of our fundamental views of the subject, and indeed some of the core themes of Commons and the Webbs seem as relevant as they ever were. As noted at the start of the article, Kaufman identifies several intellectual and institutional challenges to IR. Yet, in his assessment of the Wisconsin School, he identifies in that school a broad and inclusive stance that was committed not to any particular concrete model of IR but to general principles of efficiency, equity and human well-being; he argues that such an approach can continue to inform the current agenda (Kaufman, 2003b). It is more a matter of reinvigorating the field by developing methods and theories so that we can explain the ever-changing world of work in a way that is intellectually convincing and also (indeed, hence) of relevance to policy. The challenge of showing research relevance in business schools was mentioned earlier. Yet one interesting indicator emerges from a study of journal publications in the 2001 UK Research Assessment Exercise (Geary et al., 2004: 101). This identified the 20 most frequently cited journals in Business and Management. Nine of these cover the field of work and employment; they accounted for 613 of the 1,551 publications in this group (40 per cent). They are listed below, together with the total number of citations, the mean RAE rating for the business school returning publications in © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

278

Paul Edwards

the journal3, and the number of times cited in submissions from schools with the ‘top’ 5 and 5* ratings. They include, in order of number of total submissions: Journal Total British Journal of Industrial Relations 84 Human Relations 78 International Journal of HRM 76 Organization Studies 75 Work, Employment and Society 64 Human Resource Management Journal 64 Industrial Relations Journal 60 Personnel Review 57 Organization 55

Mean 5.3 5.2 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.2 5.4

Returned by 5 and 5* departments 40 35 32 37 24 16 13 9 26

In addition, Employee Relations is just outside the top 20 journals by submission (48, 4.5, 9), with 19 submissions from New Technology, Work and Employment, 14 from the European Journal of Industrial Relations and 11 from Historical Studies in Industrial Relations. Students of the Industrial Relations Journal, in particular, can conclude that it came fourth among the targeted IR/HR journals. There are three other conclusions: there was no dominance of journals focusing on either IR or HRM; IR/HR journals feature prominently in ‘top’ submissions; and a wide range of such journals, rather than a clear elite, was represented among such submissions. The challenges of linking theory and empirical research, in particular, in international comparison, face social science as a whole. To expect IR in and of itself to resolve the relevant issues would be unrealistic. It is none the less well-placed to play its part. It is very hard, however, to say whether such an intellectual programme is itself sufficient, in a context of intense academic politics and, more importantly, changing definitions of employment relations. Acknowledgements I am particularly grateful to Keith Sisson and Paul Marginson for their advice. Thanks also to two anonymous referees, Peter Ackers, Ardha Danieli, Steve Fleetwood, John Godard, Anne-Marie Greene, Bruce Kaufman, Mari Sako and Mike Terry. The article reflects work as a senior fellow in the Advanced Institute of Management Research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. References Ackers, P. (2002), ‘Reframing Employment Relations: The Case for Neo-pluralism’, Industrial Relations Journal, 33, 2–19. Ackers, P. and A. Wilkinson (2003a), ‘Introduction’, in P. Ackers and A. Wilkinson (eds), Understanding Work and Employment (Oxford, Oxford University Press) pp. 1–27. Ackers, P. and A. Wilkinson (eds) (2003b), Understanding Work and Employment (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Ackroyd, S. and S. Fleetwood (eds) (2000), Realist Perspectives on Management and Organisations (London, Routledge). 3

A rating corresponding to the seven-point RAE rating scale. RAE rating 5* = 7.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

The challenging but promising future of IR

279

Adams, R. J. (1988), ‘Desperately Seeking Industrial Relations Theory’, International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 4, 1–10. Armstrong, P. J., J. Goodman and J. D. Hyman (1981), Ideology and Shopfloor Industrial Relations (London, Croom Helm). Bain, G. S. and H. A. Clegg (1974), ‘A Strategy for Industrial Relations Research in Great Britain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 12, 91–113. Becker, B. E., M. A. Huselid and D. Ulrich (2001), The HR Scorecard (Boston, Harvard Business School Press). Becker, H. S. (1998), Tricks of the Trade (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). Berridge, J. and J. F. B. Goodman (1988), ‘The British Universities Industrial Relations Association: The First 35 Years’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 26, 155–177. Beynon, H., D. Grimshaw, J. Rubery and K. Ward (2002), Managing Employment Change (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Blyton, P. and P. Turnbull (2004), The Dynamics of Employee Relations (Basingstoke, Palgrave). Bonazzi, G. (1998) ‘Between Shock Absorption and Continuous Improvement’, Work, Employment and Society, 12, 219–244. British Journal of Industrial Relations (BJIR) (2003), ‘Symposium on Corporate Governance’, 41, 477–582. Burrell, G. and G. Morgan (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis (London, Heinemann). Calmfors, L. and J. Driffill (1988), ‘Bargaining Structure, Corporatism and Macroeconomic Performance’, Economic Policy, 6, 13–61. CBI–TUC (2001) Submission to the Productivity Initiative. Available at http://www.tuc.org.uk/ economy/tuc-3928 Clegg, H. A. (1979), The Changing System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain (Oxford, Blackwell). Collinson, D. L. (1992), Managing the Shopfloor (Berlin, de Gruyter). Commission on the Social Sciences (2003), Great Expectations: The Social Sciences in Britain. Available at http://www.the-academy.org.uk (links via ‘Commission’). Dabscheck, B. (1989), ‘A Survey of Theories in Industrial Relations’, in J. Barbash and K. Barbash (eds), Theories and Concepts in Comparative Industrial Relations (Columbia, University of South Carolina Press) pp. 62–86. Edwards, P. (1987), ‘Does PBR Cause Strikes?’, Industrial Relations Journal, 18, 210–217. Edwards, P. (1995), ‘From Industrial Relations to the Employment Relationship’, Relations Industrielles, 50, 39–65. Edwards, P. (2003a), ‘The Employment Relationship and the Field of Industrial Relations’, in P. Edwards (ed.), Industrial Relations, 2nd edn (Oxford, Blackwell) pp. 1–36. Edwards, P. (2003b), ‘The Future of Industrial Relations’, in P. Ackers and A. Wilkinson (eds), Understanding Work and Employment (Oxford, Oxford University Press) pp. 337–358. Edwards, P. (2005), The Promising Future of Industrial Relations in the United Kingdom. Paper to 57th annual meeting (Philadelphia, Labor and Employment Relations Association). Edwards, P., J. Geary and K. Sisson (2002), ‘New Forms of Work Organization in the Workplace’, in G. Murray, J. Bélanger, A. Giles and P.-A. Lapointe (eds), Work and Employment Relations in the High-performance Workplace (London, Continuum) pp. 72–119. Emmett, I. and D. Morgan (1982), ‘Max Gluckman and the Manchester Shopfloor Ethnographies’, in R. Frankenberg (ed.), Custom and Conflict in British Society (Manchester, Manchester University Press) pp. 140–165. Felstead, A., D. Gallie and F. Green (2002), Work Skills in Britain, 1986–2000 (Nottingham, DfES Publications). Ferner, A. and J. Quintanilla (2002), ‘Between Globalization and Capitalist Variety’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 8, 243–250. Findlay, P., A. McKinlay, A. Marks and P. Thompson (2000), ‘Flexible When It Suits Them’, in S. Procter and F. Mueller (eds), Teamworking (Basingstoke, Macmillan) pp. 222–243. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

280

Paul Edwards

Fleetwood, S. (1999), ‘The Inadequacy of Mainstream Theories of Trade Union Behaviour’, Labour, 13, 445–480. Freeman, R. B. and J. L. Medoff (1984), What Do Unions Do? (New York, Basic). Frege, C. (2003), ‘Industrial Relations in Continental Europe’, in P. Ackers and A. Wilkinson (eds), Understanding Work and Employment (Oxford, Oxford University Press) pp. 242–264. Fröhlich, D. and U. Pekruhl (1996), Direct Participation and Organisational Change (Luxembourg, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities). Geary, J. F. (2003), ‘New Forms of Work Organization’, in P. Edwards (ed.), Industrial Relations, 2nd edn (Oxford, Blackwell) pp. 338–367. Geary, J. F. and T. Dobbins (2001), ‘Teamworking: A New Dynamic in a Familiar (Contested) Terrain’, Human Resource Management Journal, 11, 3–21. Geary, J., L. Marriott and M. Rowlinson (2004), ‘Journal Rankings in Business and Management and the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK’, British Journal of Management, 15, 95–141. Giles, A. (1989), ‘Industrial Relations Theory, the State and Politics’, in J. Barbash and K. Barbash (eds), Theories and Concepts in Comparative Industrial Relations (Columbia, University of South Carolina Press) pp. 126–148. Gilman, M., P. Edwards, M. Ram and J. Arrowsmith (2002), ‘Pay Determination in Small Firms in the UK’, Industrial Relations Journal, 33, 52–67. Glucksmann, M. (1990), Women Assemble (London, Routledge). Godard, J. (1993) ‘Theory and Method in Industrial Relations’, in R. J. Adams and N. M. Meltz (eds), Industrial Relations Theory (Metuchen, IMLR Press and Scarecrow) pp. 283–306. Goldthorpe, J. H. (2000), On Sociology (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Green, F. (2001), ‘It’s Been a Hard Day’s Night’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 39, 53– 80. Green, F. (2003), ‘The Demands of Work’, in R. Dickens, P. Gregg and J. Wadsworth (eds), The Labour Market Under New Labour (Basingstoke, Palgrave) pp. 128–147. Greene, A.-M. (2003), ‘Women and Industrial Relations’, in P. Ackers and A. Wilkinson (eds), Understanding Work and Employment (Oxford, Oxford University Press) pp. 305–315. Grimshaw, D. and J. Rubery (2003), ‘Economics and Industrial Relations’, in P. Ackers and A. Wilkinson (eds), Understanding Work and Employment (Oxford, Oxford University Press) pp. 43–70. Grimshaw, D., G. Whitehouse and D. Zetlin (2001), ‘Changing Pay Systems, Occupational Concentration and the Gender Pay Gap’, Industrial Relations Journal, 32, 209–229. Guest, D. (2003), The Employment Relationship and the Future of Employment Relations. Shirley Lerner Memorial Lecture, Manchester, May. Harley, B. (2001), ‘Team Membership and the Experience of Work in Britain’, Work, Employment and Society, 15, 721–742. Heery, E. and J. Salmon (eds) (2000), The Insecure Workforce (London, Routledge). Helper, S. (2000), ‘Economists and Field Research’, American Economic Review, 90 (Papers and Proceedings), 228–232. Hyman, R. (1987), ‘Strategy or Structure’, Work, Employment and Society, 1, 25–56. Kaufman, B. E. (2003a), ‘Industrial Relations in North America’, in P. Ackers and A. Wilkinson (eds), Understanding Work and Employment (Oxford, Oxford University Press) pp. 195– 226. Kaufman, B. E. (2003b), ‘John R. Commons and the Wisconsin School on Industrial Relations Strategy and Policy’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57, 3–30. Kaufman, B. E. (2004a), The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations (Geneva, International Labour Office). Kaufman, B. E. (2004b), ‘Employment Relations and the Employment Relations System’, in B. E. Kaufman (ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship (Urbana-Champaign, Industrial Relations Research Association) pp. 41–76. Kelly, J. (1998), Rethinking Industrial Relations (London, Routledge). © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

The challenging but promising future of IR

281

Kessler, I. and J. Purcell (2003), ‘Individualism and Collectivism in Industrial Relations’, in P. Edwards (ed.), Industrial Relations, 2nd edn (Oxford, Blackwell) pp. 313–337. Kochan, T. (1998), ‘What is Distinctive about Industrial Relations Research?’, in K. Whitfield and G. Strauss (eds), Researching the World of Work (Ithaca, ILR Press) pp. 35–52. Kochan, T., R. Lansbury and J. P. MacDuffie (eds) (1997), After Lean Production (Ithaca, ILR Press). Korczynski, M. (2002), Human Resource Management in Service Work (Basingstoke, Palgrave). Larouche, V. and M. Audet (1993), ‘Theorizing Industrial Relations’, in R. J. Adams and N. M. Meltz (eds), Industrial Relations Theory (Metuchen, IMLR Press and Scarecrow) pp. 255–282. Locke, R. M. and K. Thelen (1995), ‘Apples and Oranges Revisited’, Politics and Society, 23, 337–367. Marchington, M., A. Wilkinson, P. Ackers and J. Goodman (1994), ‘Understanding the Meaning of Participation’, Human Relations, 47, 867–894. Metcalf, D. (2002), ‘The NMW: Coverage, Impact and Future’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64, 567–583. Mingers, J. (2000), ‘The Contribution of Critical Realism as an Underpinning Philosophy for OR/MS and Systems’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 1256–1270. Morgan, K. and A. Sayer (1988), Microcircuits of Capital (Cambridge, Polity). Nolan, P. (2003), ‘The Future of Work Programme’. Plenary Paper. British Universities Industrial Relations Association annual conference, University of Leeds. Nolan, P. and S. Wood (2003), ‘Mapping the Future of Work’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41, 165–174. O’Mahoney, J. K. (2000), Changing Minds: Subjectivity, Trust and Change in British Manufacturing. PhD Thesis, University of Warwick. Ogbonna, E. and B. Wilkinson (2003), ‘The False Promise of Organizational Culture Change’, Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1151–1178. Ortiz, L. (1998), ‘Union Response to Teamwork: The Case of Opel Spain’, Industrial Relations Journal, 29, 42–57. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics (2002), ‘Special Issue on the National Minimum Wage’, 64 (Suppl.), 565–725. Peck, J. (1996), Work-Place (New York, Guilford). Pollert, A. (1996), ‘Gender and Class Revisited’, Sociology, 30, 639–659. Purcell, J. (1983), ‘The Management of Industrial Relations in Modern Corporations’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 1–16. Ragin, C. (1987), The Comparative Method (Berkeley, University of California Press). Ram, M. and P. Edwards (2003), ‘Praising Caesar not Burying Him: What We Know About Employment Relations in Small Firms’, Work, Employment and Society, 17, 719–730. Roscigno, V. J. and R. Hodson (2004), ‘The Organizational and Social Foundations of Worker Resistance’, American Sociological Review, 69, 14–39. Rubery, J. (1994), ‘The British Production Regime’, Economy and Society, 23, 335–354. Rubery, J. (1997), ‘Wages and the Labour Market’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 35, 337–362. Sayer, A. (1992), Method in Social Science, 2nd edn (London, Routledge). Sayer, A. (2000), Realism and Social Science (London, Sage). Sisson, K., J. Arrowsmith and P. Marginson (2003), ‘All Benchmarkers Now?’, Industrial Relations Journal, 34, 15–31. Soskice, D. (1990), ‘Reinterpreting Corporatism and Explaining Unemployment’, in R. Brunetta and C. Dell’Aringa (eds), Labour Relations and Economic Performance (London, Macmillan) pp. 170–214. Thompson, P. (2003), ‘Disconnected Capitalism’, Work, Employment and Society, 17, 359–378. Thompson, P. and T. Wallace (1996), ‘Redesigning Production Through Teamwork’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16, 103–118. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.

282

Paul Edwards

Towers, B. (2003) ‘Dons, Dockers and Miners Alike: Industrial Relations and the IRJ, 1970– 2002’, Industrial Relations Journal, 34, 4–14. Traxler, F. (2003), ‘Co-ordinated Bargaining: A Stocktaking of its Preconditions, Practices and Performance’, Industrial Relations Journal, 34, 194–209. Traxler, F., S. Blaschke and B. Kittel (2001), National Labour Relations in Internationalized Markets (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Turner, H. A., G. Clack and G. Roberts (1967), Labour Relations in the Motor Industry (London, Allen & Unwin). Wajcman, J. (2000), ‘Feminism Facing Industrial Relations in Britain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, 183–202. Western, B. (1997), Between Class and Market (Princeton, Princeton University Press). Westwood, S. (1993), All Day, Every Day (London, Pluto). Whitfield, K. and G. Strauss (1998), ‘Retrospect and Prospect’, in K. Whitfield and G. Strauss (eds), Researching the World of Work (Ithaca, ILR Press) pp. 292–315. Whitfield, K. and G. Strauss (2000), ‘Methods Matter’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, 141–152. Wilkinson, A., G. Godfrey and M. Marchington (1997), ‘Bouquets, Brickbats and Blinkers’, Organization Studies, 18, 799–820. Winchester, D. (1983), ‘Industrial Relations Research in Britain’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 100–114.

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005.