University of Wollongong Thesis Collections University of Wollongong Thesis Collection
University of Wollongong Year
Academic industrial relations in Australia: an historial overview Diana Kelly University of Wollongong
Kelly, Diana, Academic industrial relations in Australia: an historial overview, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Department of Economics - Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong, 1999. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/1308
This paper is posted at Research Online.
UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
ISiew South Wales AUSTRALIA
Academic Industrial Relations in Australia: An Historical Overview
A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by
Diana Kelly
1999 DECLARATION
I, Diana Kelly, certify that this thesis has not been submitted previously as part of the requirements of another degree and that it is the product of my own independent research.
Signed:.
Diana Kelly 1999 CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Abstract uu Introduction The Determinants of the Direction and Impact of Academic Industrial Relations Thought in Australia: A Map 1
Chapter 1 Approaches to Disciplinary History 18
Chapter 2 Of Methods and Interdisciplinarity 61
Chapter 3 Industrial Relations in Australia: the Role of the Precursors 102
Chapter 4 The Introduction of Teaching Programmes: a Toehold for the Emergent Discipline 126
Chapter 5 The Transfer of Ideas in Industrial Relations: Dunlop and Donovan in the Development of Australian Industrial Relations Thought: 1960-1985 171
Chapter 6 Estabhshing the Mainstream: Late 1970s to Mid-1980s 208
Chapter 7 Academic Industrial Relations 1978 to 1989: Outwards from the Mainstream 280
Chapter 8 The Hayekian Shock of HRM? 321
Conclusion 371
Bibliography 386 DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to Eileen Kelly and the late Bern Hosie, clever women constrained by the Hmits of their time, who nevertheless rose to their particular brilhance and who always supported women's scholarly endeavours. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis has taken a long time, and there are many to whom I owe a great debt. The first is Professor Rob Castle. Other thesis candidates supervised by Rob assert his unrelenting or relentless support, his commitment to good scholarship, and his capacity to integrate ideas from several areas of study. I can only concur. Rob has a way of gently conve5dng what is rubbish and what can be revised, that is peerless. I add my particular appreciation for his insistence that thesis could be done, even when it looked frankly impossible. A disciplinary history of a young discipline depends unfairly on the memories, advice and expertise of colleagues. In general, aU of the academic industrial relations community in Austraha have, wittingly and unwittingly, been wonderful. If the future of industrial relations depended on their combined wisdom it would be safe indeed. Interviews with colleagues who have extraordinarily busy lives provided insights of real and hidden agenda. In particular I was grateful for interviews with Greg Bamber; Ron Callus, Braham Dabscheck, Stephen Deery, Bill Ford; Gerry Griffin, June Hearn; Keith Hancock, Kevin Hince; Bill Howard; Joe Isaac; Russell Lansbury; Chris Leggett, Ross Martin, John Niland; David Plowman; the late Don Rawson, Malcolm Rimmer; John Saw; Tom Sheridan and Elsa Underbill, many of whom were extremely reassuring in other ways as well. Interviews with John T. Dunlop (Harvard University), Peter Fairbrother; (University of Cardiff), Richard Hyman (Warwick University) and John Godard (University of Manitoba) were also greatly appreciated for the insights and interpretations from outstanding international scholars.
Special thanks also to Mark Bray, Jim Falk, Ray Fells, Tom Keenoy, Ray Markey, Chris Nyland, Tom Parry, Malcolm Rimmer, and Peter Sheldon all of whom gave just the right advice when it was most needed, as well as to Dudley Jackson and Don Lewis and feUow members of the Department of Economics, University Of Wollongong. I was extremely reliant upon, and appreciative of, the support from Elaine Cozens, Mary Dickenson, Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormick, Ann Hodgkinson, Juli Irving- Lessman, Suzanne Jamieson, Trish Todd and especially, Marion Baird, Elsa Underbill, Robin Hosie; Josie Castle, Sue Rowley - all feUow women scholars whose warm encouragement was only exceeded by their wise counsel. I was most grateful for material andyor encouragingment given by Doug Blackmur, Kyle Bruce, Cliff Donn, lohn Glynn, Sir Richard Kirby, Robin Kramar, Richard Morris, Charles Mulvey, Terri Mylett, Gill Palmer, Mark Rix, Glenda Strachan, and Paul Sutcliffe, and especially Greg Patmore who offered the Laffer Papers, and much good advice as well.
The E-team is the best academic support group around. Rob Hood, Julie Chin, Nadyne Smith, Wolfgang Brodessor and especially Sophie B. Abercrombie in the Department of Economics ensured ever5i;hing worked according to their professional expertise, as well as being extraordinarily kindly. The Microlabs staff, notably, Cathy Nicastri, Louie Athanasiadis and Diniz Rocha were also expert, kindly and ungrudging. Susan Jones, Faculty Librarian, and the Inter-Hbrary Loan staff especially Raji, Frances, Sham and Nina at the Michael Birt Library maintained a continuous flow of seemingly obscure material with ungrudging professional excellence. Other important support came from the late Reg Hosie, Sharon Macarthur, Lois Hogg and Alwynne Farrow.
All of my sibhngs offered warm reassurance, but special thanks to Peter Brook, Kip Brook and Phil Hosie for their encouragement, trust and solidarity, and Robin Hosie who also provided her sagacity and determination.
Obviously the most supportive of all in a project like this were my immediate family - Cate, Lucy and Michael who went so long without milk and cookies, they outgrew their need for them, but more importantly they listened, sustained and believed in me. They know how very much I appreciated and depended on them as I did on Geoff Kelly whose patience and insistence that this must be done were utterly essential to the completion of the project.
Finally my thankfulness goes to Eileen Kelly and the late Bern Hosie, clever women constrained by the hmits of their time, who nevertheless rose to a particular brilliance, who always supported women scholars, and to whom this thesis is dedicated.
Di KeUy Department of Economics, University of Wollongong December, 1999
VI ABSTRACT
This history of academic industrial relations in Austraha from the 1950s to the 1990s examines the ways in which assumptions, methods, and objects of analysis have been shaped by ideas and events external to the field of study. As an uncertain interdiscipUnary field, Australian academic industrial relations was as open to influences from changes in social and pohtical norms, pubhc policy and the changing imperatives of higher education, as it was to the ideas of scholars in the USA and UK, and those from nearby older disciplines. Within academic industrial relations, the tensions arising from dealing with these often competing influences were exacerbated by the rival models of unidisciplinarity and multidiscipUnarity for the study of industrial relations. Moreover, the very notions of what constituted academic industrial relations were constantly under question, right through to the 1990s when the managerialist HRM approaches to the study of work and employment appeared to threaten the existence of industrial relations as a field of study. This historical overview traces and analyses all of these influences, and the ways they interacted with each other in shaping the field of study. All of these patterns of influence emphasise the importance of taking account of environmental influences and the transmission of ideas in a disciplinary history.
vu INTRODUCTION
THE DETERMINANTS OF THE DIRECTION AND IMPACT OF ACADEMIC INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS THOUGHT IN AUSTRALIA: A MAP
Industrial relations as an academic discipline in Australia has had a remarkably short life of less than half a century, even though the practice of industrial relations is as old as the employment relationship. Given the long-felt concerns of business and government with optimising costs, conditions and output from work and the employment relationship, the brevity of industrial relations as an area of intellectual study appears at first surprising. Just as curious has been the pattern of development of academic industrial relations, where industrial relations academics have trodden an uneasy line between policy orientation and the (mostly unwritten) rules of academic rigour. Yet there have been no histories of academic industrial relations in Australia, and it is the objective of this work to offer an historical analysis of the field of study. Like all histories, such a project will depend not only on the material available and chosen, but with epistemic and methodological choices of the researcher.
Any work which purports to be a disciplinary history is a history of the transmission of ideas. This is because, as coherent bodies of ideas, disciplines cannot be static. This is particularly the case in the late twentieth century, when the social sciences have been subject to continuing pressures for changes in emphasis, direction, or even more fundamental structural shifts. The capacity and nature of shifts in a discipline will depend on the discipline and its scholars, but fundamental to investigating a discipline's history is the notion of dynamism.
An allied issue is that the disciplinary historian must choose a form of investigation that is most appropriate to the discipline and to the objectives of the study. Given the brevity of its history and its interdisciplinary elements, an exploration of academic industrial relations study needs to take account of the influences on the emergent discipline. By so doing the history of the ideas is not only contextuahsed, but the patterns of transmission of ideas can be identified. This externalist sociological approach contrasts with an internal disciplinary history of ideas, such as that in much history of economic thought. In the latter case, interpretative analysis focuses on the assumptions and theories of scholars, but with little place given to the social, political and economic contexts. Such an approach is useful where the focus of attention is high theory, but is less useful for understanding the development of the discipline as a whole. Such concerns have been evident in the philosophy of science literature in recent years, when traditional notions of objectivity have come under close scrutiny. In these analyses, questions have been asked which relate to the social location of scientists and the possibility of detachment. The notion that scientists are products of their environment and continue to practise their science amidst personal, political and social locations has tended to lessen the importance of internal disciplinary histories.
For an emergent discipline, an 'externalist' approach is more useful for two reasons. First, as has been found in the history and philosophy of science literature, scientific development occurs in society. If that is the case, the scientists in the new disciphne are products of their educational training, and their research will be constrained or enhanced by that training. Secondly, the emergent disciphne is rather more open and dependent on external influences, from the other disciphnes from which it is emerging. This especially the case if it is a science which is perceived by universities, funding bodies or the community to have links with pubhc policy. Precisely because its place in the academic sun is initially tenuous, these external stimuli will be important.
There are two broad issues which need to be taken into account with the externalist approach. These are causality and the choices made in identifying the influences. The notion of causality is a vexed one. If assumptions are made about XX influencing YY, then what is being said in effect is that there is a causal relationship between XX and YY. However, in an historical examination, the possibility of identifying causahty with any surety is problematic. This is because dependence is placed on two primary sources, memory and the interpretation of scholarly work. Yet the influences on research are frequently invisible or unacknowledged, perhaps because they are seen as unquestioned assumptions or the influence may not even be recognised by the scholar. (Fox, 1974, pp.274-86//) There is no "solution' to this problem except as discussed in Chapter Two, making use of the historian's approach of identifying enabling conditions for conceptual, theoretical or methodological developments. Whether contingent or causal, there are many factors which may influence a body of thought, not only because a discipline is an abstract concept, but also because it is defined and practised by many individual scholars. Matters which affect scholarship and teaching may therefore include the issues, research or actions of others in the intellectual, political or academic environment, the nature and availability of funding, the degree of professionahsation of the disciphne, sources of publication, and the culture of the academic community itself. The great breadth of possible influences or enabling conditions raises the second major issue related to an externalist approach which is related to the choice of subject matter. Even fifty ye£irs of scholarship covers a huge area of research and teaching and identifying the most sahent aspects is necessarily subjective - the point is to enhance investigation without predetermining the outcomes of the research.
In this respect the use of a problematic, a big question, offers the best potential for thorough and rigorous investigation. In this model the researcher takes a 'problematic', as Guille calls it, which is "a single overriding question of such magnitude that the others [asked in the study] are subsidiary to it." In a disciplinary history which takes an externalist approach, a major question of this kind needs to examine the developments in the discipline in light of the environmental influences. The thesis addresses these concerns by asking the question:
What have been the determinants of the direction and impact of academic industrial relations thought in Austraha?
The question, when answered, illuminates the way the disciphne has developed and allows evaluation of the particular contextual factors which have enhanced, constrained or redirected assumptions or other intellectual concerns in a particular way. By use of the problematic the focus is on Australian academic industrial relations, within the various contexts within which scholars operate. Given the wide array of priorities, assumptions and methods used in an interdisciplinary subject such as industrial relations, further narrowing is nevertheless required. Which areas should be studied? What of the inter-university differences in teaching or research? How can we know whether a particular technique came from economics or psychology or sociology? And given the nature of Austrahan intellectual cringe, is it possible to identify and evaluate the influence of ideas from industrial relations scholars in other countries, especially Anglophone nations? These are the sub-questions of the problematic which provide a series of underlying themes to this project. Nevertheless the research demands in such an investigation are complex.
In this respect the historian is both aided and impeded by the very nature of disciplinary development which is neither unilinear, nor necessarily 'progressive'. Nor is there a single "product" of disciplinary development - research may take various forms, and outcomes may range from subject handouts to textbook chapters to research articles and books which vary in prestige and quality. Rather, disciplinary development, especially in 'rural' disciplines, occurs in a series of attempts or counter-attempts to explain or analyse complex events, sometimes seemingly without direction. Yet there are themes which become evident as the researcher explores the territory guided by the problematic. That there are evident themes allows for research over time on particular ideas, in a way that would be gratuitous ff development were unilinear. On the other hand the crazy paving of disciplinary expansion makes a straight chronological examination very difficult. There are epochs in a discipline which have particular characteristics, while others offer little that is particularly useful for the historian. In other words, even within a quite specific problematic, the historian will choose themes or processes which are nevertheless within some sort of linear framework.
Before outlining the chapters in this project, there is one further element of choice open to the historian which needs brief explanation and justification. In some disciplinary histories, most, or even all, attention is given to the stars, the most prominent scholars whose influence on particular aspects of the discipline is widely acknowledged. However, this approach has some hmitations. This is because in coming to a broad understanding of a discipline and the influences upon it, account needs to be taken of aU aspects of the discipline. To note only the stars can be likened to undertaking a geographical survey from a plane at night. The leading hghts are surely evident but they give little hint of the landforms or lesser lights. As the leading historian of sociological methods, Jennifer Piatt has noted
the ephemeral and second rate is by whatever evaluative criteria, a high proportion of the total work done. ... the historian should be interested in this work too. To focus only on what is seen as important is more appropriate to exemplary ancestors ....(Piatt, 1996)
Thus it is not only that even a mediocre piece of research or teaching programme may highlight an important innovation or intellectual insight, but also a claim to explore the discipline as a whole must do just that - take the problematic to all aspects of the discipline. Moreover, there is httle doubt that barring a very few exceptions, Australian academic industrial relations has been a sufficiently wide open field that there have been few widely acknowledged stars.
Even with the noted caveats and constraints, the potential areas of coverage are immense, so that this disciplinary history will cover only some aspects of academic industrial relations in Australia. The nature of professionahsation of industrial relations and the useful role of the Industrial Relations Society are two important aspects where practice and study meet but which have not been investigated. Such research is left to a later time. Rather, what has been attempted has been a thematic and semi-chronological investigation of the estabUshment of industrial relations as an academic disciphne in Australia, with close attention paid to what has affected or influenced individuals, choices and events.
The next chapter (Chapter One) has the combined objective of exploring more fully the notion of disciplines and the bases, objectives, and possibilities of disciplinary histories. The ideas from these are then related to the conceptualisations of industrial relations as an academic study. There are some difficulties with defining industrial relations since the popular notion in Australia has been limited to the formal institutional practices of trade unions, employer associations and the quasi-legal conciliation and arbitration system. By contrast, the academic study has varied over time but has always been rather broader than the popular conceptions of the public system.
Having defined the terms and the literature relating to disciphne, and disciplinary histories with specific reference to industrial relations, it is then necessary to examine possible ways of investigating the history of Austrahan industrial relations, which requires a foray into theories and questions of knowledge acquisition.
Thus in order to clarify the substance, influences and changing nature of Australian academic industrial relations between the 1950s and 1990s, Chapter Two examines the epistemological and methodological bases for the ways in which knowledge is acquired and transferred within and between disciplines, and between a discipline and its environment. This is necessary for two reasons. The first is to understand the nature of research methods and knowledge production in disciplines such as industrial relations which draw on the methods and modes of inquiry in several disciplines. The second is to explore the means for interpreting industrial relations scholarship in order to achieve best understanding of the writings of exponents of industrial relations.
Having investigated the core concepts and broad epistemological and methodological elements which are germane to this disciplinary history, Chapter Three examines the precursors to the academic study of industrial relations in Australia. The forerunners of a discipline provide insights into the nature and direction once it begins to develop its own characteristics. The first scholars relevant to Australian academic industrial relations were in Britain and USA, such as Commons (1919, 1921, 1931, and Commons et al., 1921) and the Webbs (1898, 1902; see also Beilharz and Nyland, 1998) Their acknowledged contribution is perhaps greater than the real contribution - many citations are not from the original sources. Nevertheless scholars such as these are perceived as exemplary intellectual progenitors and even just in this role their influence is significant for the normative goals of many of the discipline's exponents. In contrast to the interdisciplinarity of the Webbs and Commons, the precursors of Australian industrial relations scholarship lie in highly specific disciplines such as law, economics, industrial psychology, and labour studies. The objective of this chapter, then, is to examine early examples dealing with work and employment from these disciplines in order to identify what were to coalesce eventually into industrial relations. In addition the chapter attempts to clarify how the control and administration of the employment relationship was perceived from various disciplinary perspectives, and to explain the implications such perspectives had for the first two decades of tertiary programmes in industrial relations. Those first two decades of teaching at universities from the mid-1950s to the early 1970s are the subject of Chapter Four. Frequently disciphnary histories omit discussion of teaching, yet as leading USA scholar, Arthur Ross has noted
Even in those institutions with more elaborate industrial relations programs, most students only take the basic course. The image of the field is created by that course and their decision to take further work or leave the field is based on their reaction to it. Thus the basic course has a selective effect on the type of student who decides to take additional work or major in the field (Ross, 1964, 3).
Thus while the import and impact of professionahsation are not examined in this thesis, the nature of teaching for what were probably potential vocational and professional careers is of great importance for understanding the scholarly aspects of the discipline. The pioneer academics at Sydney, UNSW, Melbourne and UWA held a range of views of what constituted industrial relations, ranging from the institutional economists whose focus was the determination of wages and conditions to those who perceived the study rather more broadly in terms of the control and administration of the employment relationship, although they did not use such a definition. Of these scholars, the most notable was Kingsley Laffer, founding editor of the Journal of Industrial Relations. (Dufty, 1976b) An economist by training, Laffer was deeply committed to Industrial Relations as an interdisciphnary field, where the roles and imperatives of management were important as the institutional imperatives. The development of industrial relations at the University of Sydney is the subject of a case study within this chapter. This is done, in part because of the central importance of Laffer for Industrial Relations scholarship, but also because, quite unlike other scholars, Laffer left a large amount of documentation, including formal and draft letters, subject handouts and briefing notes. While by no means complete, the Laffer Papers constitute a wellspring for investigation into the history of and influences on scholarly industrial relations in Australia. (See Note on Primary Sources at end of the bibliography)
In the Laffer papers, for example, are documents which provide evidence of Laffer's search for an integrating core to industrial relations research and teaching, while at the same time incorporating a great number of variables. This approach, however, was slightly at odds with others, such as Isaac and later Niland, who took a more economic approach, albeit drawing on different schools of economics. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the number of scholars who assumed Industrial Relations as a primary field of study grew, but generally within economics departments. The location in economics tended to direct scholarship towards the academic norms of economists. At the same time the influence of both British and American academic industrial relations scholarship increased. For different reasons and despite vastly different public industrial relations systems, much of the scholarship of both of these countries tended towards the institutional and away from the more holistic approaches favoured by Laffer.
Having identified the shifts that occurred in industrial relations teaching between the 1950s and 1970s, Chapter Five explores the reasons for the shift through an examination of the scholarship and textbooks from the 1950s to the 1980s. By contrast with the previous chapter which paid most attention to the impact of Australian universities and the influences of the Australian political, social and economic environments of the postwar decades. Chapter Five examines and analyses the impact of international Anglophone scholarship on the study of Australian industrial relations. Most attention is
10 paid to US and British scholarship, and in particular to the impact of Dunlop's systems framework and the Oxford-Donovan mode of research. These two schools of thought have long been beacons in IR scholarship, even if for many they acted as lighthouses, illuminating areas to be avoided rather than attracting closer focus. The nature of the debates, and the uses and misuses of British and US scholarship highlight important elements in the transfer of ideas within disciphnes. The chapter makes use of both scholarly articles and textbooks, because these combine to give an holistic picture of the discipline.
One outcome of Chapter Five is that it reveals the beginnings of a predominant school or mainstream by the 1970s. The mainstream is not separate from the output of the community of scholars, but it can act as a discrete institution. The mainstream comprises the methods and topics which have been sanctioned as central to the expression and practice of research and writing within that discipline. The mainstream is important from the early stages of development, because the mainstream is what marks the emergent discipline off as separate from its parent disciphne(s).
Between the mid-1970s and the end of the 1980s, as is shown in Chapter Six a particular intellectual model developed which impelled the direction of research and teaching inwards to the mainstream, and which integrated the study of the public institutions of job regulation from the perspective of the labour problem. Such attributes are evident not only in the texts and teaching, but also in the great majority of articles published in the Journal of Industrial Relations, the primary journal of the disciphne in Austraha."" A
^ Two other good journals, the Australian Bulletin of Labour and Work and People (formerly Personnel Practice Bulletin), provided publication points for industrial relations scholars, but the former put heavy emphasis on labour market factors, to the exclusion of others, while the latter while useful for case studies, especially in industrial democracy, employee participation and technological change, was heavily oriented toward practical needs and solutions. 11 content analysis of journal articles, by title and abstract, demonstrates clearly that the most common objects of analysis were strikes, unions, collective bargaining versus arbitration, industrial democracy and wages. Articles in the first four categories are examined in order to identify and clarify their shared intellectual and social values.^ The ways in which these topics could be attributed to the role of the editor, the significance of pubhc policy issues or the influence of international scholarship demonstrates the interrelationship between these factors. All of these aspects, together with the rapid growth of industrial relations students and the reinforcing characteristics of the texts, contributed to the growth of the academic community which in turn augmented the strength of the mainstream. In some respects, the academic mainstream focus on the formal pubhc industrial relations systems gave an intellectual legitimacy to the system, while, at the same time giving the academics an appearance of attaining public policy relevance. Nevertheless, once again attesting to the imperative to take account of the dynamic nature of the flow of ideas, the 'mainstream' was not static. In the 1980s, some scholars of the mainstream began to shift their focus, as business values began to dominate, on the one hand, and on the other hand, academics began to explore issues well away from the mainstream or to question the unquestioned structures and interactions in employment. In Chapter Six, the new aggressive approach of business in the 1980s, and the insistence of the New Right on the centrality of managerial prerogatives are also examined in order to understand better the relationship between public relevance and scholarly imperatives. It appears
^ Wage determination is also a very important area of study. While it is, and was a significant area of academic industrial relations, it is also closely bound up in labour economics and economic poHcy. Thus it was neither an area solely nor particularly under study in industrial relations. Moreover, the objective of this section is to identify what characterised mainstream industrial relations. Such an analysis can be undertaken without recourse to the most intersecting aspect of study. 12 that the flow of mainstream scholarship, where acceptance of the labour problem was intrinsic, facilitated a shift from a 'pluralist' perspective of the labour problem to one which still accepted the labour problem but rejected multiple sets of rights in the employment relationship.
Yet as Chapter Seven reveals, a shift to the 'right' or to increasing pohcy relevance is not inevitable, nor are the forces on a disciphne all necessarily centripetal. The mainstream can also provide outward looking scholars with an anchor, from which they can explore methods, theories or topics but still remain part of the recognised field. Thus a mainstream may be a constraint for some and a point of take-off for others. (Dogan and Pahre, 1990) As a counterbalance to the shift to the right of some industrial relations scholarship, there were also centrifugal forces which directed scholars away from the mainstream objects of analysis and the mainstream assumptions about labour, capital and managerial and state prerogatives. These forces were not new, but rather appear to have been submerged under the institutional mainstream. It is therefore important to examine the substance, intellectual bases and effects of the heterodox undercurrents, in particular the older leftist or left "radical" traditions in both British and American scholarship. Within these traditions, the work of analysts like Braverman, (1974) Hyman, (1972) and Fox (1974) were influential on teaching, and evidently to a lesser extent, on research in the 1980s The role of those quite different coagulations in redirecting the attention and assumptions of mainstream scholars is explored in hght of other important aspects of Australian academic industrial relations.
Chapter Seven thus investigates the ways in which the growing scholarly community sought to broaden their understanding of employment issues and the factors affecting work and employment. It covers the same time period
13
3 0009 03254134 9 as Chapter Six, but examines the factors which broadened academic industrial relations. ^ Like Gaul, Chapter Seven has three parts. Firstly it examines the elements of texts and teaching which directed attention away from the industrial relations institutions and the positivist approaches of the mainstream. Secondly, there is a brief survey of the 'left' scholarship, an investigation of its sources, and its impact on research and teaching within the mainstream, and as a distinct subfield. In so doing questions are asked about whether the small left scholarship constituted a recognised heterodoxy, because subsumed in notions of heterodoxy is the acceptance of the orthodoxy as dominant within the discipline. Thus identifying what is 'orthodox' and what, if anything, is heterodox is important in coming to an understanding of the nature and direction of mainstream scholarship. The third, but related section of Chapter Seven explores the forerunners, formation and expansion of the academic association. The academics who teach and research in a discipline also comprise a social and intellectual community, but it is only when a field of study has achieved sufficient separateness that the community of scholars begins to seek internal structures which might provide intellectual support and opportunities for interaction. While the Association of Academic Industrial Relations of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ) was only formed in 1983, it grew quickly and offered a new forum and new outlets for scholars. As with any scholarly community, there were both shared and dissident norms and values within the disciplinary society, which in turn engendered tensions and defences. In so doing an academic association can enhance both the centrifugal or the centripetal forces on the intellectual domain.
^ There may be a case for asserting these ideas constituted a re-broadening, since at least some of the efforts of teachers reflected the broad notion of industrial relations, as Laffer first taught it. See Chapter Four 14 As the previous chapters have shown, the emergence and development of an academic discipline is neither hnear nor inevitable, nor are its direction, assumptions or intellectual priorities predictable. Yet by the latter 1980s, forty years after it was first taught in universities, industrial relations was a recognised undergraduate and postgraduate specialisation across Austraha at most old universities and at many of the former Colleges of Advanced Education (CAEs) as well. To a fair degree there was consensus over the subject matter, which by contrast to the 1950s and 1960s, tended toward an institutional focus with most interest in trade unions, employer associations, and the State and its agencies, such as the conciliation and arbitration tribunals. It was not that management was overtly excluded, but rather the institutions were deemed more important for investigating the interactions and processes of rulemaking over work, conditions and wages.
By the last years of the 1980s, the debates were over policies and practices relating to these latter issues and there was a fair degree of acceptance of the mainstream, even by those who stood outside it. It was an object- oriented discipline, in that investigation focused on particular objects of analysis, with scholars continuing to draw on methods and techniques from many disciplines. The manifold changes to work and employment gave these object oriented scholars many opportunities for broadening their research and teaching well beyond the narrower confines of the mainstream. The absence of an overarching theory was a continuing source of self doubt, yet relative to earlier years, there was by the end of the 1980s, a fair degree of self-assuredness that industrial relations had proven itself to be a legitimate and rigorous discipline with its own 'territory'.
However, such self-assuredness was premature, and the basis for this prematurity, the invasion of human resource management (HRM) forms the
15 subject of the last chapter, Chapter Eight. Given the continuing importance of context for industrial relations academics, the chapter begins with a brief survey of the social, political and academic environment in the first half of the 1990s, which reveals the continuing shift to business values in place of moral or egalitarian ideals. Such a shift had been rather more evident in the UK and USA and had its clearest expression for industrial relations analysts in the development of human resource management (HRM). The success of radical conservative governments in Britain and the USA in the 1980s legitimated both individualism and business values. These were seemingly reinforced by increasing volatility in markets and instabihty in business, which became evident, for example in the rush to workforce reductions and the growth of non-permanent employment. This environment provided ideal conditions for a resurgence of the human relations management rhetoric, repackaged as human resource management (HRM). As Storey, (1989), Blyton and Turnbull (1992), Kaufman (1993), and others (see also Keenoy, 1992; Keenoy and Anthony 1992) have shown, this led to an extraordinarily rapid incorporation of the language of HRM and the use of new models of employment. However, given the embeddedness of the institutions in Australia and the activities of the corporatist Labor government in the 1980s, it was perhaps not surprising that the institutional focus of industrial relations analysts continued to grow during the 1980s. Yet, because of the links with the USA and UK scholars, and the high level of influence of publications from overseas, there was an awareness that the defences were likely to come under attack. But, in the main these issues were rarely debated in the 1980s as industrial relations scholars kept their eye on the Australian scene which was undergoing major structural and attitudinal changes. The 1990 AIRAANZ therefore provides a noticeable break in the interests and concerns of the Australian scholars when several papers in
16 particular dealt with HRM vis a vis industrial relations. The sessions for these papers were packed, and the debates were heated. HRM indeed appeared to come as an Hayekian shock to the industrial relations scholars. That is, it appeared to many industrial relations academics that the HRM school sought to assail academic industrial relations, impugning the relevance and insistent complexity of scholarly industrial relations. The responses of industrial relations academics to HRM over the rest of the decade are then evaluated. Particular attention is given to the ways in which the scholars in the UK and USA responded to the rapid growth of the study of HRM in those countries. Chapter Eight concludes with a brief consideration of the prospects of the discipline, which appear gloomy but not utterly hopeless.
A history of an uncertain social science in the latter half of the twentieth century is a history of shifting ideas. It begins with the question of what has influenced the nature and direction of scholarship and teaching. Of these the external factors were immensely important, not least because industrial relations originated from a need for scholars from unidisciplinary traditions to understand the complex influences on an area of broad and fundamental concerns. Moreover, a great number of environmental and intellectual changes occurred between the first lone subjects offered in tertiary institutions in the 1950s and the battles for survival of the recently confident discipline by the mid-1990s. The objective of this thesis is thus to identify and assess the most important of these influences from outside the discipline and from within, and the ways these have interacted to provide what has been a most open and receptive field of study.
17 CHAPTER 1 APPROACHES TO A DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
Introduction
Without a knowledge of History, individuals have only their limited experiences as the basis for thought and action. (Wren, 1987, 4)
Experience has taught me that the history of various forms of rationality is sometimes more effective in unsetthng our certitudes and dogmatism than is abstract criticism, (Foucault, 1988)
History is a mode of searching for explanations about aspects of human behaviour. A disciplinary history looks to the forgotten and remembered antecedents of current ideas and imperatives, in order to understand aspects of the discipline. This may be for a variety of reasons. It is useful to understand some of these reasons since they provide an understanding of the social construction of historical explanation, and provide suggestions of the strengths and pitfalls of disciplinary history. But to undertake a history of any group or organisation, or a body of ideas, also demands an understanding of precisely what it is that will be investigated historically. The second part of this chapter, therefore, deals with the general issues and problems of defining the thought and parameters of any disciphne. It is only once these general issues are dealt with, that the peculiar and specific matters of historiography of a particular discipline, such as industrial relations, can be begin to be confronted, and this is the third section of this chapter. The next chapter will evaluate aspects of epistemology and methodology, including the nature of interdisciphnarity, a fundamental
18 issue in any disciphnary history, but especially in an area such as industrial relations which crosses disciphnary boundaries.
The use of disciplinary history
At its simplest, the value of a disciphnary history lies in understanding the origins, development or precursors of a discipline. As such an historical analysis can provide a simple narrative, or it may be undertaken for a variety of other reasons. Some disciplinary histories are undertaken as history by those trained in historical analysis, while a majority are undertaken by 'amateurs', by experts in a particular disciphne, who are not historians, but who seek to record and convey aspects of their discipline. For the latter, histories can be a construction of the past in order to emphasise particular qualities or methods. They tend to be deductivist in their approach, insofar as they begin with an h5TJothesis about the progress of the discipline, which then informs the processes of investigation and analysis. (Lepenies and Weingart, 1983) Other disciphnary histories draw on a mix of the historical method (see Chapter Two) and a deductivist (theory-testing approach, insofar as they begin with a task beyond an inductivist problematic. These will tend to investigate particular intellectual schools of thought or disciplines in order to legitimate the school of thought or particular approach. (see e.g. Ash, 1983). As one paradigm gains ascendancy, its proponents may provide a history of that discipline which shows that the paradigm is the logical and best outcome of historical factors. 1 Alternatively, a history may be written in defence of a paradigm or method under threat. That is the history may be written to conserve ideas within the discipline, (e.g. Windschuttle, 1993; Wright, 1995) In other disciplinary histories, the objective has been to legitimate the discipline's
^ Nyland (1996a; 1996 b) provides persuasive evidence of this process in industrial relations. 19 separate existence. This has been evident in histories of geology and psychology, (see e.g. Laudan, 1983) both of which were, in the views of their practitioners, tied to older disciphnes.
These legitimation principles are not confined to scholarly treatises. Many textbooks begin with a history of the discipline or specialism. In this case the history has a different kind of legitimating role, where the students are socialised to a particular perspective. (Schachter, 1989) The approaches to the discipline are shaped by the frames of reference offered in the texts, and so the approaches to research by the next generation of scholars are shaped by the frameworks defined by the previous generation's articulation of what has been significant in the history of discipline. On the other hand textbook histories can offer the opportunity of providing an integrated understanding of a complex field of study, by dealing with several competing paradigms. (Wertheimer, 1980, pp.15-6)
Such considerations raise an incidental, but important point which is only occasionally dealt with - that is the question of the difference between a history of a discipline and a history of thought. The latter is common in economics, for example, where history of economic thought (HET) might be defined as a specialism which deals with the epistemological, theoretical, and methodological changes within economic analysis, while a history of economics might cover not only the history of thought but also the wider aspects of the discipline, such as its place in universities and the interaction of economic ideas between pohcy makers and analysts. (Coats, 1993) However, this differentiation is not always true of HET. The studies of Groenewegen and McFarlane (1990); and Coats and Colander (1989), for example, deal with the areas of disciphnary influence and educational process which might be more properly defined as aspects of disciplinary
20 history. However the demarcation need not be sharp. Goodwin (1966) argues that ideas operate within a context and interact according to that context so that in a history of thought, it is needful not only to understand the contextual influences, but also to evaluate their effect on the nature and direction of thought. Moreover, when considering the distinction between a history of thought, and a history of a discipline, it is worth noting that the latter will cover the institutions and practices pertaining to the disciphne. As Coats (1993) has argued, a disciplinary history may involve a shift from the focus on theory "toward a broader, less precise and more elusive matters, such as the interrelationships between economic ideas and their historical context...".
Wren takes a less reflective but similar perspective in his major work, The Evolution of Management Thought. Wren focuses on major management theorists, but he is insistent that the influence of environmental factors is significant and unquestioned, but not in a deterministic sense. "Our ideas ... shape and change our environment in a historical action - reaction process of reciprocal interaction." (Wren 1987, p.420) For Wren it is not only the life and times of Fayol, or Taylor, which influence directions of management thought, but also the broad political and economic systems, the nature of business and management education, and changing technology and production systems. His focus is always on particular management philosophies and their practical effect, but taking full account of the environmental influences. In general, then while for some the history of thought may be considered a subset of disciplinary history, there are major scholars who insist that the environmental influences or determinants are linked inextricably to the nature and direction of thought.
21 The investigator's approach to a disciplinary history, and particularly the selection of significant influences will shape the nature and the uses of a disciplinary history. To legitimate or diminish particular schools of thought or branches of a discipline, an analyst will make choices about the histories of competing schools and the central features of these latter. This process of including, excluding or reinterpreting particular facets of a discipline can indeed lead to multiple representations of a discipline. (See Chapter Two). These considerations highlight the need, even before taking up such issues, to confront the vexed question of "just what are disciplines?". Fundamental to a disciplinary history is an accurate yet broad generic definition of what is a discipline. Such understanding then permits the investigator to begin to identify the specific discipline under historical scrutiny.
Defining a 'discipline'
In beginning to define just what is a discipline, there is little need to travel through the tortuous grounds of what differentiates a discipline from a field of study or a specialism. Such investigation tends to depend on semantics and the standpoint of the scholar.^ Rather what is being sought here is the definition of a discipline in the broadest sense of the term. For some the definition of a discipline is quite clear.
An academic subject is considered a discipline if it focuses on a conceptually unique or distinctive form of behavior and possesses a theoretical framework for organizing and investigating the activity in question. (Kaufman, 1993, 12)
2 It is not that the differentiation is unimportant in some spheres of investigation. Rather, in this thesis what is important is understanding what have been the significant influences as the academic industrial relations evolved, even if it does not quite fulfil a purist designation of a discipline. 22 However, the problem with this definition is that it is behaviourist in its focus and assumptions. Neither history nor pohtics would quahfy as disciplines, since neither focuses on a form of behaviour nor does either contain a single theoretical framework. Its narrowness alerts us to the fact that there are difficulties in defining a discipline.
More broadly, Windschuttle (1993, 222) asserts that:
A discipline has a common viewpoint on its subject matter plus a common method of study. Several disciplines can share the same subject matter: human society, for instance, is the subject of history, sociology, anthropology and economics. In this case the difference between the disciplines is determined by the viewpoint with which the subject is approached and by the methodology used.
From this perspective, disciplines are branches of learning given order by as much by self-selection as by the nature and practice of knowledge acquisition.
There are two problems with the kinds of definitions offered by Windschuttle and Kaufman. In both there is an element of vagueness and an assumption of coherence in purpose and method, which conveys an apparent fixity. There is also an element of "I - cannot - define - this - but - I - know - one - when - I - see - one". The absence of specificity is exacerbated by the immediacy inherent in these definitions. A discipline is conceptualised as the subject and methodology, here and now. But methodologies within disciplines vary over time and place, and between particular paradigms or schools. Shfe and Williams (1995, 14-58) for example identify at least five schools within the behavioural sciences ranging from the psychodynamic approach and cognitivism to postmodernism. Each one of these fulfils
23 Windschuttle's criteria of shared subject matter and a "common method of study", but each school of thought is appropriate to several fields of study - occupational psychology, psychiatry or education. Indeed no social science discipline^ can claim a single methodology. Moreover, just as the acquisition of knowledge is not hnear, but rather a continuing and uneven process of accumulation and fragmentation, so, while disciplines evolve, they do not develop in a linear fashion, (see Chapter Two) Windschuttle (1993, 223) acknowledges the evolutionary nature of disciphnes and notes how the scholars may pursue a logic of their founding principles "into areas not imagined by their initial practitioners". But if inheritors move away from the founding principles or into areas outside the original boundaries, the definition of the discipline could then become problematic. Yet to undertake a history of a discipline it is necessary to deal with this vexatious problem of defining a discipline or a set of definitional attributes in a way that allows for changing contexts and methodologies.
Certainly, Windschuttle is right to assert that disciplines do evolve or change over place and time. Despite such changes, many scholars and practitioners within disciplines draw upon their forebears, as if the earlier exponents were studying within the same disciphne, containing the same epistemologies and groups of scholars. For others, the approach is to ignore history or the aspects that appear unimportant. (Schachter, 1989) The historical foundations or context of a discipline are simply elided, either because history is seen as irrelevant or because the history does not fit with dominant ideas. This is not only true of a multi-mode disciplines like public
^ There are important differences between the behavioural sciences and the social sciences, although the former is often portrayed as a subset of the latter by social scientists. The differences become important for this project when considering the social antecedents and general objectives of management which draw rather heavily on the behavioural sciences. 24 administration or industrial relations, but also older areas of knowledge such as psychology or sociology.
Economists of some persuasions, for example, resist the idea that even relatively modern scholars like Galbraith are 'real' economists because their methodology is not seen as legitimate within particular paradigms. An example such as this reflects the evolutionary nature of disciplines, the ways in which erstwhile major figures in a disciphne can be written out of that discipline, as one school within the discipline 'triumphs' over another. Indeed it points to the very variability of history and the great importance of history. Thus in undertaking a disciplinary history, definitional issues become more important than usual. Any definition of a discipline in a history of that discipline should be sufficient to allow for the evolution of methods and methodology. Appropriate definitions thus must allow for the events and developments to be traced over decades or even centuries, and must be able to encompass the discipline at different stages of development and through different paradigms within that discipline - unless, of course the goal is to de-legitimate alternative paradigms through diminishing or excluding their antecedents.
Such strictures however, emphasise the singular significance of finding definitive descriptions which are sufficiently exact, and yet broad enough to encompass all aspects of a discipline, its historical antecedents and politico- geographical variations of a discipline.^ Given the breadth of subject-matter in many social science disciplines, this seems nearly impossible or so hmiting as to distort the analytical process from the start. For example, some industrial relations analysts used to define their discipline as the study of
^ The single exception to this is perhaps history. "Historians", Hobsbawm (1975, p.76) notes, "are notoriously uninterested defining their field of study, or indeed, ... in giving much thought to the nature of their activity. ... After all history is anything that happened in the human past" 25 bargaining relationships or the outcomes of bargaining or interaction.^ The focus tended to be on the content of bargaining agreements. In the process, features such as the style, structure and processes of management, the finance or product markets, or the ways in which agreements actually operated at the workplace, tended to be omitted. Such features, now widely seen as significant in industrial relations, were neglected, at least in some respects.6 Thus, particularly when a discipline is being investigated over time, it may be more effective to consider the shared attributes embodied in the disciphne that might be required to identify that discipline, rather than attempting to derive a single definition.
Defining disciplines through attributes
Rather than attempt to encapsulate an abstraction such as a discipline in some overly simplistic outline, it can be more effective to identify the attributes of the discipline. In the first instance, it is important to identify and evaluate what these attributes might be, before applying them to a particular discipline. Four primary attributes deserve consideration.
For example it may be possible to define a discipline by its practitioners. Developing on Waugh's conceptions of disciplines as tribes (complete with
^ See e.g. Laffer, 1974; Hamermesh and Rees (1984, xi) offer a similar behaviour oriented approach. Yet definitions, of themselves do not always offer an accurate depiction of a scholar's assumptions. As is shown in Chapter Four, Laffer's conception of 'bargaining relations' is at odds with his very broad approach to the subject-matter of industrial relations. ^ See e.g. Kitay and Lansbury, (eds.) 1997. As will be shown it is easy to overstate this case. Many scholars have accepted without question Blain and Plowman's (1987) assertion that the strategies and role of management had been ignored in industrial relations, and as proof of their assertion, their famous Uterature survey contains no material on management. In 1978, Bill Ford (in Turldngton, pp.225-32) made a somewhat prescient plea for closer attention to considering the effect of matters such as financial investment and stock markets on the employment relationship. 26 witchdoctors, braves, and arcane rites), Bailey (1977, cited in Becher 1987) takes an anthropological approach.
Each tribe has a name and a territory, settles its own affairs, goes to war with others, has a distinct language or at least a distinct dialect, and a variety of symbohc ways of demonstrating apartness from others.
In other words an academic tribe comprises the academics who see themselves as being members of a particular sub-culture, in this case a discipline. The sociology tribe has different key words to the industrial relations tribe or the educational psychology tribe. Words like 'rent' or 'class' have greatly different meanings in economics, education or sociology. These separate and discipline specific terms are seen as one signifier of the academic tribes, that is the community of scholars.
Central to the notion of a discipline then is the existence of a community with social norms and agreed knowledge production methods. Their network of interaction is a self-defining essential element at any point in time."^ Their community-ness will be defined by the teaching and research programmes in universities, as well as by the conferences and literature through which ideas are exchanged and developed. The "community" will set tacit or explicit rules over the boundaries of the content and methodology of the discipline through conferences and publications. To the outsider, the boundaries between economics and finance, or geology and palaeontology, for example are unclear, but to the exponents, these fields while overlapping, have clear characteristics which identify what is, and more importantly for
''' Indeed Johnston (1986, p.159) argues that "disciphnes are basically collections of individuals" 27 those in each discipline, what is not, within the discipline. The interaction between the disciplinary community on the one hand, and the knowledge and process of knowledge acquisition on the other, will also give rise to the ways in which the discipline evolves over time or place. This will occur in many ways depending on the characteristics of the disciplinary community.
Becher, (1989) and Graham et al. (1983) identify several characteristics of disciplinary communities which affect, and in turn are affected by, other disciplinary and contextual features. The most obvious is how 'loose' or 'tight' is a community. By this is meant the degree to which the rules, practices and assumptions of the acquisition of knowledge within the discipline will direct or constrain the analysts. Emergent disciphnes and those undergoing a major theoretical change will be loose, since the defining characteristics of analysis are open. By contrast an older or more static disciplines where the dominant paradigm is rigid, yet still offers some opportunity for intellectual growth will be 'tight' - that is the constraints on scholars will be greater than in one where rules of knowledge acquisition are less clearly defined. The 'loose-tight' taxonomy is of itself a way of legitimating (or de-legitimating) a paradigm. In the literature on the sociology of knowledge for example, economics is often portrayed as a tight discipline, since it has a strong hierarchy of prestige, the very existence of which is said to prescribe the rules of research. (Coats, 1993a) Yet such a characterisation takes as a 'given' a particular strand of economics, that which many call neo-classical economics. In this way, the 'tightness' of the discipline, means that those economic researchers outside the dominant paradigm are marginalised or ignored by those of the mainstream. The marginalised or heterodox scholars, will, however not be constrained by the same stylistic or technical rules.
28 Alhed to the loose-tight attributes is the paired characteristic of the urban- rural of disciphnes. Becher, (1989) in noting the interlocking characteristics of a discipline's community and intellectual domain (see below), differentiates between 'rural' and 'urban' disciplines or paradigms. A rural discipline is one which is thinly populated and there are wide open intellectual 'spaces', where scholars have many choices of method and objects of study. An 'urban" discipline is the converse, and its scholars are severely limited because most intellectual terrain has been covered, sometimes several storeys high.
These characteristics will influence the growth or direction of a discipline. For example, as Crist (1969, 258) notes with reference to human geography, the danger within a highly populated and tight discipline is that the pedantry of the paradigmatic community limits the growth of scholarship and leads to ossification of the discipline. Alternatively, tight 'sub- paradigms' may lead to fragmentation of the discipline.^ In a trenchant criticism of academic conferences, Kindleberger (1989) cites the case of two quite separate networks of economists working on international monetary reform. Rather than debate theory and methodology, there is a danger in such an environment that ideas will become more entrenched.^ Such attributes will thus influence the knowledge-getting processes. They are not essential to arriving at a definition of disciplines although they demonstrate the distinctive characteristics which assist in identifying disciphnes.^^
^ Dogan and Pahre (1990) offer the tendency to fragmentation as a consequence of an overly 'tight' and 'urban' disciphne as an explanation for the growth of interdisciplinarity. ^ Kindleberger offers other examples and notes that entrenchment of networks can lead to situations "like Reder's description of the Chicago defense of its dogma - when the facts are not friendly re-examine the data to see if they correct, gather more data, regard the aberrant case as a special case, and only in the very last resort abandon the theory." ^^ In the same way a school or disciphne may evince other attributes which differentiate it from other fields, but which are not essential elements in defining disciphnes generally. For example disciplines may be impermeable or porous to methods or ideas from other 29 It is not surprising therefore that a second major characteristic of a disciplinary community is found in its links with other disciplines and with the wider community. An internally driven disciphne is one where the intellectual problems and issues arise primarily within the disciphne. There are few areas of scholarship which are wholly internally driven, since even in areas such as philology or philosophy, scholars operate in a specific socio economic environment which they can rarely ignore. As Mackenzie (1975, p.90) notes with reference to politics, researchers are always in some sense committed to wider issues
... except the idiotai, very private persons who ...seek another way of life, in contemplation or pure mathematics or cultivating their gardens. And the committed would say that these are also pohtical stances.
By contrast with the contemplative scholars and those in disciplines not driven by external immediacy, the nature of the disciplinary community may be strongly influenced by the demands of the wider community in areas such as industrial relations, public administration, personnel management or telecommunications. The degree of involvement of the lay public, governments, and practitioners will not only influence the nature of the community of scholars, but also the direction of the discipline itseff. This is another aspect of openness or porosity of the discipline which may co-exist with, or counterbalance aspects of, openness in rural and loose disciphnes discussed above.
However, important as it is for understanding the development of a discipline, identifying the characteristics (and output) of a community of
disciplines. Dogan and Pahre (1990) note for example that mathematics draws httle fi'om other disciphnes. By contrast, disciplines such as industrial relations and anthropology depend heavily on interdisciplinary methods. 30 scholars is not enough - it offers a necessary but not sufficient attribute. As noted earlier, defining a disciphne by its boundaries, by what separates one discipline from another is a further means of identifying disciphnes. Such boundaries can be seen from within and also from without. Hayden White (1983), for example, asserts that, until recently, sources such as art or fiction were not seen as valid in historical scholarship. There may be thus boundaries of method or epistemology or content from within which define the discipline for its exponents. Boundaries may also be designated by those from other disciplines, as is the case of personnel management analysts who perceive the study of industrial relations as going no further than "conflict" or institutional rulemaking in employment. (Schuler et al., 1990, p.449)
While boundaries may have a significant effect on disciplines themselves, their use in defining a discipline is limited by its currency. Because knowledge is continually evolving, disciplinary boundaries are shifting at vacillating pace. Historical analysis of a discipline with reference to disciplinary boundaries therefore, rests heavily on particular perceptions of a boundary in one epoch or from the viewpoint of a discipline or paradigm. Moreover, knowing the boundary provides insufficient information on the internal substance of the field of study. The boundaries certainly provide an understanding of disciplinary shape at a point in time - in the process it can even clarify the nature of the acquisition of knowledge at that point in time. But more often, boundaries change because the acquisition of knowledge can increase the breadth, depth, direction or complexity of the knowledge or the processes of acquisition. The rules laid down for the boundaries, the acceptable processes or sources of acquiring and communicating knowledge are set by the community, but they too may be subject to change, simply because the acquisition of knowledge can change the material with which the community is dealing. What was within the boundary of sociology fifty 31 years ago may well now be part of pohtics, geography, or history. Disciplinary knowledge is in a constant process of change which is sometimes simply evolutionary in a linear sense, but often subject to discernible shifts in direction or substance which are not foreseeable, (see e.g. Kuhn, 1977; Irving, 1978; Gordon, 1991; Shfe and Williams, 1995; Dogan and Pahre, 1990)
The community and the boundaries of a discipline are thus useful for a snapshot of a discipline at any point in time, but of themselves do not define a discipline. A community of pig farmers or journalists could be discussed under the same terms. However, the fact that disciplinary research investigation and analysis are different from journahstic investigation assists in identifying the essential attribute of a discipline which separates it from non-disciplinary activities. What defines an academic discipline is the cognate ideas and foundations for research which comprise that disciphne. As noted above, exponents of each discipline comply with a set of (largely tacit) research rules, based on the primary assumptions of the discipline. Together with the object(s) of analysis, these 'rules' comprise the intellectual domain. For Coats (1993a, p. 125) the intellectual domain is a fundamental part of defining the boundaries. Included in the intellectual domain is not only the object of analysis, but also the epistemological and theoretical fand therefore methodological) assumptions which are brought to illuminate the object of analysis. 11
However, there is one more aspect related to boundaries which is linked to both the concept of an intellectual domain, and to the notion of boundaries -
11 Differences within medicine highlight the ways in which epistemology, theory and methodology can be seen as hnked in a more or less hierarchical fashion. An orthopaedic specialist, haematologist, and a homoeopath will each seek to investigate a swollen elbow for example in different ways. Their 'epistemology' is different so they draw on different theoretical bases for investigation which in turn leads to differences in methodology. 32 that is the boundaries as viewed from within the disciphne, rather than as ascribed by outliers and observers. The internal boundaries comprise what is acceptable within a discipline, as part of that disciphne.
"Every discipline ... is, as Nietzsche saw most clearly, constituted by what it forbids its practitioners to do. Every disciphne is made up of a set of restrictions on thought and imagination ..." (H. White, cited in Kramer, 1988, p. 101)
Nietszche's strictures return considerations to Huxley's and Becher's notions of tribes of a society, but in this case the focus are the secret or tacit rules and codes of behaviour of the community. Among these, as Nietzsche asserted are the internal boundaries as prescribed by what are 'forbidden' territories. Such internally defined boundaries of a discipline may not be readily evident to observers. Making use of secondary material is denounced in many facets of history and qualitative research is of lowly regard in many schools of social science. 12
Thus, the essential elements of the intellectual domain of a disciphne or school within a discipline include the complex of ideas, the language used to express these ideas, the methods, and processes which are acceptable objects or practices within that discipline. Thus disciplinary boundaries may be both 'outer limits' imposed externally, and internally defined limits. However, the uses of external boundaries should not be too much relied upon. They are sometimes somewhat subjective and cannot be delineated simply as a border in the geographical sense, because of the porosity and multidimensionality of disciplines. External boundaries may be useful
12 This raises what some (Becher, 1987; and Sherif and Sherif, 1969) see to be the important issue of the 'invisible coUege' - this is explored briefly in the next chapter in relation to the transfer of, (and resistance to) ideas. 33 identifiers, especially when investigating the evolution and transfer of ideas, but they will depend on the external viewpoints of the non-expert and so treated with some caution. By contrast, notions of internal boundaries (limits) from the scholars within a school or discipline can provide insights into the intellectual domain of a discipline at particular point. Such boundary 'rules' may cover methodology, technique or object of analysis, that is any part of the intellectual domain. So the notion of boundaries is useful, but should be used with caution. As Coats (1993a, 125) has noted, "it is difficult to draw the boundaries of a school, a phenomenon which includes zones of influence and fringe ends as well as a central core of disciples".
Acknowledgment of research and language rules and symbols is important in defining disciplines, precisely because of the centrality of the intellectual domain. The object of analysis is the substantive focus of the disciphne. All social science and business disciplines take a general form of human activity or outcome of activity, as their object of analysis, in the process excluding, except as influences, other forms of activity or outcomes. (See also Toulmin, 1972) The city is the object of analysis for scholars in social history, human geography, architecture, civil engineering, public policy, and transport economics, but each shines a light which discloses different elements. Thus while the object of analysis may be shared among different disciplines, the core will differ according to rules and structures of the discipline. Each may use aspects from other disciplines in their investigations or their analysis, but the focus of the civil engineer will be different from that of the economist. The concept of a core is not always accepted by intellectual analysts. Dogan and Pahre (1990) for example assert that no social science
34 can claim a core,!^ precisely because each social science disciphne is open to analysis from other social sciences, as is apparent from the simple example of the city discussed above.
On the other hand, that particular phenomena are subject to attention from a range of disciplines - regardless of whether they are social, behavioural or physical sciences - does not negate the notion of a core. Within the object of analysis of the geographer or lawyeri'* are core intellectual matters without which their discipline would not exist. The object(s) of analysis of accounting for example are "money, transactions and events which are in part at least of a financial character" (Yorston et al., 1977) The accounting scholar or practitioner could not practise their discipline without fundamental attachment to transactions, while for the social historian such transactions are at best sources or tools for their disciplinary investigations. Such inclusions and exclusions highlight that the object of analysis is not separate from the epistemology and methodology of a school or discipline.
Much is often made of the significance of methodology, the logic underlying research rules, as a defining characteristic of a discipline or at least the dominant paradigms within disciphnes.i^ Indeed some see methodology as seemingly of great importance in the social sciences, particularly in the tight and highly populated disciplines. (Dogan and Pahre, 1990, p.131) No field of study has a single methodology, but some schools draw on fewer methodological principles than others, i^ Certainly the methodology will influence the direction and shape of a discipline, although the nature and
1^ However, Dogan and Pahre base their analysis of the evolution of interdisciphnarity on the concept of the 'patrimony', the central and often unacknowledged source(s) of a discipline. 1"* See discussions e.g. by Johnston, 1986 for geography and Kahn-Freund, 1979 for law, for the core attributes of these disciphnes. IS See Note 11. See also KeUy, 1999 1^ As will be shown below, the shape of a discipline will depend on the range of methodologies. 35 extent of influence may vary. For others, though, as Kuhn (1977) and others have argued, too much can be made of the importance of methodology as the basis for knowledge acquisition and transfer over other disciphnary attributes. This is because these writers question the hnks between ideology and methodology, and the degree to which methodological attributes are incorporated into ideological stances. While ideology is likely, in the social sciences in particular, to provide insights into the direction of a school or discipline at a point in time, and so must be taken into account in any historical analysis, it is not an essential attribute of any disciphne across time or place, (see e.g. Hobsbawm, 1972, 1975)
Where issues of methodology become important is where they become entangled with questions of method or technique. (Barry, 1970) With the availability of computers and powerful data processing capacity, the emphasis in recent years in many disciplines has been on quantitative analysis, as these microelectronic aids have been pressed into service to derive mathematically or statistically exact answers to questions of human behaviour. Access to such technological capacity has tended to emphasise quantitative techniques, so altering the methodology markedly, perhaps even redirecting theory to closer alignment with the methods. The shift has been most evident in economic history, politics and parts of sociology, (see e.g. Jensen, 1969, esp. pp. 12-25; Bogue, 1983) While these aspects are to some extent oblique to the discussion of the essential attributes of a discipline, they play an important part in ascertaining the developments in a discipline and the ways in which knowledge is diffused.
Taken together, these last two phenomena, ideology and technique are important considerations in a disciplinary history, precisely because, while not fundamental disciphnary attributes, they have the capacity to dfrect
36 attention to particular paradigms and perhaps more importantly away from particular paradigms at any point in time. For example, while within a paradigm there will be accepted rules of research, they may not be those of the dominant paradigm within the discipline. A Marxist scholar will operate under a different set of assumptions from one within a conservative frame of reference. (Massey, 1991) Such assumptions will determine the methodology, and so the intellectual domain of the discipline. It is the same with differing geographical and cultural contexts. While the core objects of analysis of politics as a discipline are the same, the method of the acquisition of knowledge in the discipline has varied over place as well as time. Because of the politico-cultural context, the assumptions and methods of analysis in politics in Britain is quite different to that in Germany which in turn has different assumptions to that in Japan. (Conrad, 1999) Similarly, while the object of analysis can be labelled the same, this label can cover elements with immensely different techniques. The object of analysis of the labour economist is the labour market, but the approach of the neo-classical scholar will take different assumptions and give weight to different signals from those of the Marxist or the institutionalist. (King, 1990; Mangum and Phillips. 1988) The approach of the sociologist to the labour market and the sociology of work, while focussing on the same object of analysis as the labour economists, will be examining the social dimensions of the labour market. Compare for example, the work of Dubin (1958) with that of Dunlop, (1950, 1958) both of whom were focussing on the labour market in the 1950s. For Dubin the industrial sociologist, a major concern was the ways in which technology and the organisation of work influenced and were influenced by the working population. Dunlop's economics training, and his particular interest in wages, led him to perceive the labour market as an imperfect market, the imperfections of which were a major interest.
37 Disciplines and disciplinary history
These manifold examples reveal the breadth of the problem in determining a definition of a discipline, particularly for the historian of a discipline that will undoubtedly have changed over time. In coming to terms with definitional issues, there is a considerable uncertainty in the nature of scholarly analysis, particularly in the social sciences, since human behaviour and society are complex, and the acquisition of knowledge is dynamic. Moreover the discipline is both the research medium, and product of that research. In this respect Giddens' (1984) concepts of structure and process in society are just as pertinent in understanding a discipline as in understanding society, since like society, a disciphne does not exist separately from its citizens, its practitioner scholars nor their context nor intellectual domain. As Giddens argues
structure enters simultaneously into the constitution of the agents and social practices, and exists in the generating moments of this constitution (Giddens 1978, p.5, cited in Manicas, 1987, p.272; see also Hyman, 1981)
Thus while a discipline can be defined by separate attributes, the disciphne itself is incarnate in all of the attributes. These raise several notable difficulties in undertaking a history.
As noted initially, the view taken in this chapter is that a discipline is seen in its widest sense. As noted earlier, it is outside the frame of this chapter to quibble over whether the definition of a disciplines is confined only to those traditional areas of study such as history and physics, which ignores the evolutionary nature of knowledge acquisition. Rather a discipline has so far been defined as an area of study with (a) a shared core and general
38 agreement on the object(s) of analysis and boundaries, (b) a shared intellectual domain regardless of paradigm, including cognisance of specific methodologies and theories which inform the processes of investigation, (c) a community of scholars who acknowledge the language and concepts which arise out of (b), and who acknowledge the core and intellectual domain of the discipline through the teaching programmes and their research, evident in conferences and publications. There is still an element of immediacy about this set of defining attributes. Yet in the foregoing discussion reference has been made several times to the evolving nature of knowledge (in the widest sense of the term). This highlights a final defining attribute and coincidentally, further justification for disciplinary histories. A disciphne has (d) a shared history or histories. The theories and methods are the combined product of previous exponents of the discipline and related disciplines, mediated by the accidents of history, contextual features and interaction between the scholarly community and the developments external to the discipline. This returns us to the initial discussion in this chapter, for the ways in which scholars perceive their history will shape their perceptions of research and teaching imperatives.
It is then these four attributes which can identify a discipline, and provide a means to investigate the discipline over time. Areas of study which are not disciplines may well have some but not all of these attributes, and there is no doubt a grey area where emerging disciplines may have some of the each of the four attributes without clearly being a definable discipline. This might include fields such as cultural studies, so disliked by Windschuttle (1994), on the one hand, and on the other, the pragmatic educationists who see research as valid only so long as it is related to job training. Precisely because they are avowedly multidisciplinary, areas such as cultural studies do not (yet) have definable paradigms nor shared histories, so within the 39 current definition may not have qualified as disciplines. On the other hand submerged or archaic disciplines such as home economics, as it was practised in the earlier part of the twentieth century, were disciplines within the definitional framework. That they are no longer extant only precludes them from being considered as a current disciphne. i"^
Industrial relations - what it is (or was?)
Having explored and defined disciplinary attributes and the nature of disciplinary histories, the foregoing discussion can now be applied to that area of study known as industrial relations. In this section, the separated but inherently integrated attributes of a discipline wiU be examined briefly in relation to the field of industrial relations.
First, however three abiding incidental attributes of industrial relations scholarship must be noted. These demonstrate, inter alia that even though the attributes are separate and specific, they are integrated in the ways described by Giddens (1978) (cited in Becher). In terms of industrial relations these are (a) a disciplinary obsession with defining industrial relations, (b) a widely held pessimism over the future of the discipline which has lasted several decades, and (c) a determination to secure a set (or even a small number) of nomological propositions such as exist in neoclassical economics or chemistry. While these will need to be dealt with more fully later, it is worth noting at the outset that all three of these characteristics have been the subject of considerable longstanding but rarely fruitful scholarly investigation. (See e.g. Walker, 1960; Laffer, 1976; Dabscheck, 1995) They are simply worth noting at this point as distinctive disciplinary
I'' Other aspects of epistemology and methodology within and between disciphnes are discussed in Chapter 2 40 traits, which relate not only to the epistemology and methodology of the disciphne, but also to the self-assessment and self-presentation of industrial relations.18
As such, they need to be taken into account in any examination of the framework for identifying a discipline when examining that activity known as industrial relations scholarship. As noted previously there are four attributes of a disciphne, each of which is necessary but not sufficient. These are
1. object of analysis - the boundaries and the core
2. the intellectual domain as defined by the object of analysis as mediated by the epistemology, theory and methodology
3. a community of scholars, their research output, and the teaching programmes with which they are associated
4. the history
As with most social science disciplines, the object of analysis of industrial relations has varied over time and space. It has been variously described as "the control and administration of the employment relationship", (Keenoy, 1990); "the many ways people behave in the context of work" (Dabscheck and Niland, 1981); "all aspects of people at work", (Adams, 1993); the interaction between labour and management or the bargaining relationship (Laffer, 1974; Oxnam, 1974; Geare, 1978; Morris, 1987; Kochan et al., 1991); the formal institutions of job regulation, (Flanders, 1968; Soberer, 1973; Godard, 1995); "the creation of an economic surplus, the co-existence of conflict and cooperation, the indeterminate nature of the exchange relationship, and the
1^ They also highhght the importance of looking beyond even the broad encompassing scope of the four attributes. For industrial relations scholars these extra characteristics are significant, but they are subjective, and do not fit easily within the four attributes. 41 asymmetry of power", (Blyton and Turnbull, 1994); or the rules which govern employment (Clegg, 1970). Thus from the outset, there is difficulty in defining industrial relations because there has not been clear agreement about precisely what is or has been the object of analysis.i^
Here the concepts of core and boundaries of a discipline are fruitful in achieving greater exactitude, despite the fact that the boundaries of industrial relations are indeed blurred and highly permeable. This is because (regardless of definition) the object of analysis involves a central societal activity and interactions between many individuals and groups. In this respect identifying the neighbouring disciplines and thefr boundaries are useful. The borderlands of industrial relations are labour and industrial economics, industrial psychology, labour and employment law, history, industrial sociology, politics, personnel / human resource management and economic geography. 20 That industrial relations shares so many boundaries attests to the breadth of analysis of industrial relations, and gives some credence to Dunlop's (1958) plaintive assertion that industrial relations was a crossroads rather than a discrete discipline.
By contrast, however, the core of industrial relations is much more distinct. By asking the question "what is essential to any industrial relations study?", or "what is it that is present or assumed in all industrial relations scholarship?", three elements present themselves. Of greatest importance, is the centrality of an employment relationship (or in these times of sub-
1^ The issue is further complicated by the fact that scholars often do not follow their own defmitions. Both Clegg's and Flanders' definitions emphasise the formal collective institutions yet both give more weight to the impact of organisational structures and the role of management, than Kochan, who, in recent years, has been promoting a broadening of the study of industrial relations (Kochan, 1986) ^ The hinterlands of comparative industrial relations, long a core subject in most industrial relations programmes, are even broader, and include development economics, international relations, comparative government and law, and cultural studies. 42 contracting and casualisation, de facto employment relationship).21 Without the existence of work or employment, there is no disciphne of industrial relations. It is not even absolutely necessary for work to be paid, although pay has long been an important sub-area of analysis. It is quite possible to examine industrial relations even if the relationship involves unpaid workers (such as voluntary workers or conscripted prisoners) or contractors. The core requirement is that one person or group is defined as working for another person or organisation. The issue of focus on payment or other matters such as collective bargaining are worth noting for the moment, only insofar as they have often been very common areas of analysis particularly within the mainstream of the discipline in Australia, UK and USA. (Plowman and Bryce, 1991; Bain and Woolven, 1979; Hamermesh and Rees, 1984)
However, extant popularity of a topic does not define a discipline, and notwithstanding the views of some analysts (see e.g. Blain and Plowman, 1987; Kochan et al., 1984) that the discipline has narrowed its focus to unions or collective bargaining or pay systems, any analysis of the work of those who have defined themselves as industrial relations scholars demonstrates a much broader core object of analysis, as will be seen in later chapters. Of course both views could be shown to be accurate.22 Kaufman (1993) for example has asserted that industrial relations thought has been bifurcated, with some scholars seeing the core (employment and work) in the broadest sense, and others with a more limited conception of industrial relations as covering only the formal and institutional processes arising out of (primarily collective) labour-management relations. Kaufman asserts
21 It is worth noting in this respect that European industrial relations scholars in the job quality debates of the 1980s design a new term for new forms of employment - the 'fake self-employed. (Boyer, 1986) ^ These issues wiU be investigated at length in later chapters. 43 further, that even those who ascribe the wider concept of the core of the disciphne in practice have tended to focus only on the narrower institutional processes, particularly those involving unions. Similar claims have been made by Purcell (1993) in Britain in his analysis of the end of institutional industrial relations. As with that of Kaufman, (1993) PurceU's analysis in the years before the current round of disciphnary self-doubt was notably hmited to institutions and collective bargaining. However, these claims will be evaluated more thoroughly elsewhere; for now it is important only to note that in ascertaining the core of a discipline, consideration needs to go beyond the mainstream, and consider what is central to identify scholarship as being 'industrial relations'.
The second element of the intellectual domain of industrial relations relates more closely to its methodology, and has a normative aspect to it. That is cognisance given some form of social justice for employees, which draws primarily from the, sometimes tacit, assumption of inequahty of power in the employment relationship. From the Webbs (1897, 1921) through J. R. Commons, (1921) to modern day managerialist analysts, (see e.g. BCA. 1989, 1991) claims are made that there is an abiding concern for fairness in matters of work and employment. Of course what is 'fair' will vary according to an analyst's frame of reference, but whatever perspective is taken, there is always an underlying or overt concern to present 'fairness' as an essential criterion. That such concern can be presented from opposing viewpoints does not mitigate the claim that this aspect is a core concern of industrial relations analysis. Implicit in the claims to fairness is the assumption that unfairness exists, and also that power relations exist. (Hyman and Brough, 1975; Keenoy, 1990).
44 This raises another significant element of industrial relations which is perhaps more difficult, since it cuts across some of the rhetoric that has arisen in the recent debates over the differences between industrial relations and human resource management. (Gardner and Palmer, 1997; Legge, 1995) This is the issue of conflict in the employment relationship, a concept that is both much-maligned and frequently misunderstood, unthinkingly or wiffully. Part of the difficulty lies in the complexity of the notion of conflict, and the fact that the term refers both to the manifestations of conffict and the concept of competition between employer and employee. (Deery and Plowman, 1991) In industrial relations analysis those who are employed are perceived as seeking some different outcomes to those who employ. This is based on the understanding that in a market relationship, the sellers of labour will seek the best price the market will pay for their labour, while the employer will seek the least price. Employees will also seek security, fulfilment, and autonomy, while employers are looking for commitment to the enterprise, maximum effort, control over work processes and maximum flexibility in the ways they can employ. In other words, employees (or sub contractors, or even voluntary workers) enter into the relationship with preferences for some different outcomes to their employers, in the widest sense of the word. In commentaries on industrial relations scholarship, cognisance of such competing goals has been subjected to a great deal of rhetoric in recent years. The Business Council of Austraha (BCA, 1989), for example, emphasised that industrial relations approaches focus on conflict whereas much more preferable to the authors are human resource management or other management approaches which refer only to the cooperative elements at work. Such assertions conflated pejorative portrayals of the formal system of industrial relations with the nature of the industrial-relations-as-disciphne, and are akin to rejecting the disciphne of
45 economics because of disagreeable tax or trade pohcies. What is important for now, however, is that industrial relations analysis assumes the existence of competing goals as well as cooperative goals. (Blyton and Turnbull, 1994; Keenoy and Kelly, 1998; Deery, Plowman and Walsh, 1997)
It is worth noting this respect, that so too do, inter alia, economists and industrial psychologists.^^ Many of the scholars in these latter disciphnes also take the employment relationship as their focus, and some also at times take into account ideas of fairness. But these ideas are not at the core of those disciplines. An economic analysis or one within industrial psychology can be readily undertaken without any consideration of attributes such as competing objective or notions of fairness.
These concerns are linked to another core element of industrial relations, which again demonstrates the inextricability of methodology and object of analysis. This third core attribute is evident more in the breach, than in practice - and that is the issue of methodological individualism. Unhke modern neo-classical economics, and industrial psychology for example, the manifold facets of the object of analysis of industrial relations, both in terms of the unit of analysis (micro analysis investigating individual work processes and workplace relations, macro analysis focussing on public institutions or global pressures) and in terms of social, political and economic complexities, have led to a multiplicity of theoretical and methodological approaches. (Becher, 1989; Kerr, 1948) They may include law-like assumptions about individual behaviour, tastes or preferences, but more often contextual or institutional explanandums will be the basis of method.
^ It might even be argued that the HRM textbook industry depends on the concealed concerns with competing goals between the managed and the managers, or else why are HRM texts so voluminous? However, this is a separate issue. 46 This is an attribute sometimes ascribed to an emergent disciphne, or sub- specialism, or cross-disciplinary field of study such as cultural studies. The reasons for the breadth of methods and overlaps with other disciphnes relates however to the centrahty of work and employment in industrial societies. Similarly Dogan and Pahre (1990) assert that some disciplines are essentially multi-method, and point to anthropology in which, they insist, methods from other disciplines is the "lifeblood of disciplinary research".
Like anthropology, industrial relations analysts draw on, inter alia, institutional economic theory, mathematics, hermeneutics, social theory, econometrics, and the historical method. Such breadth may be seen as a weakness (for example, no core methodology nor agreed nomological propositions) or a strength - a complex object of analysis needs to be analysed with due reference to its complexity. Disciplinary seff-doubt has led some to incline to the former view; (Kochan et al. 1984). On the other hand industrial relations scholarship has been strengthened by the insights gained from other disciplines' methodologies, which has allowed it (so far) to retain equally commitment to rigour, and in these times of compelling market forces, relevance.
The proximity and number of adjacent disciplines however highhghts the difficulties of designating a discipline such as industrial relations which has so many disciplines at its boundaries. There are indeed so many overlapping disciplines and sub-specialisms that touch on the core elements of the intellectual domain of industrial relations that it is understandable that some might claim it has no right to call itself a disciphne. (Kaufman, 1993) However, there is a definable community of scholars, recognisable teaching programmes and a shared historical context which have marked the discipline off from other disciplines. Similarities among disciplines in the
47 object of analysis (matters influencing work and employment) are differentiated by inherent normative assumptions, which carry over to the methodologies. There is no doubt that industrial relations can be designated a 'borrower discipline', given the extent to which many of its analytical concepts and methods draw on those generally attributed to boundary disciplines. (Kaufman, 1993) The ideas of social justice and inequahty of power in an employment relationship are derived in part from sociology, the nature of employment as a market relationship gives centrahty to economic ideas and techniques, the fact the governments are always involved in aspects of work and employment mean that the law and politics are interwoven into the discipline, and so on. (Blyton and TurnbuU, 1994) It is not simply concepts which are borrowed - when dealing with the economic aspects of industrial relations it makes sense to draw on economic ideas, but not for advancement of economics, but rather for industrial relations.
A comparative examination of the journals shows that the extent or intensity of borrowing varies across time and place. In recent years industrial relations analysis in the USA has relied more heavily on economics and on deductivist methodologies, (Strauss, 1990) whereas much of the analysis in Britain has continued to be inductivist and to draw more heavily on the sociological sources of the disciphne. These are the two countries which have had greatest influence on the discipline in Australia. While the level and nature of influence of USA and British industrial thought on that in Australia has been uneven, it is also worth noting that scholarship from both of the former countries have had signfficant influences on the discipline in Australia. Given that industrial relations is itseff a borrower discipline, a prima facie argument could be made that industrial relations scholarship in Australia is simply an amalgam of borrowed concepts and methods. On the other hand the public institutions and processes of industrigil relations in 48 Australia have been generally designated as unusual, i£ not unique, until very recently. This would suggest that there may be some unusual features of the object of analysis in industrial relations thought in Australia. On the other hand it may suggest that scholars and scholarship, i£ heavily influenced by those of other countries, may have been inconsonant with the practices and processes extant. How far scholarship in a discipline should aim to be relevant to policy and practices of a nation-state comprises yet another facet that needs to be explored.
The formal institutional industrial relations system has been part of the object of analysis of industrial relations, but the discipline went well beyond the narrow public processes. This has been the case even where scholars have offered narrow definitions such as Laffer's "study of bargaining relations", since Laffer's (1974, 1976; Industrial Relations I & II, 1974, Laffer papers) own work encompassed such substantive aspects as the functions and impact of managers on production, and the effect of labour processes, (see also Stern, 1992)
What makes the definition and history of industrial relations even more problematic is that as is evident in the level of methodological borrowing it has always been a loose, porous and rural discipline. That is, academic industrial relations has covered a vast and complex area of formal and informal processes of the organisation of production and work, work relations and bargaining relations at the level of the firm, but also including macroeconomic effects, the role of the state and socio-cultural norms as they relate to the employment relationship and work. It has been this last which has anchored industrial relations as a definable field of study, even when most focus has been on the institutional regulation of the employment relationship. (Adams, 1993; Bray and Wailes, 1997; Godard, 1993)
49 Histories of Industrial Relations
The dearth of histories of industrial relations is commonly commented upon, but only rarely lamented. Unlike their colleagues in similar 'fringe' disciplines such as urban geography or social anthropology, industrial relations scholars have spent little time considering the historical or even the social context of their own discipline. There have been implicit historical analyses such as in Hyman's masterly attacks on pluralism (Hyman, 1975, 1981), as well as excellent reflective pieces on aspects of British industrial relations analysis, such as that of Purcell, (1991) or Brown and Wright, (1991). Dunlop et al.'s (1975) revisiting of thefr classic Industrialism and Industrial Man is also an implicit history of thought, albeit somewhat narrowly American for a self-professed international treatise. It was the same with the historical bases of claims for strategic choice 'theory by Kochan and others. (Kochan, 1980, Kochan et al., 1986; see also Strauss and Feuille, 1978)
Histories of professional associations or schools of thought on the other hand have tended to be more descriptive and have tended to identify structural changes within associations as evidence for changing patterns of scholarship.24 Bruce Kaufman, (see below) for example sees Berridge and Goodman's (1988) survey of the British Universities Industrial Relations Association (BUIRA) as a history of the discipline of industrial relations in Britain, although the objective and much of the content of their paper is taken up delineating organisational aspects of the association, such as with rule changes and administrative matters. In this respect Berridge and Goodman's survey bears some similarities to Clark Kerr's (1978, 1983) personal retrospectives or more recently that of Mark Perhnan (1998).
^ See e.g. Scott, 1990; History of the Australian Society of Accountants ... (n.d. 1962?); Kenwood and Lougheed, 1997; Perlman, 1977. 50 These latter highlight the roles of autobiographies as useful, if particularistic, surveys on the changing role of ideas and the changing constraints and opportunities within a disciphne. Perlman's retrospective is a particularly good example of the personal history as a personal view of a discipline's history by default. Similarly but more comprehensive and judicious was Clegg's (1990) review of the Oxford School of the 1960s and 1970s, which reflects on the nature and effects of a particular approach to industrial relations of which the author was a leading member.
Further afield, are historical analyses of scholarship of particular 'stars' which can serve as de facto disciplinary histories. Such an approach is extremely common in economics and management. (See e.g. Wren, 1987; Brue, 1991; Landreth and Colander, 1989). In Australia, Groenewegen and McFarlane (1990) place considerable attention on ideas and theories of particular economists.
Within industrial relations the paucity of histories have been matched by paucity of intellectual biographical analyses, except for those analysts from other areas who have been influential for aspect of industrial relations, such as Commons (Coats, 1983;) and Taylor (Copley, 1916). There have been however no histories of the ideas of Dunlop or Flanders, nor of Isaac or Niland in Australia.
Of the seff-conscious histories or historical surveys, that of Strauss and Feuille (1978) is a classic of descriptive analysis which masks an attempt to redirect the attention of scholars to neglected issues. Schatz' (1995) survey also provides a useful portrayal of what American industrial relations scholars have perceived as valid intellectual sources and methods, as is evident even in the title, "From Commons to Dunlop ..." . As with other historical surveys, such histories remind historians of thought to evaluate
51 what is omitted from histories, as much as what is included for investigation and analysis. Roberts' (1972) survey of British industrial relations has a personal flavour about it, although like Schatz, his aims were broader. By contrast, in Australia, Richard Morris' research into the early uses of the "industrial relations concept", covering the nineteenth and early twentieth was thorough-going history into the intellectual origins of industrial relations. (Morris, 1987, 1993)
Most 'histories', however, tend to take place as automatic survey introductions to research books and texts. Often what scholars are attempting to do, is to highhght their perceptions of the discipline by delineating the important or the weak facets of industrial relations. Such a delineation will emphasise and justify the scholar's position. Beaumont, (1990) for example concludes his somewhat selective historical survey of industrial relations as a field of study by noting "I have touched here on certain concepts and arguments that remain to be more fully examined in subsequent chapters." (Beaumont, 1990, p.20, itahcs added) In this case, history is of value only because it is the instrument from which scholars can advance their research, but for this very reason it is not good history. This is because it is history with an overt purpose of selectivity of material. It is not an investigation of what happened, but of needs to be remedied. (See also Kochan et al., 1984; Dabscheck and Niland, 1981)
One result of the dearth of histories of ideas or the discipline, has been that histories of industrial relations systems have been useful for the historian. For example, Kaufman (1993) (see below) cites Kochan's (1980) history of collective bargaining, arguing that such histories convey the nature of thought of particular times. The histories of unions, and business histories have also provided substitutes for the history of ideas. In Australia
52 interpretative histories of elements of the industrial relations system have included analyses of the arbitration system such as Macintjrre and Mitchell, (1989) or in particular actors within the system (Dabscheck, 1989b). While none of these could in fact be called a history of industrial relations as an academic discipline, they may provide insights for the historians of industrial relations scholarship, because they deal in part specffically and historically with earlier interpretations of these phenomena.25
Despite the dearth of histories, most industrial relations textbooks begin with an historical survey, which of itself acts as a view of history. Textbook histories tend to cover the same things - early management practices and approaches to the employment relationship, legislation and other state intervention, aspects of conflict, trade unions, employer associations, and some major approaches to the analysis of strikes. Textbook approaches, as was noted above, can be very important in disciplinary development precisely because they shape the questions and issues for the next generation. Deery and Plowman (2nd edition, 1991) for example depicted the categories of modes of interpreting issues in the employment relationship, based partly on Fox's 1966 model - unitarist, pluralist, and radical-Marxist. However, in order that they could identify the analytical framework of their text (see chapter 5 & 6), Deery and Plowman, (1991) treated as separate approaches, the somewhat similar American pluralist models of Dunlop's system framework, and the strategic choice framework of Kochan et al.. (1986) Like Deery and Plowman, (1991) Gardner and Palmer's (1992) historical overview was carefully structured to attain consistency with the ideas in the text. Their book deals with labour and
25 See also Blackmur, 1993; Chapter 11, Sheridan, 1989, Chapter 10. 53 industrial relations institutions and institutional processes, which are treated separately from a discursive of schools of management thought.
Yet while they fulfilled their objectives, the text histories and the histories of institutions are not histories of academic industrial relations in Austraha. They are sources for such a history, not a history of industrial relations scholarship, anymore than Durkheim's Division of Labour is a history of sociology.
Bruce Kaufman
There are rare exceptions to this dearth of work on the history of academic industrial relations. The most obvious and outstanding of these and one which deserves close attention, is Kaufman's scholarly work. The Origins and Field of Industrial Relations in the United States published in 1993. Kaufman traces the origins of industrial relations as a field of study from the end of the nineteenth century when the early modern labour economists and management theorists began to investigate the labour problem.
Kaufman argues that the labour problem, later recast as labour problems, is the fundamental basis for industrial relations analysis. By the labour problem (which preceded labour problems as the primary unit of analysis), Kaufman is referring to "the struggle between labor and capital over the control of production and the distribution of income, and the conflict engendered by this struggle." (Kaufman 1993, 4) Two interlinked points about this assessment are worth noting. The first is that 'conflict' is seen to follow 'struggle'. The difficulty is not so much the semantic issues, of the difference between conflict and struggle, although they are interesting, but rather the implication that labour, not capital nor employers nor managers is the site of the conflict and struggle. The conceptual development which 54 followed the labour problem was, Kaufman asserts, more plural in a variety of ways. He argues that labour problems was used to signify a recognition that multiple problems existed - problems for management in terms of employee turnover, soldiering, and excessive waste, while employees' problems related to poor conditions, pay, job insecurity and child labour. Thus while the complexity of issues increased as analysts gained greater understanding, the site of the problems still rested squarely with labour. Allied to these assumptions were the unquestioned and unquestionable legitimacy of the rights of capital, which from Kaufman's perspective, were embedded in industrial relations from the start.
It is not surprising that Kaufman identified the development of two strands of analysis - personnel management (PM), the micro perception of the 'labour problems' and Institutional Labo(u)r Economics (ILE), the macro view. The PM School was shown to be those who took a behavioural approach to employment relations. Their focus was the behaviour of work groups and employees evident, for example, in the work arising from the Hawthorne experiments. Kaufman (1993, pp.95-7//) argues that the separation of these two strands forms a major part of the history of academic industrial relations in the USA.
Overlaid on the two-category tension of PM and ILE is another set of two opposing pressures in industrial relations scholarship which related to the purpose of research. Kaufman, (1993, pp. 12-13) following from Barbash (1991), identified these as science building and problem-solving. The former designates academic research undertaken for increasing knowledge acquisition abilities or capacities, while the term, 'problem-solving', is used to mean research with the objective of 'solving' current practical issues.
55 For Kaufman (1993, pp.59-95), the 1950s were a Golden Age of industrial relations scholarship in part because scholars were primarily involved in problem-solving. Moreover, the practical focus in the 1950s demanded a multidisciplinary problem solving approach. Such an approach enriched the ideas of the discipline and led to formation of evident attributes of a discipline such as academic associations, research centres and teaching programs. Yet, rather than advance the newly assertive academic disciphne in the USA, Kaufman argues, the Industrial Relations Research Association, (IRRA) set the scene for the decline (the 'hollowing out) of industrial relations. (Kaufman, 1993, pp.69-71). This was because a major outcome of the formation and development of the professional / academic association was to emphasise the tensions between science building and problem- solving, and between ILE and PM.
For Kaufman, the process of hollowing out was completed with the publication of Dunlop's (1958) Industrial Relations Systems. (Kaufman, 1993, pp.99-102) He saw Dunlop's internationally known publication was both a reflection of the growing dominance of the ILE approach, and the determinant of the now inevitable and irrevocable split between the PM and ILE strands. Kaufman ascribes Dunlop's influence on academic industrial relations as being immensely important, for both explaining and establishing the focus on collective bargaining, labour markets and the distributive elements of employment.
For Kaufman, industrial relations scholars in the USA in the late 1950s and 1960s were faced with an either/or choice for their discipline. There were, he argued, only two alternatives.
Dunlop presented the field with a clear choice. If it followed the model he had laid out it effectively shed the PM school and its 56 behavioural science disciplines, and became a more rigorous but narrowly constituted field oriented toward the discipline of economics, (and to a lesser extent law), the study of unions and collective bargaining, and the pohcy perspective of the ILE school. (Kaufman 1993, 102)
Given only the two apparent choices, the industrial relations scholars followed Dunlop's path, which Kaufman insists, resulted in a hoUowing out of the discipline in the 1960s and 1970s, (Kaufman, 1993, pp.65-155) and a inevitable decline in the 1980s.
Primarily this dechne is attributed to the lack of theory, which weakened the discipline as it shifted toward science building in the attempts to gain academic credibility. The decline of unions and collective bargaining just at the time the US scholars had centred on these phenomena also contributed to the decline. Finally the values which Kaufman (1993, 133) argues had earlier provided 'bonds of association and a sense of shared purpose' became diffused as a consequence of the shift toward science building, which weakened US industrial relations analysis further. Thus while the number of publications and the status of the discipline increased in the 1960s the downward path of industrial relations is portrayed as predetermined.
For Kaufman, the reduction and decline in research institutions, programs, and academic associations is a manifestation of this inevitable fall. Kaufman places a high weight on the role of associations, and in the political nature of such associations, as indicating the nature and dfrection of thought in the discipline. Kaufman is an unashamed academic institutionalist, and makes a persuasive case for the using the roles and activities of the academic institutions and associations as signifying the state of the disciphne. For example, Kaufman's original low assessment of the IRRA continued through to his view of its decline in the 1980s, which he attributed
57 to the "underrepresentation of intellectual talent in the IRRA". (Kaufinan, 1993,p.l55)
These are important for Kaufman's story, but it is possible that in focussing on the institutions, Kaufman does not give sufficient weight to the ideas and developments which were not dominant; nor does he give much account of contextual factors. Similarly, Kaufman's model of the two sets of tensions (PM - ILE, and problem-solving - science building) perhaps over-simphfies the richness of a complex story. On the one hand Kaufman rejoices in the multidisciplinarity of the years before about 1960, (Kaufman, 1993, pp.93-5), yet central to his argument is a simplification of this richness to two seemingly mutually exclusive categories - PM, based on plant level behavioural sciences and ILE, a branch of labour economics. Both the mutual exclusivity and the elementary categorisation run contrary to the claims for multidisciplinarity. Industrial relations is either a behavioural science or economics - the other social sciences are rarely mentioned, except for example in a footnote dismissing the sociology as having no interest in industrial relations C. Wright Mills, for example, barely rates a mention.
Kaufman demonstrates his Wisconsin heritage in a third omission in his story - like his admired intellectual ancestor John R Commons, Kaufman has little time for either left or liberal views. They have nothing to contribute to industrial relations says Kaufman, (1993, p.238) and have really had no place in US industrial relations scholarship.
Thus despite the fact that the ideas in Braverman's Labour and Monopoly Capital, for example, are generally accepted, and indeed the book was required reading in the Wisconsin industrial relations theory course for many years, Kaufman gives no place to the role of this or other left material in US industrial relations scholarship. Indeed, the absence of sociology is
58 explained by Kaufman (1993, 237) as partly a consequence of his outright rejection of a role for any overtly Marxist or leftist analyses, since many sociologists took these views which were incompatible with "the more conservative pluralistic views" in industrial relations.
Kaufman's history is thoroughly researched - the last eighty pages of the book are footnotes and bibliography, but as with any history it teUs a story which omits factors and phenomena which may be significant to the development and apparent decline of industrial relations scholarship. The exclusion of what appear from a distance to be major variables, emphasises the problems of histories of thought, and in particular the problem with histories bound too tightly both to a model and to chronological sequencing.
Conclusion
A disciphnary history may retard scholarship by retelling the history of the disciphne through a particular paradigmatic perspective, or enhance the scholarship by investigating and analysing fully the development of ideas within that discipline. Such a history also offers a means of understanding what contextual and internal features can facilitate the development of the discipline in terms of rigour and relevance.
In order to develop a framework for undertaking a rigorous history of a discipline, there needs to be a basis for understanding what it is that is being investigated. Definitions of disciplines tend to be too narrow or too broad. By contrast, all disciphnes have a set of attributes which in combination act as identifiers of disciplines. These attributes are
59 1. object of analysis - the boundaries and the core
2. the intellectual domain as defined by the object of analysis as mediated by the epistemology, theory and methodology
3. a community of scholars, thefr networks, thefr output, and the teaching and research programmes with which they are associated.
4. the history
Preliminary investigations have shown that industrial relations can be identified through this framework, albeit taking into account specific characteristics such as disciplinary self-doubt and concern over the lack of central nomological propositions which derive from the interrelationships of the four attributes.
Historically industrial relations has evolved as a multi-mode discipline. This is because it has multiple intellectual origins, such as law, economics, sociology and public policy. As Kaufman (1993) reveals in his history, a tendency within the discipline, has been to reject the multiple methodologies in favour of narrow approaches to theory and method. Yet there is evidence to suggest that the multi-disciplinary attributes have been its strength, and thus should be nurtured. In order to understand the significance of these attributes, it is essential to explore further the nature of disciphnes and the transfer of knowledge within and between disciplines.
60 CHAPTER TWO
OF METHODS AND INTERDISCIPLINARITY
In the previous chapter, the issues in defining a disciphne and the central elements of a disciplinary history were noted. In the process of these explorations it became clear that there is a variety of approaches to investigation. These relate particularly to the notion of vahdity of knowledge itself, and, concomitantly, of knowledge getting processes. These two conceptuahsations - epistemology and methodology - are at the heart of every discipline or school of thought, and so at the heart of analysing fields of study. But as will be shown, in undertaking a history of a social science, there are competing claims between two basic forms of knowledge acquisition - history which is primarily dependent on rationahty, competes with the social sciences, which depends to a greater or lesser extent on the 'scientific method'. However, a history of a social science necessarily draws on both methods so that in deciding on the optimal investigation method and processes requires reference to both. As will be shown below such a mixed method approach is possible through combining elements of the historical and scientific methods, with insights from the sociology of knowledge literature and from critical theory.
Knowledge (however defined) is always changing, and disciphnary knowledge is inherently in a state of change because that is its purpose. But the ways in which ideas develop or fade, the ways in which concepts or propositions are included or excluded, and the determinants of the transfer of ideas - the order and process of these kinds of changes are important in coming to grips with knowledge-getting for a disciplinary history. A brief exploration of epistemology and methodology will provide foundations for the 61 later analyses of the nature of paradigms and thefr converse, interdisciplinarity. The last is especially important since a history of a disciphne is necessarily an interdisciphnary undertaking. It requires some of the craft of history and an understanding of the disciphne under study. The examination of the process of paradigm shifts and interdisciphnarity leads to questions about the ways in which ideas are transferred within and between disciplines and other bodies of thought, such as social norms. In other words, before commencing an historical investigation of a particular social science, fundamental aspects of knowledge-getting and knowledge transfer in the broadest terms requires some investigation.
Thus, in order to clarify the substance, influences and changing nature of Australian academic industrial relations between the 1950s and 1990s, this chapter examines the epistemological and methodological bases for the ways in which knowledge is acquired and transferred within and between disciplines, and between a discipline and its environment. This is necessary for two reasons, the first is to understand the nature of research methods and knowledge production in disciplines such as industrial relations which draw on the methods and modes of inquiry in several disciphnes, while the second is to explore the means for interpreting industrial relations scholarship in order to achieve best understanding of the writings of exponents of industrial relations. In the following sections, some basic elements of epistemology and methodology are explored and compared in order to evaluate their worth for understanding a history of thought.
62 Epistemology and Methodology
That branch of philosophy known as epistemology deals with what is vahd knowledge and what are the grounds for accepting its validity. At its most basic there is the question of what is real and what is supposed or imagined, and 'not real'. Williams and May (1996, pp.5-6) cite Bertrand Russell's weU known example of seeing a cat move out of sight. Questioning its existence when it is out of sight may lead to intuitive suppositions or it may rest on a number of other explanations. Similarly, Marx, for example, showed that things have a reality independent of our current perceptions or observations. Such issues become even more important when dealing with institutions such as unions or concepts such as management or industrial conflict or democracy or social justice which raise questions of methodological individualism (reality only resides with individuals) and hohsm (institutions are real, and not simply abstractions). Indeed the ways in which researchers justify their claims for reliable or valid knowledge will determine thefr methods. As will be discussed below such epistemological issues are closely integrated with research methods.i (Williams and May, 1996, 6-8; see also Eisenstadt and Curelaru, 1976; Machlup, 1978; Scott, 1993; Fuchs, 1992)
Poincare's ironic comment that "natural scientists discuss their results and social scientists their methods" (cited in Dogan and Pahre, 1990, p. 131), highlights the need to give due consideration to method in a history of a social science. As was noted in the previous chapter, there is no general method in the history of thought or of disciphnes, partly because there is a multiplicity of reasons for undertaking disciplinary histories or histories of thought. As well, many historians of thought are trained in their disciphne, rather than in the craft of history. The problem for the historian of
' By which is meant the broad approach to a topic, not a techniques such as surveys, econometric analysis or hermeneutics, although these will often be allied to a method. 63 disciphnary thought therefore is to identify and choose an appropriate method to develop a rigorous and comprehensive understanding of the processes of development and transmission of ideas within the disciphne and from other disciplines. The need to consider method is doubly important in fields such as industrial relations where scholars been active borrowers of methods, concepts and techniques from the hinterland disciplines.
Of itself, methodology is a complex and difficult area of study, or as Barry (1970, p. 166) has designated it the "bourne from which no traveller returns". In this doleful statement, Barry is referring to the complex relationship between epistemology, method and theory, which can generate merely abstruse meanderings. Barry's gloom is partially justified. These are terms in which social scientists frequently flounder; historians tend to avoid them and industrial relations scholars almost never deal with them. Yet rigorous questioning of the sources of knowledge (and ignorance) (Popper, 1976) and the basis for reliable knowledge may well assist industrial relations scholars to overset the self doubt noted in the previous chapter.
Methodology is often incorrectly used to described a set of techniques or 'methods' in a research project. (Kelly, 1999) More correctly it is the "study and evaluation of procedural rules, heuristic principles and ... conventions". (Coats, 1993a, p.24) Even within this crisp definition however, there are multiple levels at which research rules, principles and conventions may be examined. In order to avoid these difficulties, the discussion which follows will be limited initially to two methods, the scientific method and the historical method, and further narrowed to aspects of those methods which generate best insights toward a devising a framework for a history of a social science. Other methods wiU then be examined briefly.
64 In this respect, the model of other disciphnary histories is useful since, as with other forms of inteUectual histories, they reveal some defined patterns of research. These have tended to be varieties of the historical method, (see below) taking the evolution of ideas of the mainstream as a dependent variable and seeking to place these in an intellectual and social context. However, any historiographical analysis within the social sciences requfres the investigator to employ more than the historical perspective. This is because the social and behavioural sciences always employ the 'scientffic method' to a greater or lesser extent. Therefore a broad analytical approach is needed which also encompasses the nature and role of the scientific method in the discipline. However, many of these disciplines define the scientific method differently and utilise it in different ways. To undertake a history of such disciplines demands acknowledgment and clarification of their methodology.
For example, the concerns of the behavioural sciences (specificaUy psychology and management) are with the causes and consequences of human behaviour. Thus, while psychologists differentiate between cognitivists and behaviourists, (Slife And Williams, 1995) the production of knowledge in these disciplines omits matters such as economic forces and institutional changes, which are of primary concern to social scientists of various hues. In turn the behaviourists' exclusion of external / public issues determines the methods employed. Content thus mediates method and philosophy. While undoubtedly there are scholars who undertake research which is close to social science, (most notably critical management and areas of industrial psychology) the epistemological and methodological bases of the behavioural sciences ranging from human resource management to psychology generally lead to hypothetic-deductive empfricism.
65 By contrast, the methodology of the social sciences is rather more eclectic. In economics and economic history for example, although current fashions are toward h5rpothetic-deductive empiricism, (indeed often without any empfrical approaches), there are strong traditions of scientific inductivism, and at the edges there is recourse to the historical method, in areas such as 'old' economic history, labour history, and sociology. To some extent all of these disciplines, with the obvious exception of economics^, have also been influenced in recent years by post-modernism, that coUage of method which is differentiated by its assumptions of fragmentation and crisis rather than by traditional concerns with scientific truth and historical vahdity.
Thus an exploration of the nature of knowledge-getting processes appropriate to a history of industrial relations requires an initial shift right away from disciplinary scholarship to the general questions within the realm of what may be called the philosophy of social sciences. This is because hke all scientific enterprises, this study is seeking to identify and explain the patterns of influence on an evolving (though not in a hnear sense) body of thought. The difficulty is that neither the patterns of influence nor indeed the body of thought, is concrete or observable. Yet fundamental to this exercise is the identification and analysis of causal and other relations between ideas, the creators and interpreters of those ideas and the foundations on which they rest. In order to avoid "epistemological anarchy" (H. Lenk cited in Redman, 1993, p. 45), the accepted modes of understanding of how knowledge is acquired and produced must be explored. This wUl
2 However, the possible intrusion of chaos theory and some aspects of game theory may generate changes, although the foundational assumptions of economists that single truths are possible may hinder such developments. In industrial relations too, there has been remarkably little postmodernism, although some scholars (Mathews, 1989, 1990) have been influenced by the work of the economic geographers such as Lash and Urry (1987). See also, Peet, (1999). Godard (1993b) has made a single notable, hesitant and self- deprecating attempt to use postmodernist approaches. In the area of 'critical management' Australian scholars like Pataier and McGraw (1997) and UK scholars like Keenoy (1997, 1999) and Burrell (1994) have flirted with post-modem approaches, mainly within the critical tradition. See also Grant et al. (1997). 66 allow a reflective and analytical framework for exploring the Australian industrial relations and the influences on it.
The foundation for aU research is to know better. Scholarly research goes a step further and seeks to know better - systematically. The focus of investigation of this project is a body of thought (a socially constructed and partly coherent set of ideas) in which we are attempting to appreciate the central concerns of that body of thought and the determinant influences on its changing shape. Various means are open to the investigator, but at base each of these means makes assumptions about what is valid knowledge and what are valid knowledge getting processes. Two of the most venerable are the scientific method and the historical method - these will be explored before evaluating other approaches, because they provide essential analytical perspectives on the systematic research processes.
Scientific method and empiricism
The scientific method is often used as a short-hand term for positivism, but this is too narrow, and indeed the term conveys multiple meanings. In the social sciences there are three epistemological elements, which derive from scientific principles.
The foundation assumption is that
social phenomena are governed by general laws and the task of the social scientist is to discover them. ll]f... these are laws are like those governing natural phenomena [then] they are spatially universal, temporally constant and impervious to modification by human activity ... (Gordon, 1991, p.304)
Though Gordon perhaps overstates his case, these are nevertheless ideals which have been the concerns of social scientists and philosophers of science
67 for centuries. The assumption that there is an objective world, as signified in the assumption that there are general laws, leads to a second assumption of 'objectivity', in the 'matter' with which the scientist is deahng, and therefore in the processes of method and investigation. The third element is based on the belief that the objective world is governed by general laws.
The social science which most closely replicates these requfrements is a predominant paradigm within economics. (Redman, 1991; Coats, 1993a). Gordon claims that economics is "quite severely reductionist and embraces methodological individualism as a fundamental principle of science, while sociology is more holist and emphasizes the emergent properties of social associations" (Gordon, 1991, p.300; see also Coats; 1993a).3 However, Gordon is accepting only the neo-classical paradigm within economics. Institutional economics and behavioural economics tend not to be reductionist.'* Nevertheless what these 'neoclassical economists have achieved is the goal of many other social scientists.
Indeed the primary means to systematic knowledge getting, the scientific method is claimed to be the most preferred for many serious social scientists. (Campbell, 1988; Neumann, 1997; Solow, 1989) As noted above however, any survey of literature into what is the scientific method will generate a variety of quite different methods and fundamentals. What is meant by the scientific method depends on the author (e.g. Godard, 1993b, pp.284-7; Redman, 1991, see esp. pp.103-41), the discipline (e.g. Tilly, 1981; Johnston, 1986) and the time, (e.g. Popper, 1972; Piatt, 1996). A common view is that the scientific method requires formal research rules which ensure objectivity
^ Gordon gives the example of a set of data of household income and expenditure. The economist, he claims, talks about income elasticities of an individual (because all people are the same) where sociologist tends to view different social classes as having different behaviour patterns. '^ This alerts us to the problem of conflating schools of thought with disciplines as a whole. As noted elsewhere, Kaufinan (1993) makes a similar mistake with sociology which he claims moved away from industrial relations because scholarship in the former discipline tended to be leftist in orientation. 68 and demonstrate allowable truths, however fleeting. At its simplest such processes begin with a theory derived from induction which suggests hypotheses or assertions which may be tested through scientfficaUy accepted deductive methods and procedures. If the research rules are followed, then the outcomes of such processes would produce confirmation or refutation of such a theory.^
What is frequently taken to be the scientific method is in fact the positivist scientific method which for many social scientists is indeed the core of social science research, Positivist, empfricist social scientists overtly seek 'objectivity', drawing from the perceptions of the superiority of the physical sciences as 'value-free' For the positivist, social science is
an organized method for combining deductive logic with precise empirical observations of individual behaviour in order to discover and conffrm a set of probabilistic causal laws that can be used to predict general patterns of human activity (Neumann, 1997, p.63)
Once a theory can be deductively demonstrated, then it offers the means for prediction, for nomological laws which are true under most circumstances within the defined constraints. Beyond this simple explanation, there are many modifications of what is essential in choices of theory, method and technique, for example drawing upon Popper's falsifiability, or Lakatos's assertions of what are 'givens'. (see below) In his discussion following the above quote, Neumann (1997) avoids the question of how much logical deduction and inference (rational analysis) is permissible vis a vis observation, i.e. empiricism. He argues however, that greater objectivity is
^ This is, of covirse, not the only process of scientific investigation, but it is probably the most promoted ideal of scientific research. Nevertheless, while beyond the scope of this project, the role of intuition in economics, and inductivism in sociology, for example deserve closer attention. 69 achieved through the use of quantitative data, the preferred basis for empfricism. On the other hand Neumann and others are silent on the ways in which the choice of problem, or data, and the imphcit biases in the data and within theories and hypotheses may indicate strong but latent bias.
If the researcher and the researched are inherently biased, then value free research is not sustainable within the essential attributes of positivism. Neither are strict and a-contextual methods which take no account of differences or of hidden attributes not amenable to observation or empirical analysis. By excluding the unmeasurable, the positivist empiricist is taking subjective steps. That these steps are not explained does not exclude their subjectivity. Yet as Gordon (1991, pp.624-35), after noting similar concerns to those of critical social researchers, reminds the reader, the rhetoric of the positivist empiricists is, correctly he believes, at odds with the practice. Real commitment to perfectionism, Gordon notes, would lead to a cessation of all scientific investigation if researchers were completely committed to rejecting value laden or a-contextual analysis. (Gordon, 1991)
In these respects, C. G. Hempel's model is an apt and notable example.^ Hempel stands squarely between the historians and the logical positivists. The promise, if not the practice, of Hempel's method is particularly relevant to those industrial relations analysts whose fruitless (and needless?) search for 'grand theory' has been implicitly aimed at achieving precisely the epistemological framework which Hempel proposed. The framework began with a view that there did indeed exist an ideal mode of analysis. This was founded on a universal scientific method which must be used in order to identify and use 'covering laws' - laws which explained aU behaviour under certain conditions - hence the term, Covering Law Model (CLM) It works
^ Sources for this section include Gordon, 1993, Machlup, 1978, 50-53, Redman, 1991 70 hke this. The historian takes an event (Event) which requfres explanation, the preceding event(s) that trigger(s) Event, and a vahd (general law) that describes the necessary connections between Event and events. Hempel recognised that that surety with the social world was not as achievable as that of the physical world. Hence laws would not be quite as fixed as scientific laws and should rather be seen as 'strong probabihstic statements'. In this respect an Event's occurrence is a specific instance which offers evidence of a general law which fits all similar situations. Hempel's CLM highlights several issues for an industrial relations scholar. He would argue that most industrial relations writing has been simply a series of explanation sketches which indicate vaguely the laws and conditions that might be relevant. Under Hempel's method the industrial relations scholars should specify precisely the CL's that give substance to the explanation. In asserting that industrial relations or any other historical events can be explained in the same way as Boyle's Law or Einstein's theory of relativity may be argued to miss the point about human behaviour and its social and economic contexts. Is it possible, for example, that a miners' strike in the USA in the 1930s or in South Africa during apartheid, or in Australia in the 1990s could be explained by a general law of strikes?' Certainly that has been attempted, but the outcome has been a level of reductionism, excluding fundamental factors which reduce the possibihty of deriving any but barest of laws.
Large events must be decomposed to a level where some secure generalisations ... may be applied, but generally these may involve infinite regress ... (Gordon, 1991, pp.394-5)
•^ See e.g. Keenoy, 1985, pp.202-3 71 Thus, the strike caused by poor management must be within a covering law, the events of which require other covering laws. This of course also can lead to a deterministic conception of events but that is another story.
Moreover, the CLM assumes that all phenomena are events - simple enough when examining a strike or a decision to move production off-shore. There are at least three internal assumptions with this assumption. The first is the assumption that events have closure - like a child's fairy tale events have beginnings middles and ends, which ignores different manifestations of the same causative factors. Secondly, much of the social sciences deals with processes and ideals. Thirdly, while the CLM has some uses in explanation and analysis, it is not effective in practice. In the policy sciences such as industrial relations and public administration, CLM's have been attempted but precisely because the social and economic systems are dynamic, the worth of CLM is doubtful. Even if the problem of infinite regress were overcome, the utterly static conception of the covering law model runs contrary to the fundamental assumption of most social sciences that the complexity and mutability of the economy and society demands assumptions of change and changing determinants. (Gordon, 1991, p.394)
Many would argue that there are similarities between Marxist analysis and the covering law model, insofar as Marxists will explain events in terms of a general law that the mode of production will provide a direct explanation of all events, although neither Hempel nor Marx gives weight to such teleological considerations. The difference between the two hes in the level of analysis. Hempel ignores the mode of production and gives primacy to middle level laws. His concern is with events. Moreover, what reduces the deterministic aspects of Marxist analysis is the place given to individual seff- determination within the constraints and choices. Since Hempel's 'laws' are
72 event-oriented, they prevent the addition of individual and group responses which are contextually defined. What is important about Hempel's model for this chapter, is that it represents a well-known and genuine attempt to apply a truly scientific method to social science phenomena. Hempel's concerns are with obtaining truths by separating facts and values through defining and applying scientific laws of the same ilk as Boyle's Law or Newton's Laws of Motion.^
Closer focus on the processes of research are found in the methodological contributions of the methodologists of the 1950s and 1960s. The work of Lakatos, and in particular Kuhn, have particular significance for any social science analysis and indeed have been taken up to a fair extent by social scientists (Coats, 1993a, pp.37-57; Gordon, 1991). Kuhn's concept of paradigms is also apt in analysing such immaterial topics as the history of a body of thought (Kuhn, 1972, 1977).^ For Kuhn scientific research is not just about generating laws. Rather scientific research is a socially determined enterprise which operates within strict rules, which, however, are not immutable. In any disciphne, there is a predominant school which sets the legitimate objects of analysis, the research rules, and the criteria for validity. Together these comprise the paradigm. As knowledge expands, evidence accrues which questions elements of the paradigm, and which eventually overturns the paradigm. Like an Hegehan dialectic, a new counter-paradigm arises.
Countering Kuhn, (although similar in some respects) was the work of Lakatos who used the term programme, by which he meant something hke a
® The issues of the hnks between metanarrative (e.g. Marxism), grand theory, method and middle range theory is dealt with in e.g. Skinner, 1993. ^ However, as Redman (1991) and others have noted, Kuhn's own construction of what was a paradigm shifted significantly. A paradigm covdd incorporate a strict integrated set of theoretical and methodological elements, or it could simply be a broad descriptor for the attributes of a school or sub-speciahsm. 73 paradigm, but with different structure. For Lakatos, the shared goals, approaches and methods are centrifugally arranged around a core, a set of fundamental and essential ideas. Lakatos gives as his example Newton's laws, which were invariable, and upon which the disciphne of Newtonian science rested. The core is sacrosanct - all else may be subject to change. Surrounding the core is an iron curtain, a protective belt of auxiliary middle level 'givens' which may be modified or rejected, but which always act as a protective device of the core. In effect, the process of knowledge-getting is an evolutionary one, but the evolution may be towards either decay or progress. A social science example might be Braverman's Labor and Monopoly Capital, where its most ardent adherents have demonstrated almost all of the protective belt (e.g. deskilling, degradation) to be inaccurate, yet labour process theorists have in true Lakatosian fashion cordoned off the core, from the rest of 'machinery' of auxiliary hypotheses, middle level theory and coherent problem solving machinery. Thus Lakatos differs from Kuhn largely because of differing assumptions about the pace of knowledge change and the linearity in the growth of knowledge. On the other hand Lakatos, who in part sees knowledge as a series of accretions, as an archaeologist might see an ancient site, acknowledges the worth of previous levels of knowledge even where programmes have failed. For Lakatos then, knowledge getting is purposive and progressive but subject to discontinuities, as scholars eventually find it too difficult to sustain the core.
Even in these somewhat selective and simplified descriptions of the ideas of Lakatos and Kuhn, it becomes apparent that a central problem is the diminution of significance of contextual considerations. The scientific community appears to operate in a vacuum where the programme, paradigm or school becomes the context. All of the impetus comes from within the scientific community. (Redman, 1995, p.42) 74 By contrast the Strong Programme in Edinburgh offers a quite converse alternative, where most of the activities of scholars and the scholarly outcomes occurs as a consequence of social structures and norms. Coats (1993a, pp.14-17) and Gordon, (1991, pp.621-2; but see also Fuchs, 1992, pp.34-42 ) identify the main difficulties with such an approach in terms of the problematic assumptions of the Strong Programme that analysis of science ignores the science - if everything that scientists do is socially determined, then science disappears under a series of social acts. They may become "epiphenomenal and implicitly mechanistic consequences of social conditions." (Hawthorn, 1976, p.6) The internalist / externalist argument is one to which we shall return.
The concerns in this section however have been the bases and attributes of the scientific method. What has been noticeable, even in this brief foray, was that, despite the tendencies of many social scientists to label the scientific method as hypothetico-deductive, that is not necessarily the case. The scientific method may be inductive as well as deductive, empirical and rational, although empiricism is frequently purveyed by scientists as the strongest point of the scientific method. The search for meaning or understanding derives from, and moves through the apparent world. Perhaps the most notable difficulty with the positivist scientific method, (at least for this project), is that it deals with the surface appearance of reahty, what is 'observable'. For the empiricist, vahdity is primarily derived from what is 'observed', and that which cannot be observed does not exist. Furthermore, in terms of the history of thought, there are difficulties with the scientific approach, positivist or not, precisely because claims of objectivity and the tendency toward inward-looking scientism sit uneasily with vague concepts such as disciplines, and shppery concepts such as causality of influences on scholarship. 75 Historical Method
Like the scientific method, there is no single historical method, but rather a number of assumptions and approaches to researching history which draw on a perspective which takes time as an ontological element. For the historian the object of analysis is the past and the objective is to investigate the past, indeed the human past. Thus it is a social science insofar as historians attempt to clarify aspects of society which have occurred. Where history differs from many social sciences is that it is almost always interpretative. The past cannot be subjected to testing, to laboratory analysis or to replication of models.
This has led to a different set of tensions within history from those within disciplines upholding the scientific method. There are some similarities. As with the 'scientific' disciplines, the practice of the historical method has evolved according to a variety of intellectual and economic contexts. History is also considered and quite evidently is, part of the humanities, that group of disciplines which seeks to understand and express ideas of human nature. Historians see their practice as a craft, where the historian seeks to understand and convey the human past, or as Oakeshott has argued, history is "an argued invitation to imagine the intricacies and the coherence of a condition of human circumstance ..." (Oakeshott, cited in R. Johnston, 1986, p.72) In 'practising' history, the historian is thus interpreting ideas, events and processes, which are fundamentally mediated through the historian's own world-view. Moreover, in the traditional craft of history, the practitioner recognises that the actions of individuals and groups, which are embedded in the phenomena being explained, are themselves an outcome of the individuals and groups responding according to their context, including
76 economic, social, pohtical and cultural factors. There is thus a vast and complex set of circumstances which need to be understood.
In terms of methodology, this means for many historians (chometricians and followers of Hempel excepted), the goals and procedures of research are to interpret and explain, rather than test hypotheses in order to identify causes. It is worth noting in this respect that many historians tend to view the concept of causation very critically, yet use the term loosely. Thus an historian will discuss the 'causes' of World War I yet will generally mean conditions which enabled or which contributed to World War I. As Carr (1964) and others propose,lo in the traditional practice of history, events and epochs are examined with a view to understanding how, and therefore why, they occur. The objective is to identify necessary and sufficient conditions, rather than precise 'causes', in the scientific sense. The focus is less on truths and laws, and more on deriving valid and rigorous interpretations of what has occurred and what conditions enabled such occurrences. This is because in many circumstances historians see the specific objects of analysis as being subject to a large number of variables, which differ immensely according to contexts and actors. The 'cause' of an increase in trade or a strike may assist to explain one event, but will not explain another strike or increase in trade in a different place or time or industry.
The tensions in modern history have thus been threefold. First, there are the debates over what are valid sources, secondly, questions of what is the place of contexts, and thirdly, how can the researcher know that an interpretation is appropriate and rigorous? These questions assume that there is agreement over what are valid problems to be studied, an issue generally beyond the scope of this chapter, except to note that the
10 See e.g. Stretton 1969; Hobsbawm, 1997; Bentley, 1997b 77 broadening of history in the latter haff of the twentieth century (labour history, urban history, cultural history) has intensified the debates over the 'historical method'.n
Central to the craft of history has been the significance accorded to utilising archival and primary sources, and to subjecting such sources to critical scrutiny. These are two of the three cornerstones of historical scholarship for the traditional historian - what is selected and omitted form the basis for the interpretation. (Elton, 1967, 1991; Trevor-Roper, 1957; 1980) For most historians, particularly epoch or event centred historians, it is essential that most focus is on 'primary' sources, that is documents by or from the actors in a particular event or epoch. Carr (1967, p.16) talks of the 'fetishism of documents' which the revered historian approached with bowed head ... "If you find it in the documents, it is so" Despite the claims of Neumann, (1997) historians belittle the use of secondary sources, that is other histories or descriptions. (Ellem, 1999; Moss, 1997) Such commitment to the original texts was long evident in the history of ideas.
Partly as a consequence to the commitment to textual analysis, particularly in histories of ideas, historians have been accused of focussing too heavily on the 'stars', and insufficiently on everyday ideas and practices. Historians of thought, claimed Wooff (1997, p.308) focussed only on known texts of Great Thinkers. That has not only been the case in history of philosophy or science. Histories of economic thought or political thought (e.g. Sabine,
11 The influence of labour history on industrial relations has been considerable, not only because many industrial relations scholars have received their postgraduate and undergraduate training in history, (Markey, O'Brien, Sheldon), but also because the multi-method approaches of scholars such as Hobsbawm and Thompson are closely gdhed to issues in industrial relations and have also been influential on the practice of history in the last few decades of the twentieth centviry. (See also Sheridan, 1989; Hagan, 1981) 78 1963)12 ignored much of what had constituted disciplinary thought in particular eras and confined their focus to the main texts of the 'greats' i^
Reliance on a narrow range of sources also suggests the significance of the ways in which disciphnary rules and the 'invisible college', the arbiters of disciplinary rigour, may constrain research. For example, it was not until the 1950s that the process of narrow textual analysis was cast into doubt, at about the same time as the new sub fields of history entered the mainstream, i^ It was in these decades that 'context' came to be seen as important as 'text'. In the history of ideas, scholars such as J. G. A. Pocock and Quentin Skinner, argued that the environment in which ideas or events occurred mediated the 'facts'. According to Woolf (1997 p.316), Pocock 'shffted attention away from classic texts ... to competing languages in which they were written and through which dialogue, debate and practical action took place."15 These considerations became important too as scholars such as R. G. Colhngwood questioned the 'factuality' of texts. (Colhngwood, 1946) For Colhngwood, "the main concern of historians is with human actions which are always, expressions of thought. ... and show rather how various thoughts which are ascribable to the agents afforded them reasons for acting
12 In fairness to Sabine, he was aware of the hmitations of his history. In the Preface to his first edition (1937, p.xi) e.g. he notes that "Especially as one approaches the present time the problem of knowing what to include.... and what to omit... becomes nearly insoluble." In the third edition Sabine had rewritten his chapter on Lenin to hnk it more closely with events after 1917, and had cut out the chapter on Hitler's pohtical thought. (Sabine, 1963, 3rd ed.) 1^ Cited in WooLf, 308-9. Such constraint was evident in other areas of history, such as in the work of the Hammonds (1919, 1945) who interpreted a narrow range of documentary sources (texts) in their nineteenth century examinations of The Village Labourer and The Town Labourer. 1"* See e.g. Jeremy Brecher, (1972, 1986) and other histories which show changing historical practices / legitimate 'documents'. Woolf (1997) notes that Gibbons' classic history makes no mention whatever of the economic context. Only pohtical activity is worthy of examination. 15 Itahcs in original 79 as they did". (Dray 1997, p.767) In this respect 'facts' are less valuable than 'imagined' ascription.
However, as Carr and others have noted, the difficulty with the argument of Colhngwood (1946) and others is that taken to its extremes the argument then becomes that there are no truths - everything is a product of the historian's imagination. In an interesting prescient attack on post modernism, Carr i^ notes that.
Colhngwood ... against the view of history as a mere compilation of facts comes perilously near to treating history as something spun out of the human brain....we are offered here the theory of an infinity of meanings, none more right than any other. (Carr, 1961, 26)
Of course, Carr is responding to a small facet of CoUingwood's immense output as historian and philosopher of history, in which Colhngwood demonstrated that the historical imagination is of itseff a necessary but not sufficient attribute in practising the craft and method. Indeed Carr (11-12, 105) accedes to this view, and drawing on Talcott Parsons, asserts that there is some truth to rumour that, like science, history is a selective system of cognitive and causal orientations to reality.i'^
The traditional historical method therefore assumes (a) there are no historical equivalents to e=mc2 and that (b) events, lives, ideas, processes or epochs are the outcomes of a great array of social, political economic, and cultural influences and determinants, and (c) that the historian brings her or his own world view the practice of history. That is, at the core of the
1^ c.f Lyotard, cited in Woolf, 1997. "There should be stories, lots of them,. But they are to reflect a plurahty of 'truths', not a single Authorised Version." 1^ Carr (1964, p. 153) in a side swipe at Trevor- Roper lamented the popularity of "out and out conservatism in the form of out and out empiricism" 80 historical method has been the craft-based systematic investigation of sources which the historian selects, and with which the historian interacts. Interpretation of sources, says Carr (1961, 28) is the hfeblood of history. Where the logical positivist claims objectivity, the historian acknowledges that interpretation will always be subject to subjectivity - objectivity is not simply difficult, it is impossible. The tensions within the historical method therefore are between text and context, between facts (empfricism) and interpretation, and between concepts of rigour which demand breadth of investigation and those which see some forms and sources more legitimate than others.
There is one final aspect within the historical method which deserves comment, and that is the writing of history. If Hobsbawm and others are right that historians are singularly vague about theory, it is also true that historians place greater weight on the writing of history than most other academic disciplines. The narrative is far more important to historians, than for scholars in other social science disciplines. It is not surprising that the third cornerstone of history has been on the writing of history, i^ Even the most historicist of the historians lays great weight on the significance of conveying the processes or events. It is dffficult to imagine an economist for example scrutinising the narrative of another's work, and there are few industrial relations scholars who emphasise skill in the discourse. For the historian, the discourse has been inherent in the scholarship. Given the traditional emphases on interpretation of texts, and on conveying research findings as systematic 'imagination', the significance for historians of writing and the importance of audience are not surprising.
1^ In Elton's 180 page classic, The Practice of History, (Elton, 1967) for example has forty pages on Purpose, forty pages on Research and forty pages on Teaching but gives over fifty pages to Writing 81 The exponents of the historical method therefore have used texfi^ as the primary source for interpretation and rational analysis. Because interpretation, and even rationality, do not provide ultimate 'truths', and because interpretation is an individual exercise, historians are rather more cautious about the outcomes of their research than other social scientists. Moreover, the increased importance given to contextual influences in the last fifty years or so, and the broadening of what is researched have undoubtedly increased the complexity of the historian's craft. What has not changed has been the historians' concern not only with research processes, but also with the writing of history, an aspect which is perhaps unique in the social sciences.
Given these attributes, it is not surprising therefore that for some historians, post-modernism was a semi-logical development in the craft of history. 20 It is to this we now turn, before examining some aspects of critical theory. These are necessary in any examination of epistemology and methodology because both post-modernist and critical theory have been important intellectual influences on the history of ideas.
Post-modernism
Post-modernism derives from assumptions that the recent transformation of economy and society is so great that former, mostly unquestioned, underpinning concepts about the world and the place of individuals in society, no longer hold true. (Camilleri and Falk, 1992, p.49) From these assumptions have developed intellectual responses which are avowedly post modernist, but whose characteristics are not always clear. Such absence of
1^ The term 'text' is used here to mean documents, interviews, even statistics. The point is that historians see 'text' as a source to be mined rather than the mined product itself ^ Although post-modernist thinkers may not admit such directionality. 82 defined characteristics is characteristic of post-modernism. (Rosenau, 1992, see e. g. pp.62-71) Rather, than a method, Bentley (1997, p.489, citing Caplan) suggests that
'post-modern' is an adjective, most helpfully attached to a particular phase or period of thought, ... rather than a specific collection of tools or approaches. Like 'enhghtened' or 'romantic' it signals a persuasion that has obtained a partial grip on the speculations of a particular epoch.
Most texts expounding or explaining post-modernism therefore tend to identify a list of attributes of post-modernism precisely because, like the fundamental assumptions and concomitant research processes, any definition of post-modernism is necessarily fragmentary. Indeed fragmentation in perception and method is a core attribute of post-modern approaches. Society is not a real concept because the new market order has diminished national and cultural values. Totality and holism are rejected because totality smacks of totalitarianism, and rests on the grand theories ('metanarratives') of progress as linear and possible. (HoUinger. 1994, pp.124-6//)
The emphasis is on heterogeneity, plurality, tension, makeshift consensus, transgression and excess, ... difference and particularity, not unity ... (HoUinger, 1994)
And because another claimed attribute of post-modern thinking rejects the official and known interpretations of society, post-modernists claim to have listened for the first time to other 'voices', those on the margins of societies.21
21 Or at least that is what post-modernists assume, perhaps based on their rejection of historhistorvy . 83 These kinds of core assumptions thus lead a 'concern to decentre and destabilise conventional academic subjects of enqufry; a wish to see canons of orthodoxy in reading and writing give way to plural readings and interpretation; a fascination with text itseff and its relation to the reahty it purports to represent ...." (Bentley, 1997, p.490) If the social has no reality, and the distinction between reality and illusion has been cast aside, then the uses of scholarship are simply to interpret and describe the world order. (Rosenau, 1992; Peet, 1999; HoUinger, 1994)
The rejection of the structures of knowledge inherent in the social science is an important tenet of post-modernism. The assumption that 'modern' scholars have always 'dictated values and solutions' (HoUinger, 179) is perhaps questionable. Yet these conceptions (and Holhnger is not alone in offering vague assumptions and generalisations), provide a foundation for the self-ascribed superiority and relevance of post-modernist thought. What is most notable about the claims of HoUinger (following Foucault BaudrUlard and Lyotard) is the exhortation to accept uncritically, and purely for interpretation, the excesses, injustices and powerlessness of individuals. (HoUinger, 1992, pp.96-131, Peet, pp. 194-210).22
Despite the anti-history rhetoric of many post-modernists, (Rosenau, pp.62- 71) it is not surprising that historians have perhaps more readily than other scholars picked up on aspects of post-modernism. As noted above, historians have been aware for many years of the discontinuities in history, whUe historians such as Becher, Hobsbawm, and E. P. Thompson had begun to give voice to those on the pohtical margins long before post-modern scholars
22 It should be noted however the individual is also a vexed concept for post-modernists. This because notions of 'self are rejected. 84 discovered them.23 Furthermore, for historians, the notion that 'texts' may be interpreted in a variety of ways is axiomatic.
What has occurred in the practice of history since the 1970s has been a more purposive and self-aware practice of these kinds of examination. Such a shift reflects the increasing tensions felt within the inteUectual community as a consequence of the transformation in the world economy and simultaneously in the transformation in production, finance, and knowledge as a result of the development of computers, including the Internet, (see e.g. Forester, 1990; Hosie, 1999) It is not surprising therefore, as CamUleri and Falk (1992, 52-4) have noted, that 'post-modernism arose in all disciphnes at about the same time as transactions of people, information, goods, 'news', and rhetoric began to take place 'invisibly in multiple regions across the globe'.
Post-modernism is thus a descriptor rather than a method, but it has strong epistemological and methodological consequences for scholars. Yet even the most enthusiastic post-modernists acknowledge the ambiguities in post modern thought, and the possibility that as 'hidden voices' become heard, old metanarratives may just as easily become submerged or replaced by invisible metanarratives. Or, rejecting metanarratives, and accepting that what is 'true' comes from multiple and conflicting voices, signifies rejection of any moral or social order except the global market, about which powerless individuals can do nothing.24
23 See e.g. Thompson, (1980, 1st ed. 1963); Brecher, 1978a, 178b, 1986; Hobsbawm, 1968 24 However, Rosenau (1992) categorises post-modern social science into at least three categories, - skeptics, affirmative, and New Age. She argues that "the skeptics' ontological agnosticism urges them urges them to relinquish any global pohtical projects" (Rosenau, 1993, p. 139), yet also that marginahsed groups such as women, homosexuals, and ethnic minorities can find power in post-modern projects, (pp.145-8). See also Peet, 1999, pp.194-46 85 For the historian of ideas there are several possible responses. The first is that a history of thought should 'amphfy previously xmheard voices'. Thus in researching the discipline, the scholarship of less known analysts should also be examined. (Piatt, 1996) Secondly, effective acknowledgment can be made of the historical discontinuities in the development of ideas. Yet neither of these is new in the histories of ideas or thought. The work of Pocock, Lovejoy and other historians of pohtical thought cited above (Wooff, 1997) was concerned to clarify and identify discontinuities, and to understand the ways in which formerly rejected political philosophies gain significance under different political or social regimes, (see also Irving, 1978) On the other hand, the 'fascination with text itself has also not only been a hallmark of post-modernism, but of history in general. Certainly deconstructing text and looking for latent meaning has been a self-conscious attribute of post-modernists, but such analysis has been neither unique nor the sole preserve of post-modernism. What the post-modernist holds as singular to their approach, is the exhortation to 'revel in the fragmentation and cacophony of voices' of the modern world, and "to rethink the notions of self, society, community, reason, values and history that dominate modernity..." (HoUinger, 1994, p.170)
In this respect the project of a disciphnary history is clearly over-structured and irrelevant, and so must be rejected.
Other approaches and methods
It is not that the historical method and the scientific method offer a dichotomy of approaches to research. The epistemological considerations which underpin each of these methods (vahd knowledge dependent on observable characteristics and capacity for testabUity and generahsabihty v.
86 knowledge getting via interpretation of texts and context) throw up a great number of acceptable forms within the methods. Two other 'methods' highlight the breadth of knowledge-getting, particularly as it pertains to disciplinary histories. These are the 'critical' method and the sociology of knowledge.
As a means to investigate the influences and determinants on the discipline of economics. Coats' (1960, 1992, 1993a,) classic works on the history of economics have increasingly employed the methods of the 'sociology of knowledge'. By taking a sociology of knowledge approach, Coats has rejected the positivist approaches to knowledge production, insofar as he has acknowledged that, beyond observable 'facts', there are influences, ideals, belief systems and intangible constraints and possibihties on the discipline.
At base, the sociology of knowledge method accepts that there are varieties of knowledge and knowledge-getting, and that knowledge is obtained by individuals who operate within disciphnary, national and local frameworks. Coats gives some consideration to the Strong Programme in the sociology of knowledge which "reverses the usual relationship, making logic and methodology the subordinate partner and sociology the dominant". (Coats, 1993a, pp.14-18) Clearly such an approach recognises the discontinuities in knowledge acquisition and the importance of social phenomena on research processes. On the other hand, notes Coats, a balance is needed between traditional views of (social) science which perceive scientific endeavours and practices as separate and independent from society, and the possible interpretation of the Strong Programme, that scientific knowledge production has been chaotic because of the multiple social influences. Moreover, scientific knowledge-getting is dependent not only on external influences, but on the seekers and producers of knowledge themselves who
87 form a social community. This means that thorough-going studies of the sociology of knowledge should consider the organisation of research in different situations and historical circumstances, of how inteUectual fields become distinguished and separated, and how such fields as socio- intellectual structures become established, exert control over research, reproduce themselves and change. (Coats, 1992, p.20, citing Whitley 1983)
The sociology of knowledge approach therefore accepts the Kuhnian conception of science as holding internal social norms and practices. For analysts such as Coats therefore an academic disciphne is an ongoing collective enterprise and the rise, scientific characteristics, survival capacity and influence of particular intellectual groups movements and schools should be a primary focus of inquiry. (Coats, 1993a, p.25)
Critical theory
Critical theorists also draw on the sociology of knowledge, but for different reasons. In response to the weaknesses of logical positivism such as implicit value systems and the exclusivist science/pseudo-science dichotomy, critical scholars have attempted to devise approaches to research which sustain the rigour of scientific method without the perceived hmitations of empfricism. For critical theorists, a problem with empiricism is that much of what occurs in human society is not directly observable, so that empfrical research is hmited to surface analysis. Allied to this, the belief within logical positivism that replicability may generate law-like generahsations is not accepted, as illustrated by Outhwaite's much-quoted story of the late train.25 For the critical theorist, then, explanations or 'laws' of surface features of economics.
2^ If asked why the 8.06 from Wollongong was late the stationmaster (a positivist) would answer it was late because it was always late. The 'svirface' rephcation thus becomes the explanation and the reason. 88 society, or political processes ignore the underpinning structures. As Harvey (1990, p.4) describes it
Critical social research thus aims at analysis of social processes, delving beneath ostensive (sic) and dominant conceptual frames in order to reveal the underlying practices, their historical specificity and structural manifestations.
While there is a broad array of approaches critical theorists, two other important and inherent attributes are worth noting. The first is that critical theory is purposively multidisciplinary or 'supra-disciplinary', but within the social sciences only. Critical theorists such as Giddens (1984) take pains to differentiate actively between the physical and natural sciences, because it is precisely because the multiple and competing social, economic, pohtical and cultural influences on human society ensures that it is dynamic in ways that are beyond the static attributes of quarks or quokkas. (Giddens, 1996) Finally, and in direct contrast to much post-modernism, there is an action- oriented and normative component to much critical analysis, which directs scholars toward developing research that combines empirical and normative theorising. (Morrow 1994, p.52, Williams and May, 1996, pp. 120-4)
Interdisciplinarity and the transmission of ideas
Each of the foregoing methods and approaches offers important insights for the historian of a discipline, particularly in terms of approaching the amorphous subject matter of a disciphne such as industrial relations. Before integrating the ideas from the previous sections, however, there are still some epistemological gaps, to be considered, particularly with relation to the
89 nature of interdisciphnarity and multidisciphnarity. Imphcit in these last two concepts is the transfer and transmission of ideas.
These are important for this project for several, interrelated reasons. The history of Australian industrial relations, as was noted in the previous chapter, is an interdisciplinary project in several respects. As has been noted previously, not only are the boundaries of industrial relations vague and highly permeable, but it is a strong borrower of methods and ideas from other disciplines. In this respect it may not be so unusual. Tilly's view is that
the social sciences serve as a giant warehouse of causal theories and concepts involving causal analogies; the problem is to pick one's way through the junk to the solid merchandise. (TUly, 1981, 12)
However, there is a fair likelihood that borrowing in industrial relations is more extensive than in other disciplines. A further reason why interdisciplinarity and transmission of ideas is important, relates to the focus of this project which aims to identify the contextual influences on the discipline of industrial relations.
Here disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity will coalesce, since ideas and methods which influence Australian industrial relations scholarship may come from several sources, within the discipline and beyond. But even those ideas from within the disciphne may reveal interdisciphnary origins, such as Alan Fox's work which depends on sociology. Table 2.1 offers a simple diagrammatic representation of influences on Australian academic industrial relations which can include different disciphnes, and different temporal and spatial contexts. As imports, these borrowed ideas and
90 concepts may be put to different uses than thefr original intention by industrial relations scholars. While these processes wiU be examined more specifically in subsequent chapters, some investigation of these kinds of flows in a general sense illuminates the basic parameters and assumptions.
Table 2.1 Interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary influences on industrial relations
Disciplinary contexts Examples
flow of ideas within the motivation innovations "^ discipline in Australia wage determination Intradisciplinary across Niland 1970s •> IR 1990s time Intradisciplinary but from Fox (1974) ^ Austrahan IR outside Australia, different Dunlop, 1958 ^ Austrahan space IR same space, different law -^ IR (Foenander, 1954) discipline.
from overseas and from Braverman, 1974 (sociology) different discipline •*IR Lash and Urry, 1987 (geography) "^ IR same space, non-academic Changes in tertiary influences, public policy, education, advance of academic environment business liberahsm "^ changing emphases in IR teaching and research
Explanatory notes: "^ refers to process of influence IR: academic industrial relations
91 Interdisciphnarity or multidisciplinarity, while central for a disciphne such as industrial relations, need to be taken into account alongside intradisciplinary influences, precisely because these latter are inextricable in a multi-method discipline.
Disciplinarity to interdisciplinarity: influences and imperatives
While the concept of disciplinarity is a vexed one, it is clear that there is at least a defined corpus of focal ideas and scholars who belong to a discipline. The objective of this section is to delineate and evaluate the envfronment for interdisciplinarity. Even where discipline walls are porous and scholars reach out and employ methods and techniques extensively from other areas, they do so from their disciplinary perspective. Even ff aspects are perceived as flawed, the Kuhnian concept of paradigms highlights the centrality of disciplinary knowledge production which integrates or is weakened by new ideas or propositions. (Gordon, 1991, p.616).
Acknowledgment of paradigms or programmes also highlights the social nature of science. As Coats (1993a) and Woolf (1997) have noted, the older fashion of investigating a discipline, without reference to context, has been replaced, at least in part, by an assumption that scholars wiU take at least some cognisance of contextual factors when exploring a discipline. But the scholars operate in several contexts, within a school, a discipline and other environments. Thus, for Lakatos, for example, scientific progress occurs as scholars rationally choose which 'programme' advances knowledge more efficiently than the previous programme. By contrast, for writers such as Piatt (1978, 1996) what researchers do and what influences thefr research may be as broad as social norms or as narrow as family or personal circumstances. For others context at personal or cultural levels is rather
92 less important for the evolution of a disciphne than the rationahty of ideas and methods. (Redman, 1991) As Dogan and Pahre (1991) note, aU of these factors have contributed to twin contradictions on the expansion of the knowledge - the tendency to specialisation and the tendency to interdisciplinarity and fragmentation.
The very expansion of the number of disciphnary associations provides evidence that the scientific investigation has fragmented at an accelerating pace in the last half century. Coats (1993) notes for example that while there were twenty associations formed before 1940, another seventy-seven associations were formed in the US over the next forty years. WhUe other explanations may be sufficient for this massive increase in disciplinary organisations, they indicate commitment to disciplinary knowledge-getting processes and institutions, and also indicate that some significance should be given to the social aspects of science.
Moreover as Dogan and Pahre (1991) have shown, as disciplinary knowledge has advanced, so reputational systems through the institutions of journals and associations have become more sophisticated and important. In the process research standards and rules have become more explicit restricting scholars to the preferred modes and topics of the elite or 'invisible coUege'. Coats (1991, p.24), notes that while economists have achieved legitimate rights over a vast area, it has been within a very strict set of rules designated by an elite. Moreover, as part of the same process, economic researchers have also tended to avoid certain areas, such as economics of power and distribution of income In other words speciahsation has enhanced disciplinary development, but it has also left gaps.
These gaps have tended to be exacerbated by other institutional and social forces such as the growth of vocational education in universities and the
93 nature of funding. The former have forced scholars into apphed or vocationally oriented areas of study such as Total Quahty Management (TQM) and public sector accounting. The effect of funding research bodies on disciphnary has been more mixed. (Colander, 1989, pp.229-33) On the one hand they have tended influence the nature of research through rewarding research within particular paradigms. For example Newlon, (1989, pp. 198- 228) claims that particular paradigms within economics have not been favoured because of the system of peer review, yet in an imphcit acceptance that paradigmatic questions are important, addresses the conclusion of his article to the critics of the funding processes of the National Science Foundation, (NSF, US) "Get your act together. Offer alternatives and not just criticism. It takes a paradigm to beat paradigm" (See also Niland, 1978b) The kind of peer review in the NSF is common in other funding bodies and tends to reproduce particular paradigms. Similarly, Piatt (1996, 142-99), while ambivalent about the claims of bias in funding, noted that the proportion of articles based on unfunded research in the major US sociological journals, fell from over 80 per cent in the 1930s to 31 per cent in the 1980s. Piatt also shows the growth of funding of quantitative research in sociology, while Coats (1993a, p.25) comments on the 'monohthic control' over what economists may do. This kind of narrowing again reinforces intellectual spaces.
The two competing tendencies - within disciphnes toward narrower research propositions and methods, and the fragmentation of knowledge with changing needs for new kinds of knowledge - have both reinforced the tendencies toward hybridisation and interdisciplinarity. Despite the focus of thefr work, Dogan and Pahre reject the term 'interdisciplinarity'. They argue that inherent in the notion is the acquisition of two disciphnes, which they argue is sufficiently rare as to be meaningless. They therefore use the 94 term 'hybridisation', referring to the recombination of parts of two disciphnes into a new stronger form of the 'species'. Other scholars use interdisciplinarity to refer to similar research processes. (Sherff and Sherff, 1969) The salient point is that with the growth of knowledge and the increasing demands on knowledge producers, fragmentation and specialisation have both led to new research subfields. These may develop into coherent disciplines, sub-specialisations, or fields of study.
Interdisciplinary research may evolve through the mixed use of disciphnary concepts, method, or objects of analysis. Generally links will be closer to one of the parent disciplines than the other(s). Thus development economics remains within economics, albeit as a lowly status field, rather than within political science or sociology upon which it draws. Studies of the crowd in history (Rude, Hobsbawm) draw on psychology and sociology but remain tied to the historical method. On the other hand, the urban geographer shares much more with sociology than with geography, whUe the economic geographer remains within geography despite the extraordinarily close hnks with economics. (Peet, 1999; Johnston, 1986). The most notable feature of hybridisation is that it can bring new insights to research problems, even though scholars will often remain closely linked to one of the parent disciplines.
However the parental links may not always be clearly evident. Industrial relations can perhaps be seen as a hybrid discipline, drawing in the first instance from economics, and then variously from sociology, law, pohtical theory and personnel management. The variation in 'patrimony' is particularly evident when comparing US and UK industrial relations. While analysts in the former country have remained steadfastly tied to proto- institutional economics, those in the UK have demonstrated a rather more
95 mixed heritage. Other factors have impinged on UK scholarship such as the importance of the methodologically eclectic Sidney and Beatrice Webb. 26 (see Chapter Three)
It may even be argued that hybridisation has become the norm in many areas. This is not to agree with Hirschhfer that there is only one social science which reduces the social sciences to an all-encompassing cipher, but rather to argue that the evidence of an increasing number of different cross- disciplinary programs (women's studies, international relations) suggests that the rapid pace of interdisciplinary and multidisciphnary research in the last thirty or so years is not likely to slacken. The futxire of monodisciplinary research on the other hand is not necessarily under a cloud. Dogan and Pahre (1990), for example, having promoted the dfre importance of hybridisation, return to the notion of the disciphnary core and central significance of proper unidisciplinary training, if rigour is to be retained.
The transfer of ideas
The nature of interdisciplinarity, hybridisation and even the training within a single discipline all raise a final significant aspect of knowledge getting for this chapter - that is the transmission of knowledge and ideas.27 Every aspect of the getting of knowledge depends on the transmission of ideas. This is because even the beginning student does not come to scholarship as a tabula rasa, but rather is sociahsed to accept or reject concepts and ideas.28
^^ See e.g. Winchester, 1983, Flanders, 1968b. It is a curious but important fact that American scholars such as Kaufinan (1993) give high attribution to Commons, and little to the Webbs. ^'' It is worth noting the knowledge diffusion has itself gradually become an identifiable and significant field of study. See e.g. Knott and Wildavsky, 1981, 99-146 ^^ This is an abiding theme of Gordon, (1991), who introduces the ornithological concept of altriciality, the extent of need for young birds to be nurtured, which is then tied to the capacity and need to socialise particular behaviours. 96 Later the scholar will accept or reject foundational texts and interpretations according to their training, expertise, and the context within which they are writing. The borrowing of methods or concepts forms yet another aspect of the transfer of knowledge. What is important in these instances is that the formation, accumulation, and development of ideas draws in large part from the methods, techniques, theories and concepts of others within a discipline or school, and between disciplines or schools of thought.
The ways in which ideas are taken up depend on both the borrower and the lender. Some disciplines have strict rules of what is acceptable,29 whUe in others, methods are sacrosanct but concept borrowing is allowed. The overt or tacit legitimacy of ideas and methods defines boundaries of disciplines or schools, but these may change over time as they have for example in areas of sociology. Nevertheless, some scholars highlight the 'invisible coUege' as a significant barrier to interdisciplinarity and knowledge diffusion (Feller, 1981, p.79; Becher, 1989), while writers such as Kindleberger discount the role of networks and peer groups, but highlight the significance of 'fads and fashions'. (Kindleberger, 1989, pp.43-59)
The diffusion literature is even more diffuse. Writers such as Downs and Mohr (1983) argue that the transfer of ideas is so complex and unstable as to be impossible to model. Others, such as Lakatos, argue similarly whUe also implicitly attacking the knowledge diffusion scholars. "If... in science there is no way of judging a theory but by assessing the number, faith and social energy of its supporters, then this must be even more so for the social science" (Lakatos, 1970 cited in Fuchs 1992, p.39). The taxonomic approaches of Whitley (1984) and others can categorise the factors
^^ Piatt (1996 p.211) in discussing elitism in sociology, cites the case of the PhD student, who forewarned for Talcott Parsons' question "What theoretical developments can you expect fi-om Chicago?" answered that there were none. Parsons is purported to have replied "That's the right answer." 97 enhancing or constraining knowledge diffusion, but the processes by which ideas, concepts and methods are taken up partly or wholly may indeed be a consequence of accidents or serendipity, (and for the moment beyond the ambit of this project).
Yet, there is no doubt that if a discipline or school is a (mostly) coherent and identifiable body of thought at any epoch, then knowledge is shared and transferred. The ways in which this may occur is evident in the output of scholars, whether in teaching, conferences or scholarly pubhcations. These last form the surface evidence of sources for the transmission of ideas. But they are the sources only, and frequently conceal their sources of knowledge. This last serves to re-emphasise that ideas, concepts and methods are not fixed. As noted previously, concepts like 'rent' or 'class' or descriptors like valid or objective or those like or 'fair' or 'democratic', will change over time and between disciplines.
Nevertheless, there are some fixities when exploring the transfer of ideas. The most important of these is that the surface features of a discipline - the teaching programmes, interview data, conference papers and scholarly publications - form the primary sources for analysis. However, they are best investigated not simply for their apparent attributes. Rather their latent or concealed attributes in terms of assumptions, theories and unheralded sources also need consideration. The development of disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge will reflect what analysts perceive to be noteworthy in the most pedantic sense of the word. That which is perceived as illegitimate - Marxism, hbertarianism - have frequently been conveyed silently and with little acknowledgment. Moreover, just as concepts become distorted in the process of transfer, so too the changes in thefr reinterpretation may be unacknowledged. This is not deceit on the part of
98 the analysts but rather what some may call innovation - the reshaping of an idea or theory which occurs across disciphnary cultures, where the reshaping is an unreflexive manipulation on the part of the researcher.
The transmission of ideas is thus an inherent and essential attribute of discipline, but it is a misunderstood and complex process. It can even lead to a lack of recognition that any transfer has indeed occurred, or where cognisance is taken, the reshaping of ideas or methods is not fully acknowledged. At this point such comments are simply strictures to a disciplinary historian to recognise that the every facet of a discipline is evidence of the transfer of ideas.
Conclusion
The main objective of this chapter was to examines the epistemological and methodological bases for the ways in which knowledge is acqufred and transferred within and between social science disciplines, and between a discipline and its environment. Recognising the link between what is vahd knowledge and what are valid knowledge-getting processes is important for the historian of a social science. The social sciences in general have revealed uncertainty as to appropriate epistemologies and methodologies. The commitment to the 'scientific method', for example, rests not only on social scientists' search for the certainty perceived to be the case in the physical sciences, but also on a belief that 'truth' is achievable through analytical examination of the properties of social relationships and the variables which determine them.
The assumptions within these objectives, however, are to be found in the historical method, post-modernism and some areas of critical theory, which with different criteria of rigour and validity, acknowledge the plurality of 99 'truth'. What further enriches analyses by these methods is the necessity to acknowledge context as a significant variable. Where many of the scientific method exponents examine concepts and processes internaUy and a- contextually, the environment is perceived as intrinsic to the objects being studied. But there is a danger that plurality may buUd on plurahty, leading to a hopelessly complex collection of data and ideas. This is especially the case when examining a loose discipline like industrial relations.
While all of these methods have some use in a disciplinary history, most apt for this project is the strand of investigation known as the sociology of knowledge.
that branch of sociology which studies relations between thought and society ... [which] attempts to relate the ideas it studies in socio-historical settings in which they are produced and received (Coats, 1993a, p.64).
However, Coats' notes two caveats, firstly that applications of the sociology of knowledge have tended to develop in analyses of the natural sciences. Secondly, there have been counter-pressures to the sociology of knowledge which reject the centrality of context, and claim that problems are 'overwhelmingly determined by conditions internal to the scientific community' (Ben-David, 1970, cited in Coats 1993a, p.65; see also Hawthorn, 1976). Coats' warning and the subsequent examination of the marginal revolution of the 1870s (Coats, 1993, pp.63-81) demonstrates that the endogenous (internalist) approach and the externahst approach need not, indeed should not, be mutuaUy exclusive.
Moreover, developments within a discipline reflect shifts and developments in ideas, methods and concepts. Imphcit in the recognition of the dynamism
100 in knowledge getting and knowledge acquisition is the recognition of the effects of social structures, developments in other disciphnes and the socio economic environment. Once again these highhght the interaction between internalist and externalist determinants of disciphnes. Any historical analysis of a discipline needs to take account of the activities and behefs of the community of scholars, as well as the environment which influences or determines their activities and beliefs. But first some understanding is needed of the disciplinary progenitors, for particularly in a disciphnary history, the historical context is essential.
101 CHAPTER THREE
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN AUSTRALIA:
THE ROLE OF THE PRECURSORS
Introduction
As scholars such as Klein (1993) and Dogan and Pahre (1990) have noted, the origins of an emergent disciphne may be apparent weU before the discipline appears as a discrete area in the scholarly arena. It is no less the case with industrial relations, which has a long proto-history before it was first taught as a separate area and had attained its first journals. The objective of this chapter therefore, is to identify the historical context of the study of industrial relations, to understand what were the epistemological and intellectual concerns of these scholars, and what influenced their researches.
The work of the major Anglophone scholars is discussed first, focussing on the nature of their research and the ways that work may have impinged, later, on industrial relations research in Australia. This is followed by a survey of the research into aspects of employment and work in Austraha, with particular consideration given to the local and international influences on such work.
That it has such a long history as a proto-discipline, perhaps raises the question of why industrial relations did not appear on academic programmes in Australia until the 1950s. From the formation of the first employers' association in 1825 three years before the enactment of the Combination Acts for Australia in 1828 (Keenoy and KeUy, 1998), the issue of the labour problem was of considerable interest and clearly predated the Webbs'
102 scholarly analyses of the turn of the century. (Goodwin, 1966; (Webbs, 1897, 1902; see also e.g. Fry, 1986, Hagan, 1989; Fitzpatrick, 1941, 1944, 1946)
The allied consideration of the socio-economic nexus between (a) questions of production and distribution, (b) the potential of work regulation and organisation to affect production and distribution, and (c) the ideals of what constitutes a civil society (as the 'Working Man's Paradise') were constant themes in the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. These kinds of questions and their underpinning philosophies were widely and openly debated in Australia (Metin, 1910; Reeves, 1902; Ebbels, 1960), together with concerns over skill shortages and economic fluctuations which led to uneven employment patterns and wage levels. (Coghlan, 1918) Following Federation, all these concerns came together with the seemingly idealistic stances of governments beginning with the Fusion Liberals' 'New Protection'. The decisions to build a protected economy ensured that the control and administration of the employment relationship became the subject of more overt and critical attention than in the Old World or the USA. (Higgins, 1915, 1922; Maclaurin, 1938; Brown, 1922; Sells, 1924) Despite such attention and the seemingly novel 'solutions' of the arbitration system in the first half of the twentieth century, (Macintyre and MitcheU, 1989), the formal study of industrial relations remained marginal and fragmented until the mid-1950s when it first appeared in universities, as separate from its source disciplines of economics, law and industrial psychology.
Nevertheless, as the references in the foregoing discussion suggest, the study of the control and administration of work and employment goes back at least as far as the beginnings of the study of political economy. The sub-title of
103 Adam Smith's Volume 1 of Wealth of Nations for example was the curiously modern,
Of the Causes of Improvement in the Productive Powers of Labour and of the Order according to which its produce is normally distributed among different Ranks of the People.
The foundation sources for postwar industrial relations scholarship in Australia, however, are more modern and demonstrate the dual and sometimes competing influences from the US and UK, as well as the wide differences in approaches to research of the source disciplines.
Many of the international influences on pre-1960 industrial relations have remained enduring. Of the earliest analysts to influence ideas about the control and administration of employment were the management philosophers such Frederick Winslow Taylor, and industrial psychologists such as Bernard Muscio and South Australian, Elton Mayo, whose influence is discussed below. Also of some import for Australian industrial relations scholarship from the 1950s were American polymath economists such as John Commons, and Selig Perlman.^ The influence of their particular brand of institutional economics on Australian academic analysis was evident in early industrial relations subject handouts, particularly through the prescribed texts. (Subject Guide, Industrial Relations, 1956, University of Sydney, mimeo)
The early British influences were rather stronger and derived particularly from the Webbs, who have been variously categorised as social scientists.
^ Commons and Perlman appear not to have made much mark on Austrahan economics. During their lifetimes, Austrahan economics was moving away from British influence towards a more truly Austrahan brand of economics. When the American influence began to appear in Austraha it was avowedly non-institutional. (Groenewegen and McFarlane, 1990, Chapters 6 and 8) 104 political sociologists and political economists. As with the American scholars of the early twentieth century, the Webbs influenced academic scholarship not only in the immediate postwar era, but also in the decades that foUowed. As researchers and writers who defy categorisation, it is not surprising that their effect has been manifold and enduring. (BeUharz and Nyland, 1998) On one level they influenced the knowledge-getting processes not only of the British industrial relations scholars of the 1950s, such as H. A. (Bert) Turner (1962) and Allan Flanders (1969), but through them later UK scholars who in turn influenced patterns of research in Australia.
The empirical inductive approach of the Webbs came from their view that scholars should pursue "truth for its own sake with the single-minded desire to present a true picture and if possible an explanation of social life ...". (B. Webb, 1938, p.474) through observation, interview and analysis of data. Such analysis was not a fixed model process however. For Beatrice Webb,
The Webb speciality has been a study at once historical and analytic, of the life-history of particular forms of social organisation within the United Kingdom. ... In these successive tasks we have been confronted with ... a multiplicity of organisations .. arising, flourishing and disappearing in diverse social environments at different intervals throughout a considerable period of time, exhibiting a variety of constitutions and functions, subject to successive waves of thought and emotion and developing relations with other institutions and organisations. (B. Webb, 1938, p.476)
The Webbs undertook their information collection tasks with great gusto, and, unhke Dunlop (1958), rejoiced in their masses of facts. They developed methods of analysis which involved 'breaking up of the conglomerate of facts yielded by particular documents, interviews and observations ... ". (Webb, 1938b, pp.476-7) By compUing data on single sheets of paper, the Webbs
105 were able to "reassemble them in a new order revealing causal consequences and capable of literary expression". This mainly involved the intuitive development of several hypotheses. By using competing hypotheses to deal with this mass of data, they would frequently find that
the general impression with regard to the causal sequence of events with which we started our enquiry [or which had arisen during investigation, observation or analysis of documents] have been seriously modified or completely reversed when we have been simultaneously confronted by all the separate notes relating to the point at issue. (Webb, 1938b, p.477) 2
Employing these methods was of course not the sole preserve of the Webbs, but there is singular similarity between the Webbs' research methods and those undertaken for the Donovan Commission in the 1960s (see e.g. Goodman and Whittingham (1969). Certainly, the systematic coUection of data and great attention to the analysis of that data has developed more in British industrial relations than in the US scholarship. The case for the Webbs' influence on British scholars becomes even more compeUing when taken together with the close attention paid to the Webbs by many important British scholars, such as Brown and Wright 1994), as well as the direct tributes to their influence by writers such as Fox (1974, pp.243-5) and Turner (1967).3 The methodological admixture of rank empiricism, social observation and 'scientific' analysis remained an important attribute of
2 Webb (1938, 478) noted also that "I may remark, parenthetically, that we have found this "game with reahty", this bmldLag up of one hypothesis and knocking it down in favour of others that had been revealed or verified by a new shuffle of notes - especially when we severally "backed" rival hypotheses - a most stimulating recreation!" ^ Not that British scholars were uncritical. Flanders (1969b, pp. 11-41) argued persuasively that the Webbs' theory of collective bargaining was not only misleading, it was inadequate, (p.23) See also Flanders, 1968c. The point is that the Webbs were seen as the foundation. 106 British social science scholarship. As is shown in the foUowing chapters these research methods traditions have been readUy emulated in Austraha.
The Webbs' research methods provided a very high level of output including those major works which for some are a weUspring of industrial relations scholarship, such as their 1902 History of Trade Unionism and the 1897 Industrial Democracy, both of which were reprinted several times and revised twice. These, together with over fifty other publications, albeit not all on aspects of work or employment, have been the subject of close attention of many scholars in industrial relations and other fields such as politics, sociology, feminist studies, political economy and public administration. (Beilharz and Nyland, 1998)
What is salient to this study is that the Webbs provided a foundation of industrial relations scholarship in both Britain and Austraha Thefr focus was on the rights of employees in industrial society, taking the development of trade unions as an inevitable outcome of economic changes that occurred with industrialism. But it was not economic and political necessity alone that led to unions, but also the modernist realisation that attainment of some level of justice for employees was essential for the progress of society. These ideas were particularly evident in Industrial Democracy which, both Poole (1981) and Beilharz (1998) note, contain remarkable paraUels to the ideas of Emile Durkheim who was writing at about the same time in France.4 For the Webbs then, collectivism and coUective action were both economic and moral outcomes of the progressive society. The development of collectivism gave a role to trade unions, not only as uphfting social and economic institutions but also in achieving order in the relations between
^ Other scholars have also noted the similarity of analysis between Dirrkheim and the Webbs. Yet although Kingsley Laffer claimed an interest in Diirkheim, the latter has never been an integral part of the Austrahan industrial relations heritage, although like Weber, he has been highly influential in the UK. 107 employers and employees. However, from the Webbs' perspective 'order' was not so much industrial peace as the regulation of the employment relationship to prevent the disordered 'higghng of the market'. Bolstering and sometimes replacing the order achieved through coUective bargaining, the Webbs saw a variety of devices in place, ranging from the Common Rule through to statutory regulation such as Factory Acts, and legislation over hours and wages. In the fin de siecle modernist perceptions of the Webbs, the growth in scientific knowledge and the democratic current running through society and politics, combined with collective bargaining and statutory regulation, would lead to further progress in government and economy. Since the publication of Industrial Democracy and The History of Trade Unionism the ideas and analyses of the Webbs have been fundamental to scholars and trade unionists in the UK and its former colonies. Their thorough-going arguments, which portrayed trade unions as civilising agents of change, and the significance ascribed to moral values and dignity have been contentious for some such as Flanders (1968c), but the debate has been over methods, not ideals. There have been only a minority of industrial relations texts or sources which have not drawn on the foundational influence of the Webbs. ^
It has been the same with John R. Commons, and Selig Perlman,6and with the early management theorists. In the simplistic literature from the US, Commons is given the epithet of Father of Industrial Relations''' and co- 'founder' of institutional economics. For writers like Kaufman (1993) however, the common designation of Commons as an economist is misplaced.
^ An important exception is W. A. Howard's influential article on union theory (Howard, (1977, 1980) which makes no mention whatever of the Webbs. It is interesting in this respect that Mark Perlman perceived Edwin Witte as influential as Commons and his father Sehg Perlman. Kaufinan, 1992. In the footnote discussing the vahdity of the term. Father of Industrial Relations, Kaufman hsts several bases for his assertion. 108 Rather, says Kaufman, like the management theorists, the concerns in the 1920s and 1930s of economists and personnel managers ahke were with 'labor problems', which for Kaufman is the core of industrial relations.
Kaufman's claim that Commons was not an economist insofar as his industrial relations writings is concerned remains unresolved. There is no doubt however, that Commons, a prolific and wide-ranging writer, wrote on labour history, labour problems and institutional labour economics, ^ and his influence on industrial relations scholarship has been broad ranging. (Strauss and Feuille, 1978) Moreover, as the 'founder' of the Wisconsin School, Commons set a tradition in research and analysis which continued for the rest of the century, and which has influenced many Australian scholars (Niland, 1978; Howard, 1980). (see Chapter Six) Thus among others, Commons influenced Selig Perlman, Edwin Witte, Sumner Shchter and, albeit in a different way, Robert Hoxie, all of whom became and remained important influences on Australian scholars, (see Dabscheck and Niland, 1981; see also e.g. Slichter, 1928; Perlman 1949; Nyland 1998)
This brief digression into the early industrial relations scholars does not precisely trace the patterns of thefr influence on Australian scholarship, for this is done, where relevant in other chapters. Nor does it cover such major figures as F. W. Taylor and the scientific management school, Chester Barnard, E Witte Bakke and Arthur Ross. Rather it has identified the 'original scholars' in order to demonstrate that, despite the significant differences between scholars such as the Webbs and Commons, there were commonahties which directed the attention of subsequent analysts, but
^ It is worth noting in this respect that while Commons' writing is in aU cases ascerbic and assertive, he employs quite different language in his institutional economics which tends to complex sentences, abstruseness and a decidedly economic perspective, than for his industrial relations which is 'folksy' and anecdotal, e.g. Commons 1931 and 1919. (See also Coats, 1983) 109 these came from a variety of disciplinary and ideological perspectives. The focus of the foundation scholars was on labour (the workers), but for some it was to improve the conditions and access to power, whUe for others it was to achieve economic or organisational efficiency - the labour problem. These tensions have continued throughout the history of industrial relations, as becomes apparent in examining the early Australian studies on aspects of employment.
There is another significant aspect to the general acknowledgment that the Webbs and / or Commons remain the foundational scholars. That is the fact that much Australian industrial relations scholarship has ignored Australian scholars of a similar ilk. Sutcliffe's (1919) history of trade unions and George Knibbs' statistical analyses have been largely ignored. It has even been the same with Coghlan's economic history (1918) which examined the causes of economic growth, but dealt thoroughly and specifically with labour issues. Thus it is a curious fact that while Commons and Perlman have long been familiar names for Australian industrial relations students, many early local scholars have been passed over in favour of those from North America and the UK. Nevertheless, in the years prior to the development of tertiary scholarship in Austraha, there were numerous examinations of employment matters from a variety of disciplinary perspectives.
The prehistory of Australian industrial relations scholarship
As noted above, the forerunners of a discipline provide insights into its nature and dfrection once it begins to develop its own characteristics. The precursors of Australian industrial relations scholarship lie in law, economics, industrial psychology, and labour studies. (Morris, 1987) The
110 objective of this section is to examine early examples deahng with work and employment from these disciphnes in order to identify what were to coalesce eventually into industrial relations. It is beyond the scope of this section to undertake an exhaustive investigation, but rather to clarify how the control and administration of the employment relationship was perceived from various disciplinary perspectives, and the implications such perspectives had for the development of academic industrial relations.
The study of the 'labour problem' has a long history in Australia, reflecting workers' beliefs in egalitarianism and employers' concerns with labour shortage, wage levels and managerial prerogatives. These combined with the evidence of worker control in events like the famous, if short-hved eight hour day, in the 1850s, and the ebb and flow of workers between speculative booms of urban investment and possibilities of easy wealth in gold rushes throughout the nineteenth century ensured that 'the labour problem' was well-investigated. (McKinlay, 1979) Thus even well before the great strikes of the 1890s and the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904, economists, lawyers and activists were, as Goodwin (1966) notes, exploring issues of work, wages, and the labour market in Australia, (see also Morris 1987, 1993; Ebbels, 1960). In the twentieth century, as university education expanded and broadened (Groenewegen and McFarlane, 1990, pp.41-65), and the basis for policy making drew more on scholars (Morris, 1993), so studies of aspects of industrial relations from particular disciplinary perspectives increased.
Unhke in other countries, lawyers wrote extensively on aspects of industrial relations, (Brown, 1922; G. W. Ross, 1945 and Evatt, 1939, 1947). Early in the first half of the twentieth century, what was to become a most famous contribution, H. B. Higgins (1915) wrote of his 'new province' for the
111 Harvard Law Review, (see also Higgins, 1919, 1920, 1922) This was foUowed by a flurry of other investigations as scholars from other, mainly Anglophone, countries sought to understand the unusual process of State intervention in Australia. Such interest of itself generated further research, as scholars such as Atkinson (1921), McCawley, (1922) and Evatt (1939) responded to criticisms of the Australian initiative, or hke Anderson (1929, 1931a, 1931b, 1031c, 1931d, Anderson and Mauldon, 1931) attempted to reinforce the criticisms.
Accessibility was an important factor in dfrecting research. The fact that much of the formal industrial relations processes in Austraha were in the public sphere, not only enabled the analysts to obtain material, but also undoubtedly encouraged research towards those areas where source material was publicly accessible. For example, of the dozen or so articles in the Economic Record on aspects of industrial relations in the 1920s and 1930s, aU but one (Lloyd Ross on Trade Unions) depend mainly on pubhcly available material such as arbitration reports and transcripts. On the other hand it is not surprising that the lawyer - economists such as Anderson (1929, 1931a, 1931b) drew on the publicly available case material, given that such material is the foundation of legal scholarship. Anderson's own mammoth investigation into the fixation of wages drew almost solely on several hundred arbitration cases and statutes from the Commonwealth and every State. (Anderson, 1929) The focus of the legal and economic scholars on the publicly available material strengthened the research links between economics and law rather more closely than in the UK and the US.
Just as fundamental to the pre-history of industrial relations scholarship was the work of Orwell de R Foenander, who began his extremely prohfic academic writing career in the 1920s (Foenander 1928) Foenander's books
112 bespeak his legalistic approach but also his focus on identifying ways of removing overt conflict. Thus Solving Labour Problems in Australia, (1941) and Towards Industrial Peace in Australia (1937) were written before World War Two and sought to consider the (quasi-) legal means by which equUibrium or harmony could be achieved, (see also, Foenander, 1943) Even more explicit was his 1954 Better Employment Relations which gave clear evidence of his view, that for a dedicated and committed lawyer, the functioning of the law was not of itself enough in studying industrial relations. Indeed Foenander (1954, p.vii) rejoiced in the contribution the Austrahan system had made to the 'sociological literature'. He noted that the foundation concept of the basic wage had led to "illuminating analysis of both social and economic considerations that characterises the handling and discussion of the subject of the basic wage" (Foenander, 1954, p.vu) Thus while Foenander's numerous publications, appear at surface reading to be somewhat descriptive, magisterial, and legalistic, the constant underlying theme of his work was found in his attempts to grasp the complexity of the field. For Foenander, the public institutional attributes of the Australian response to the labour problem rested not simply on legal or economic bases, but that there was a strong sociological element which made the Austrahan system superior to that of the UK or USA. (Foenander, 1954, pp.16-24). It is commonplace to denigrate Foenander for his cautious legahsm, but as the major early contributor to an holistic, seemingly non-partisan, approach to the analysis of the regulation and administration of the employment relationship, he deserves a place as a pioneer scholar in industrial relations.
Just as writers like Foenander found that analysis of the employment relationship demanded going beyond the bounds of law, so too, the economists found that their discipline was not quite sufficient to deal with the complexities of industrial relations. (MiUs, 1945) Wages have always 113 been a focal point for economists, (see e.g. MarshaU, 1907 Appendix D "Development of the Doctrine of Wages"), but in Australia after arbitration and the basic wage were set into national wage determination processes, economists increased their attempts to analyse the cost and welfare effects of the system. Some like D. B. Copland (1934) saw the arbitration system only as a hindrance to wage determination (despite his commitment to planning and other forms of intervention) but others such as E. O. G. Shann (1930) and J. Isaac (1950) found the need to go beyond the boundaries of economics in order to deal with Australian wages and labour markets. 9
On the other hand it is not surprising that an American institutional economist such as Mark Perlman, would find the politico-legal aspects of the Australian system more important than the economic impact of the system. Perlman's Judges in Industry (1953) is worth exploring briefly because it was a most complete analysis of the public-legal system of industrial relations at the time, and for some it has remained an 'enduring work of excellence'. (Interview, Dabscheck, 1999). Knowing "almost nothing about Australia", Perlman came to Australia, for five months from November 1949, with the objective of comparing "the Australian industrial relations system (depending upon compulsory arbitration) with the American free-wheehng system which eschewed judicial interposition" (Perlman, 1995).1^ Perlman based his research on discussions with judges and commissioners in the federal and state courts, lawyer- academics (Prest, Foenander and G. Anderson) and the then Chair of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board. As weU, he made extensive use of the case material made available to him.
^ It was the same with economic history - see e.g. Heaton 1921 (pubhshed by WEA Adelaide, not Melbourne as cited by Perlman) ^^ Despite his fleeting acquaintance with Austraha, Perlman's standing with economists should not be underestimated. In 1977, he was asked to contribute to a volume on economic pohcy in which he undertook an analysis of the articles from the Economic Record in its first fifty years, (see Perlman 1977) 114 Perlman found the system interesting, rather than effective and concluded that the Court had not "been able to apply either statutory law or effective remedies when the recalcitrant parties have chosen to ignore it .... so the system has failed when a real challenge to its authority developed" (Perlman, 1953, p.l82)
Perlman's (1953) contribution is important for four reasons. It was up to that time the most complete single volume on the public system which went beyond narrow law or economics, and sought, albeit not quite successfully, to undertake an holistic approach integrating social political and economic elements of employment, not surprising given Perlman's institutional economics as seen from the 'Wisconsin tradition'. This tradition, claimed Perlman, had its source in John Commons' practical ideahsm, where collective action was in control of private action. (Perlman, 1953, p.xu, citing S. Perlman). The Wisconsin school of institutional economics promoted the capacity of socio-economic institutions of unions, employer associations and 'semi-private economic institutions' to form industrial governments. For Mark Perlman, the Wisconsin tenets were particularly fitted for analysis of Australian industrial relations which was evidently more 'institutional' than elsewhere, (see also S. Perlman, 1949) Thirdly, the ready acceptance of Perlman and accessibility of judges and commentators for his research indicates to an extent, the 'cultural cringe' in Australian scholarship of the 1950s. That a young scholar, albeit of famous parentage, who acknowledges he has little or no understanding of the country whose industrial relations institutions he intends to investigate, should receive close cooperation from the hkes of Raymond Kelly, then chief judge of the Commonwealth Court, reveals the depth of the view that American (or British) scholarship was
115 superior to that in Australia.ii FinaUy, Perlman's study reflects, in part, the problems of multidisciplinarity and interdisciphnarity in industrial relations. His social analysis is weak, not only because of his unfamUiarity with Australian culture, but also because he is not a strong social theorist.^2 Yet the holistic analysis of industrial relations requires more than an amateur interest in the disciplines upon which interdisciphnary or multidisciplinary analyses draw. These kinds of issues have continued to be problematic in industrial relations scholarship.
This weakness raises a further problem with Perlman's work, and that is his assertion that there was a dearth of literature on industrial relations and the place of the arbitration system in Australian society. This 'dearth', he suggested, was
because "Australia is a new country, the inhabitants of which seem to be more interested in "doing" rather than in "analysing", and that it is a distant country which has attracted few visitors intent on scholarly work. Three Americans have made significant contributions to the literature ... (Perlman, 1953, pp.28-9)
The difficulty with such an assertion is not only the breath-taking cultural imperialism of this comment, but also his view that httle analysis had been undertaken. His bibhography drew on over eighty books, including the comprehensive studies of Foenander and George Anderson and thirty-five articles, which were mainly from economic and law journals (including nine from the Economic Record), as well as legal and economic studies in the
^^ So too does R. M. Eggleston's glowing preface although that perhaps in part reflected Eggleston's approval of Perlman's categorisation of "administrative" and "autonomous" arbitration, a separation of functions which Eggleston employed efliectively in the 1956 Boilermakers' Case. ^2 For example, Perlman's descriptions of what he terms "smoke-oh" (i.e. smoko or tea- breeik) are more interesting for that scholar's fascination with strange Austrahan customs than for their analytical importance. 116 International Labour Review and Australian Quarterly. Such a narrow base is not surprising given Perlman's institutionahst economics, but it sits uneasily with his assertions about the dearth of literature, and his avowed commitment to the social functions and purposes of institutions. Such a lacuna perhaps explains why his political and sociological analyses tend toward vague assertion.
Industrial Psychology and Personnel Management
In counterpoint to the industry studies of Foenander and Perlman stand the industrial psychologists and the theorists or practitioners in human relations and personnel practice. In contrast to the institutionahsts, the focus of the industrial psychologists was the labour problem writ smaU, focussing on the business organisation, the employment relationship and the personality of individuals. (Marshall and Trahair, 1981) As weU, the research in the industrial psychology / human relations field purported a natural science approach to research, as against the institutional method which depended on combining the application of legal or economic theory to the historical method of documentary analysis. For example, some of the literature reveals attempts to use workplaces as 'laboratories' or to replicate studies (see e.g. Cunningham, 1942), although often articles were httle more than anecdotes of successful initiatives.
Nevertheless there was a coherent body of literature which drew particularly on UK and USA literature, as is revealed from an examination of the Australasian Manufacturer (AM), which published regularly from around the turn of the century. Despite its apparent target readership of employers in manufacturing, the AM was eclectic in the ways in which it focused on employment as a 'problem' and as a basis for increasing individual potential.
117 The writings of F. W. Taylor which related to fafrness and productivity were evaluated in terms of the gains from profit sharing (AM No 62,) and in the same year Frederick Coburn, an interwar stalwart of the Taylor Society, provided a paper which explained the effectiveness of the scientific method of management for managers and workers. But the AM also dealt with matters of industrial democracy, the uses of trade unions and the capacity of businesses to maximise the industrial relations 'human resources', although as was common in earlier analyses, the generaUy preferred term was 'workers'. 13
This terminology reflected not only the historical understanding of the term and the clear demarcation of 'management' and 'workers' endemic in manufacturing, but also the recognition that employees were rather more than resources for business. This perhaps reflects the smaU size of Australian plants, and the close links between employees and thefr managers. Of all manufacturing plants, 97 per cent had fewer than 250 employees in 1947. (Year Book, 1950) Despite clear workplace and class differentiation, it has only been in recent years that the ideas of 'human resources' without context outside the firm, have become popular terms. The seemingly more holistic perception of workers in the AM and other writings of the interwar and immediate postwar years, in part reflect the tendency to long term employment in a single firm in manufacturing.
Before World War II, material from the UK tended to draw from the weffare capitalist firms such as Cadbury's, Hadfield's and Rowntrees, and from the examples of the Whitley Councils in the UK. (e.g. Hadfield, 1919). At the
13 The hnguistic difference is important for several reasons. From the welfare capitahst perspective, "workers" denoted individual people for whom the paternahst employer had responsibihties, as well as demands. It is common to talk of maximising 'himaan resources" but for the employer, there is an uncomfortably exploitative ring to talk of 'maximising workers'. 118 same time, the US literature was rather broader, ranging from articles or summaries of articles from the hkes of Ordway Tead and the Gilbreths to Elton Mayo's arguments against arbitration, and for the need for implementing the theories of Freud and Jung in factory conflicts. (Mayo, 1919). The outpouring of material in this area may reflect the fact that there were a number of other Australians, besides Mayo, who achieved international acclaim as management or industrial psychology theorists before World War I, including C. H. Northcott (Rowntrees), and Bernard Muscio. (Muscio, 1917; Marshall and Trahair, 1981) That there was great interest in improving working conditions, reducing labour problems or achieving industrial peace, is evident from the number of delegations which went on study tours to sites which had introduced innovative employment practices in the US and UK. (AM, 1921-24)
Despite the numerous short articles in the vast industrial psychology hterature and a tendency to focus on the individual and the workplace, there is a very evident intersection between the industrial psychology hterature and the institutional legal-economic literature which dealt with the employment relationship. This integration, which was to become an intrinsic aspect of some academic industrial relations, is evident in four ways. First, most of the research, the work of Mayo and a few others notwithstanding, assumed that unionisation was an inherent attribute of organisations and workplaces. A central feature of the Australian interpretations of USA cases particularly, was that union agreement was essential to the success of psychological initiatives. Secondly, scholars such as P. H. Cook, one of the most prolific immediate postwar psychologists (Cook, 1947, 1949) held strong views that the lack of interest in psychology in industry reflected the high level of tarfffs in Australia, which led to Australian businesses seeming to pay little heed to improving productivity 119 through management or psychological initiatives. However, thirdly, the changes in Australian production as a consequence of the war, beginning from the perceived need to train dilutees, the burgeoning of manufactiuring and the implementation of full employment pohcies, all enhanced the growth in the role of the micro-theorists from personnel management or industrial psychology. Finally, as with other disciplines, some researchers found that industrial psychology or personnel management was not, of itself, sufficient to deal with the control and administration of the employment relationship. As an examination of the AM or the Bulletin of Personnel Psychology and Personnel Management reveals, the breadth of concerns of the industrial psychologists kept straying over into economic or sociological fields. Thus among the published industrial psychologists of the immediate postwar era were K. F. Walker and Maxine Bucklow, both of whom had by the 1950s become industrial relations academics.
Indeed Kenneth Walker was perhaps the outstanding promoter of industrial relations in the 1950s. His education was in psychology and economics, two disciplines that he consistently attempted to draw together in his research into industrial relations. He taught economics at Sydney University in the 1930s, psychology in the 1940s and by the 1950s was Professor of Psychology at the University of Western Austraha (UWA) having completed doctoral studies in economics and industrial relations at Harvard in 1952. While at the UWA Walker convened a number of industrial relations seminars in Western Australia with labour economists such as Des Oxnam, which sought to influence public policy; these could arguably have been forerunners to academic industrial relations conferences in Australia. (Walker, 1955, 1956) Walker tfrelessly promoted Dunlop's systems approach, or a precursor to it. He completed his foundation textbook, (Walker, 1956) which took a version of Dunlop's early work on the systems approach as the basis for the text, but 120 which focussed heavily on arbitration processes and decisions. Like Dunlop he wanted to achieve an economics-like unidisciplinary framework for industrial relations which yet took account of its complexity.
I hold that while unidisciplinary studies can Uluminate aspects of IR, they can be misleading and need to be articulated through a multidisciplinary conceptual framework. (Walker, personal communication October 3 1996)
Walker's ambivalence was to be an abiding theme for academic industrial relations in Australia.
Walker revised his text in 1970 to give greater weight to Dunlop's system. However, Walker left for the Europe in 1965 where he held a number of posts attached to the United Nations and International Labour organisation until the mid-1970s. In what might attest to significance of proximity to ensure influence, it did not have great long term effect in Australia. Nevertheless Walker's early attempts to fashion the beginnings of discipline which took account of multiple disciplinary influences were an essential part of the foundations of industrial relations. His shift away from Dunlop's model was not only a consequence of his doubts about unidisciplinarity, but also because he saw the Australian arbitration system as so dffferent that it redirected his focus to that system. As later chapters demonstrate, Walker was not alone in his assumption that the public Australian system was somehow excessively unusual and requiring different research processes.i*
1^ Despite avowed commitment to Dunlop, Walker's work also tended to place a great deal of importance on debates and outcomes of arbitration processes, eUding product markets, social factors and, perhaps most surprisingly management strategies and actions, (see Chapter Five) 121 Industrial relations actors as an object of study before the 1950s
The novelty value of the arbitration system also tended to generate critical examinations of Australian trade unions, since the industrial relations activities and processes were rather more pubhcly accessible in Austraha than elsewhere. As noted above, Sutcliffe's (1919) history of trade unions was a broad-ranging study by an economist. Numerous trade union histories and studies of unionism did not aim to understand the economic or welfare impact of unions but rather, were a celebration of the achievements of particular unions or perspectives on unions, such as Sharkey's (1943) pamphlet on Communist Theory and Practice of Trade Unions. By way of contrast one of the most notable economic and labour historians in Austraha, Brian Fitzpatrick, was rejected by universities as a 'communist feUow- traveller' untU his death in 1965. (Fry, 1986) Fitzpatrick's (1944) history of the labour movement was as broad-ranging as that of Sutcliffe (1919), but made more coherent by Fitzpatrick's ease with labour movement ideas. Fiztpatrick's experience with Australian universities however is worth noting. Other left scholars, especially historians and economists had similar experiences with the universities in the 1950s and 1960s, just at the time that industrial relations was developing. There is also no doubt that scholars who were tending toward industrial relations from their parent disciplines in those decades, were also aware of the academic 'black-hsting'.
Thus much of the literature prior to the mid-1950s was oriented from particular disciplinary perspectives or took the perspective from an activist employer or employees' point of view. (Walker, 1960). At times the different disciplinary viewpoints were utilised effectively, as in the seminars held in Western Austraha in the early 1950s which drew on presentations from
122 psychologists, trade unionists, and lawyers. (Walker, 1955, 1956) And, in most pubhcations, there was a stated or imphcit awareness that whUe the psychological, social, economic, pohtical and legal aspects were important these were of themselves not singly sufficient. As Walker noted in 1960,
... workers in each of the social sciences concerned with industrial relations have become sensitised to the existence and importance of variables that their own disciphne normally takes as givens. Psychologists .... have begun to recognise the impact of the state of the labour market on human relations in industry and lawyers have taken more interest in informal relations ... (Walker, 1960, p. 12)
Such changes reflected not only scholars' perceptions of the need for what was seen as interdisciplinary study into industrial relations. (Walker, 1956; Foenander, 1954) The work and industrial environment had changed with the postwar boom when full employment, rising standards of hving and education, the growth of consumerism led to changes and expectations of workers and employers. Even in the early 1950s when Foenander was writing Better Employment Relations, it had become apparent that there were significant changes in predominant social and economic values, and that the study and practice of industrial relations more than ever needed to acknowledge these. But universities were still primarily educational, rather than vocational training institutions, although the rapid expansion of tertiary enrolments was beginning to change all that.
123 Conclusion
The above discussion reveals that there was considerable pohtical, business, and academic interest in matters pertaining to work and employment in Australia in the decades prior to the first discrete tertiary industrial relations programmes in the 1950s. These hteratures highhght several significant features. The first is that regardless of the disciphne, scholars investigating the control and administration of the employment relationship frequently found their research spiUing over into other disciphnary areas. Thus labour scholars considered economic issues, economists found they had to understand social and political issues, and psychologists who were concerned with the individual and the workplace had to take account of institutions and macroeconomic pohcies.
Secondly, it is worth noting that the scholars from different disciphnes accorded different bases for validity of knowledge-getting processes. Where the Commonwealth Arbitration Reports formed major bases for the institutionahsts, the psychologists were concerned with reliable proofs that organisational changes had, in fact, achieved gains for managers and workers. In this respect the psychologists came closest to the physical and natural scientists insofar as they gave greatest weight to investigations which employed traditional techniques of the sciences.
On the other hand there is also no doubt that the Australian system of conciliation and arbitration was particularly open to scholarly research. And scholars, intent on understanding employment regulation gave great weight to the role of institutions which appeared unique in their perceptions of process, and for which there was much accessible information.
These major differences in what were perceived to be vahd methods of knowledge-getting and analysis would clearly have an effect on any area of
124 study which sought to sustain the focus on the object of analysis, employment matters, but which drew from aU of these disciplines. FinaUy there is no doubt that, as in many other areas of study, USA and UK scholarship was influential, if not determinant on the pre-history of industrial relations. This raises the interesting proposition that "cultural cringe" forms an important means of the transmission of ideas. Scholars from overseas or Australians who were perceived to have gained international recognition overseas, were seen to have greater credibUity than 'local-only' scholars. It is not surprising that given these disparate progenitors that Australian industrial scholars would have difficulty in developing coherent structures and techniques for analysis. These greatly different imperatives were reflected not only in the first discrete forays into academic industrial relations, but also in industrial relations in later decades.
Such questions were certainly an issue for the foundation scholar-teachers of industrial relations who introduced the study of industrial relations to Australian universities in the 1950s. They were also assailed by other economic, political and bureaucratic constraints, which interacted with the broader intellectual issues of international influences. How they attempted to deal with these demands is the subject of the next chapter.
125 CHAPTER 4
THE INTRODUCTION OF TEACHING PROGRAMMES:
A TOEHOLD FOR THE EMERGENT DISCIPLINE
Introduction
The foundation for practitioners or scholars in a discipline is usually laid in their introductory studies in the discipline, normaUy at undergraduate level. In this respect, the teaching programme sets the norms of the disciphne. In particular, undergraduate teaching programmes are especially indicative of a discipline, because they comprise the core elements of the disciphne which the academic scholars deem essential. Thus an investigation of teaching programmes provides an insight into what scholars perceive to be core essentials to that discipline.
Such decisions may be mediated by other influences such as the place in a degree programme, the studies in neighbouring disciplines, and, quite probably, well-concealed elements of university politics. Moreover, in a public policy area which is open to public debate and discussion, particularly one which generates and responds to ideological commitments such as economics or industrial relations, the structure and content of teaching programmes can be re-fashioned by recent or current issues. Alfred to this are the dominant economic, cultural, social and pohtical priorities reflected in the media and in public opinion, as expressed, for example, in elections. A further source of influence on education in Austraha which was noted in the previous chapter was the extent of 'cultural cringe', the view extant in
126 Austraha that what was being done overseas, particularly in Anglophone countries, was of greater worth than the home-grown product.i (see e.g. Buckley, 1962; Boyd, 1969)
Moreover, and perhaps in some contrast to research, teaching programmes and priorities are influenced by a great many external features. It is useful, therefore, to understand the structure and content of teaching, precisely because it allows analysis of the ways in which disciphnes are influenced by non-disciplinary factors; in a similar vein what is taught also clarifies what is inviolate in a Lakatosian sense. But to understand what is essential to the discipline's teaching, subjects must first be taught. In the early 1950s there were no subjects in Australia which dealt solely with industrial relations. There were however, courses and subjects2 in labour studies and personnel management, as well as labour law, employment law and labour economics.^ The objective of this chapter, then, is to ask 'what factors enhanced or constrained the development and content of industrial relations teaching in Australia between the 1950s and the early 1970s?' Those first fifteen or so years were the pioneering years, when only a few universities, and even fewer Colleges of Advanced Education (CAEs) taught industrial relations, and before the first chair of industrial relations had been appointed. They were the decades when the teachers of industrial relations
^ This was evident in aU aspects of Australian ctdture and intellectual hfe. There were very few PhD's undertaken in Austraha in Economics for example before the 1960s. In this respect the Melbourne PhD of foundation industrial relations scholar, Don Rawson is very unusual. 2 The terms courses, subjects, and programmes tend to have a variety of meanings in vmiversities. For the sake of consistency, I wiU refer to single units of study (e.g. Industrial Relations I) as subjects or units and to coherent sequential grouping of subjects or units as coiirses or programmes. Where individuals are cited as using the term "course" to mean a single unit or subject I will specify its relationship to a programme. ^ Other subjects may have been taught. K. F. Walker (Personal Commiuiication, 3 October, 1996) recalls teaching a third year economics subject at the University of Sydney in the late 1930s. It was caUed Social Policy and about a third of it dealt with wages pohcy. 127 almost always came to industrial relations from another disciphne, and when industrial relations was always within another academic department.
The structure of the chapter is as foUows. A brief survey of the hterature on emergent disciplines will be succeeded by examination of the social, economic and pohtical environment in Austraha from the 1950s to 1970s. The developments in higher education wUl then be explored, and the ways these might have influenced the beginnings of academic industrial relations is then surveyed briefly. The largest section of this chapter deals with the introduction and estabhshment of industrial relations at the University of Sydney, from the 1950s to the mid 1970s, first examining the structural developments driven by Kingsley Laffer, and then the content of the teaching. This case study provides a valuable depiction of the material conditions which influence and constrain the development of a new discipline.
Emergent Disciplines
In understanding a discipline, especially an emergent disciphne, the role of teaching may be significant in coming to terms with the core and inteUectual domain of the emerging discipline. Taken together, the hteratures on academic disciplines, (Becher, 1989), disciplinary history (Graham, Lepenies, and Weingart, 1983)) and interdisciphnarity (Dogan and Pahre, 1990; Sherff and Sherif, 1969) offer a dehneation of the primary elements in the emergence of a discipline or field of study. Such a model is particularly useful when examining the teaching of the discipline, for, as Ash (1983) and others (see e.g. Geuter, 1983) note the pedagogical seff-presentation of a disciphne acts to legitimate 'internaUy' the disciphne to students. Such pedagogical self-presentation may overlap with pubhcations and successful
128 research funding which legitimates the emergent discipline "externaUy", to other scholars and to the community.
The process of emergence begins with attention from more than one disciphne on a phenomenon, object of analysis or issue. (Dogan and Pahre, 1990) There is also acknowledgment that there are some shared elements of interests in the phenomenon being studied among the disciplines (the multidisciplinary phase). As the study develops, these shared interests lead to scholars acknowledging the insights of one or more other disciplines, referred to as the cross-disciplinary phase. Perhaps at the same time, the researchers will fuse some methods, protocols and concepts from one or more other disciplines so that an intersecting core develops which is different from either or any of the parent disciplines. This core then becomes the basis for the new discipline or field of study, a core which in the emergent discipline can expand, shift in a particular direction, or gain texture or emphasis in certain respects. It may even become the basis of a paradigm shift, because infant paradigms may shift just as readUy as 'old' paradigms. It is just as possible that the discipline may be re-absorbed back into one of the parent disciplines. The process is neither even nor hnear, and in the emergent discipline, even with the development of unidisciplinary theory and method, elements of the parent disciphnes may be retained.
The early stages of disciplinary development in industrial relations in Australia as presented in the teaching programme certainly lend themselves to the models of disciplinary emergence, and the seff-legitimating roles of pedagogical presentation. However, the model described above is an internahst model which does not yet include the environment in which scholars develop their ideas. A field of study such as industrial relations which sits at the edge of the policy sciences and professional studies develops as part of broader changes in the national pohtical, social and economic
129 envfronment. Moreover, an emerging discipline is stUl highly accoimtable to the parent disciplines from which it is developing, and the role of pohtics in the higher education sector is significant, even though generaUy invisible in the literature. All of these environmental factors may be seen to influence the introduction of formal programmes of teaching and research in industrial relations and the ways these develop into fuU teaching programmes within university syUabi.
The postwar years
Among the conditions which enhanced a broadening of education in the 1950s was the Austrahan economic envfronment itself. The features of the postwar economy have been well-documented (Hagan, 1981; Sinclafr, 1975) but there are several features which deserve comment for their effect on the study of industrial relations. Not only did the population grow over 40 per cent, from seven million to ten million between 1947 and 1961, but also much of this derived from immigration which averaged over 100,000 per year in the 1950s and increased to about 150,000 per year in the 1960s. Such an influx led to a sharper increase in demand than ff population growth had occurred naturally. Moreover, many of the 400,000 adult male immigrants who arrived between 1945 and 1975 were employed in the manufacturing industry which had been relatively smaU prior to World War II. The consequences of increased manufacturing gave further substance to the manufacturing and metal production unions which rapidly became the leaders in wage growth. (Sheridan, 1975; Hutson, 1971) Indeed national trade union numbers increased from 1.5 miUion in 1949 to nearly 2.5 miUion in 1971 (Hagan, 1981, p. 232).
130 Such developments which, combined with a renewed commitment to equity through the weffare state, gave rise to the notion of the 'Lucky Country' (Home, 1965) in the boom years, the two decades after World War II. The optimistic atmosphere was well encapsulated by a New Statesmen observer in 1960
...more than one Australian in ten is a postwar migrant - and half of these are Italians, Greeks, and North Europeans. There is a land boom, a building boom, a boom in new roads and motels; ... The universities are getting more students and staff and money; there is a growing interest in plays, in plays and books by Australians in the splendid opera-house project in Sydney and the proposed cultural centre in Melbourne ... (N. Mackenzie (1960) cited in Buckley, 1962)
The expansionary economy led, for example to the male basic wage almost tripling in the two decades following the end of World War II, despite the elimination of Automatic Cost of Living Adjustments (ACOLA) in 1953. (but see also Dabscheck, 1984) Margins for skill increased even more rapidly as the demand for skilled labour in manufacturing outstripped supply. Taken as a whole real earnings rose 78 per cent between 1945 and 1966. (Hagan, 1981)
At the same, new consumer products began to be avaUable such as fridges, televisions, washing machines and phones, all of which influenced the disposal of incomes, as weU as creating new areas of manufacturing investment. The house of the working Australian thus came to be stocked with more equipment than ever before, mainly supported by single income households. Married female employment only began to increase much above prewar levels of around 20 per cent in the latter 1960s, but then grew
131 continuously thereafter. (ABS, The Labour Force, Cat. 6203)4 The changing occupational structure was also evident in the growth of white coUar work,^ which rose from 775,000 (24 per cent of the workforce) in 1947 to 2,858,000 (47 per cent of the workforce) in 1977. (HUl et al., 1982, pp.89-109; see also Child, 1965, pp.53-61; Galbraith 1977; Griffin, 1985)
These kinds of changes impelled and drew from the rising levels of education which occurred across the board. In part, the expansion of high school, technical and tertiary education occurred as a consequence of rising famUy incomes which reduced the need for early entry into the workforce in order to sustain family incomes. (Phillips, 1962, Mayer, 1965) As weU, there was increasing demand for a more educated labour force, as the need for more support workers, and more trades persons and professional workers became evident.
The expansion of tertiary education
Increasing numbers of students completed high school in the 1950s and 1960s, and the tertiary sector expanded rapidly particularly from the mid- 1950s. Not only did the Long Boom increase the demand for professional education in areas such as engineering and architecture, it also led to rising 'credentiahsm', and the expectation that erstwhUe experiential learning would have a formal educational component. Moreover, the households' capacity to pay for tertiary education increased, and combined with increasing state support for tertiary education through scholarships and Federal funding for universities. (Davies, 1989; Derham, 1975)
^ Female workforce participation rates in the 1961 census were very httle above the prewar rates aroiind 22 per cent, whereas by the 1966 census this figiu-e had increased to 29 per cent. That is clerical, administrative, professional and para-professional, technical and sales occupations. 132 Thus from the mid-1950s untU the early 1970s the tertiary sector in Austraha grew rapidly. After the immediate postwar bulge (when many of the newly enrolled students were returned service personnel) enrolment levels continued to grow rapidly. From just over 30,000 students in 1955 the number almost trebled in 1965 to over 83,000. (Macmillan, 1968, p.82; see also Anonymous, The Australian University, 1972; Harman, 1980) Moreover, the proportion of higher degree and graduate students increased from five per cent of bachelor degree enrolments in 1955 to twelve per cent in 1965. These changes were evident for example at Sydney University where student numbers grew from 7411 in 1955 to over 16000 by 1967. (MacmiUan, 1968)
It was not just that universities grew in size, but also thefr number increased to eighteen in the 1972-5 triennium, twice as many as there had been a decade previously. This expansion was augmented considerably over the same period by the new tertiary sector comprising the Colleges of Advanced Education. (CAEs). (Ham, 1975; Richardson, 1972; White, 1972) Thus while tertiary enrolment doubled from fewer than 35000 university students in 1956 to just over 80,000 in 1965, this number grew to 175000 in 1970 (66 per cent at universities) and then grew by a further 77 per cent by 1978 to 310,000 students, of whom 48 per cent were enrolled in CAEs.^ While, the number of universities grew through the 1970s from ten to over twenty, the CAEs proliferated, increasing from the original 14 to 79 throughout Australia. Thus before the end of the decade, there were over 100 formally registered tertiary education institutions in Austraha. (SpauU, 1978)
^ This last number included the former teachers' colleges which were incorporated iato the CAE sector in 1974 and had not been previously calculated as "tertiary" . See e.g. Ham, 1975 133 The CAEs claimed to be more 'pragmatic and vocationaUy oriented' (Beswick, 1980). They were, nevertheless, central to the rapid expansion of the social sciences from the late 1960s. For example, enrolments in Economics increased from 2000 students in 1950 to just imder 15000 in 1980. (Groenewegen and McFarlane, 1990, pp. 174-6) Arguably however, the major influence of the CAEs was in the growth of what many saw as multidisciplinary or cross-disciplinary professional programmes.
The universities, too, expanded their professional education in areas such as law, medicine, engineering and business. The expansion of tertiary education as a whole occurred in part from the response of the universities' to the rise of the CAE sector and growth of its coverage of areas of teaching and research. Universities had long had close links with business and government, so that the changing economic and occupational structures led to shifts in demand from sectors to which the universities could be responsive. Cowen, (1972, p.17) drawing from the American labour economist, Clark Kerr, notes that these shifts reflected not only the universities' traditional roles as centres of research and education, but also as agencies of legitimation.
... as new professions were born, as others like business administration and social work became more formally professional, the university became the chief point of entry for those professions, and in fact, a profession gained its identity by making the university the point of entry.
134 The growth of professional disciplines became an important reinforcing motive for change in both the universities and in the professional disciplines."^
Despite major growth through to the 1970s however, there was also significant competition over resources. This occurred partly because of the diversion of university funds to the burgeoning CAE sector, and partly because the patterns of funding altered several times, as the responsibUity for tertiary education moved towards the federal sphere. (WiUiams, 1975; Derham, 1975) The shifting structures of recurrent, capital and research funding led to prognostications of gloom for academic standards and the future of universities as places of higher research and learning. WhUe the major proportion of research funding continued to be channelled towards the sciences, there was some increase in the funding of social sciences, mainly in areas such as economics and public policy issues of current moment. The uncertainty of research funding was exacerbated by the high rates of inflation in the mid-1970s at a time when there were constraints on university funding. (Niland, 1978b) Thus the postwar era can be characterised as a time of rapid expansion in all aspects of tertiary education and academic research. (Karmel, 1980)
At the same time the climate for tertiary education mirrored the socio political environments in other ways. On the one hand the 1960s chaUenges to long-accepted ideas and processes moved from the fringe to mainstream popular views. For example, widely held objectives of 'assimUation', and then 'integration' of migrants gave way to 'multiculturalism', as a commonly expressed national attribute. Such major changes in community views indicate the kinds of social change in which the educational sector was
See e.g. Coats, 1993, esp. pp.395-473 for some thorough-going discussion of the nature and development of professions. See also Lansbury, 1978a 135 operating. Indeed the broad pubhc concerns with social change, as is evident in the number of social movements, was manifested in the growth in social sciences. Combined with other factors, such growth led to epistemological and methodological controversies. Within the social sciences, these kinds of intellectual pressures led to debates between the assumptions of fundamental disciplinary scholarship and the evident need for cross- disciplinary studies. It was a time of fervency in scholarship and an openness, previously unknown, to interdisciplinarity and multidisciphnary initiatives. Hince asserts of the 1960s and early 1970s that
it was one of those times when anyone with a good idea and the energy to move, got things going. It was an accident of timing The ideas of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research were just expanding. (Hince, Interview, February, 1997; see also Emery, 1970)
While Hince perhaps overstates his case, there is no doubt that the older disciphnes were being subjected to serious questioning, and the patterns of broad social change and the growth of social movements were creating an environment conducive to the broadening of the social sciences.
Nevertheless there were also serious constraints. During the high growth phase and later in the static years which foUowed, the apparent squeeze on research funds appeared to intensify, as academics from the newer areas attempted to achieve legitimacy with funding bodies. In this respect the older disciplines sought to diminish the vahdity and rigour of disciphnes such as industrial relations, or to lay claim to them as sub-branches of thefr disciplinary knowledge. (Niland, 1978b; Howard, Interview, 1999; Hince, Interview, 1997) This was evident not only in the erratic nature of funding to
136 industrial relations research initiatives by groups such as that in Melboiurne in the 1970s, (Cupper and Hearn, 1978) but also in the overaU research funding to industrial relations and related areas. NUand (1978, p.250) saw the issue as partly related to intra-university networks
Power balances and aUiances within universities, as in all large bureaucracies, determine how the discretionary component is allocated between competing interest groups. At most universities, if not all, the industrial relations interest groups he well removed from the power networks.
The position of industrial relations at the margin of university power structures would, Niland opined, become worse as funding for universities came under increasing stress. Indeed Niland held the view that the growth in industrial relations had been "enabled only by the tremendous growth in university funding generally". (Niland, 1978, p.251) This view perhaps underestimates two important elements. Ffrst, the growth in funding for tertiary education was more than matched by a great increase in the number of universities and campuses, and secondly, that hke other emergent areas of study, there were other essential factors in the development of industrial relations as a teaching and research discipline, as will be shown below. Nevertheless, Niland's pessimism was certainly common among many academics and academic administrators, and of itseff provides a good insight into the uncertainties in higher education, even amidst the massive expansion of the postwar era.
These complexities were augmented by the widespread anti-inteUectuahst perspective that universities were indeed 'ivory towers' where academics were separated from 'real-hfe' and researched issues of little moment. The remedy to this, so the logic proclaimed, was to involve universities much
137 more closely with the community and to expand community education. That academics and university administrators even entertained these notions is indicative of the acceptance of changing notions of scholarship and its place in the community. (Auchmuty, 1975)
Academic industrial relations in Australian universities, 1950s to 1970s
The emergence and sustained development of a 'new' discipline being taught within universities can provide valuable insights into the influences and determinants on the direction of that field of study or discipline. That an area of study begins to be taught as a discrete area reveals its relevance for educational, vocational or professional purposes, (or aU three). The process of developing and offering individual subjects and then full undergraduate and graduate programmes, provides evidence of both the significance of the field of study and the availability of expertise in the area. As a field of study develops towards a coherent discipline with its own language, assumptions and preferred topics and rules, the nature of legitimate expertise and the research interests of the growing community of scholars also changes, which, in turn, influences the continuing development of the discipline. These processes are uneven in the way they influence the dfrection and the substance of the new discipline, and appear to depend on the particular mix of scholars, the structural constraints and serendipitous events, and the effects of the wider environment which may hasten or retard the development of the discipline. Such a broad scenario has been played out in the development of areas of study such as psychology, geology and political science, (see e.g. Jensen, 1969; Laudan, 1983) It is useful to draw upon these insights in considering the influences on, and nature of disciplinary development in industrial relations.
138 As is evident from the survey of earlier twentieth century Austrahan industrial relations literature in the previous chapter, there was considerable academic and professional interest in some aspects of industrial relations long before specific industrial relations teaching began in the universities. Probably the first to be identffied was at Melboiu-ne University where OrweU de R Foenander had long taught subjects alhed to labour law, although not specifically under that name.^ By the mid-1950s, he was joined by Joe Isaac who had completed his PhD on Austrahan wage regulation at London University in the late 1940s.^ As befitted his training in institutional economics and his intellectual interest in the impact of the conciliation and arbitration system on wages, Isaac focussed on the tribunals and the broad formal issues of industrial relations, (Isaac, 1949) which dovetailed well into Foenander's focus on legal institutions. These early courses reflected the traditional academic arrangements of lectures and, by modern standards very small tutorial groups.
What was noticeable about these new subjects was thefr overt interdisciplinarity, borne of a certainty of purpose that industrial relations was a valuable subject area which required interdisciplinary perspectives, aUied with an uncertainty as to its academic value. For these reasons, scholars such as Isaac continued to research and publish in both economics and industrial relations, and to draw on both disciplines in their teaching.!*^ At Melbourne, despite Foenander's founding role, the disciplinary links from the 1950s were increasingly with economics.
® See also Note 3 in this chapter ^ Isaac first taught an industrial relations subject in 1953 and in the late 1990s was again lectviring which perhaps reflects the greatest span of teaching in academic industrial relations in Austraha. ^^ Their caution was not without foundation. Another long-time scholar in industrial relations has recalled that job and promotions apphcations by industrial relations scholars were subjected to close scrutiny, with very much less weight ascribed to industrial relations pubhcations than to those in economics or government. (Interview, Howard, 1999) 139 It was the same with scholarly links, which were with labour economists and industrial relations scholars from the USA, and strengthened after Isaac's visit to the USA on a Rockefeller Scholarship in 1956. Thus Mark Perlman who had visited Australia for a few months in the early 1950s (see Chapter 4) returned for a sabbatical at the end of the decade. (Perlman, 1997, Interviews, Isaac, 1998 and Hince, 1997) John Dunlop and MUton Derber also maintained links with the Melbourne economists as they emerged as industrial relations analysts. (Interviews, Dunlop, 1997; Interview Howard, 1999) Visiting scholars such as Perlman, were generally drafted into teaching a series of lectures and sometimes a whole subject. The necessity of having sufficient teachers in the 1950s and 1960s was an important and continuing issue in which the visiting scholars played a valuable role, whUe at the same time providing intellectual support. In these ways the visiting scholars offered perspectives of academic industrial relations which reflected their much longer disciplinary heritage.
As was discussed in Chapter Three, Kenneth Walker had been employed as a professor of psychology at the University of Western Australia (UWA) in the early 1950s, but throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, he continued promote the development of industrial relations with economists such as Des Oxnam. Together these scholars sought to develop student interest through combined optional courses, as well as publishing at the industrial relations fringes of labour economics ii The development of industrial relations at UWA thus appears to have paralleled that in the eastern states, even though it occurred separately and in isolation from the other states. At the UWA the focus was on industrial relations as a system of interactions among collectivities. But unlike the more economics-orientated approaches in
^^ See e.g. Oxnam 1956, 1957. In fact Oxnam had published prolificaUy on aspects of labour economics and the industrial relations system from the 1950s. See e.g. Oxnam, 1950, 1951, 1952 140 Melbourne (and later UNSW), Walker claimed that at least three disciphnes - economics, psychology and, more unusuaUy, anthropology 12 - were important to understanding industrial relations. Moreover, an integration of the three, he argued, was needed ff the discipline was to move to a more scientific basis where predictivity was possible. To this end, Oxnam influenced by Walker, recruited scholars such as the organisational psychologist Ruth Johnston, in the 1960s. However, most research and teaching tended toward a focus on public institutions from the early 1960.
The University of New South Wales (UNSW) introduced a degree programme in industrial relations in 1959 within the Economics Faculty. Even more than Melbourne the UNSW programme had almost imperceptible beginnings. The early degree comprised almost whoUy of economics subjects, with no dedicated industrial relations until the final year seminar.i^ Throughout the 1960s the programme developed gradually under the auspices of Bill Hotchkiss and Bill Ford.
The latter scholar was notable as one of the joint editors of the first of a series of anthologies, Australian Labour Relations: Readings, (Isaac and Ford, 1966, Isaac and Ford, 1971, Ford Hearn and Lansbury, 1980; Ford and plowman, 1983; Plowman and Ford, 1985;) which offer considerable insights into what scholars saw to be the fundamental aspects of industrial relations for students. Ford is notable as a practitioner-scholar who has frequently identified issues well before they were given priority in the mainstream. Examples of this have included the lessons for workplace management for the employment relationship, especially Japanese management, the concept
^2 Walker's view that anthropology was useful to industrial relations is curious only for its rarity value. Although there appears little evidence of anthropological terminology or concepts in Walker's work, the potential for anthropological analyses on the communities within industrial relations are evident. More recently the work of Clifford Geertz (Geertz, 1983) offers a so far unrecognised potential for examining employment relations. ^^ Two of the first three graduates from the programme which started in 1959 were John Niland and John Prescott who went on to greater things. 141 of the 'learning organisation', and the importance of financial markets for employment. (Ford, 1973, 1976a, 1976b, 1978a, 1978b, 1991)
Ford's lengthy tenure at UNSW and the steady growth of the UNSW industrial relations programme throughout the 1960s led to a widespread expectation within the small industrial relations community in the early 1970s that Ford would be appointed to the first chair in industrial relations in Australia. However, the claims of John Niland, recently returned from the USA, proved to be more attractive to the UNSW.i^ It appears likely that among the more compelling factors for the choice of Niland were that, he not only held a recent American PhD, but also that his economics were clearly American-oriented at just a time when Australian economists were giving primacy to the American model. (Groenewegen and McFarlane, 1991) From the time of his appointment as Professor of Industrial Relations at the UNSW, Niland proved to be a tireless scholar and innovative academic entrepreneur, taking up editorship of the Journal of Industrial Relations in 1975 and obtaining high levels of research funding throughout the next two decades, (see Chapter Six) Niland, with his widely recognised energy and commitment to expansion, built quickly on the foundations of the 1960s and
^^ One interviewee and long time industrial relations analyst has claimed that there was a view within the industrial relations community of scholars that it was "BiU Ford's chair", but further information about the selection of Niland has remained the subject of much conjecture but generaUy concealed. Given that the early 1970s was a time when Keynesian economics appeared to be waning, Niland's recent studies in the US and his evident abihty in, and enthusiasm for the new paradigms in economics, were possibly a factor. However, it is likely to remain a matter of conjectiire. The difficvilties of identifying the "real" story remind us that the substance of history can be somewhat ephemeral. While counterfactual analysis tends to be luiproductive, any analysis of what industrial relations at UNSW may have developed under a professor and head other than Niland, alerts us the ways relatively small (and perhaps personal) decisions can in fact have considerable efl'ect on a disciphne. 142 early 1970s.^^ The UNSW industrial relations degree became increasingly separated from Economics, and in less than two decades after the industrial relations degree was introduced with its single dedicated industrial relations subject, the Department of Industrial Relations had sole control of the specialisation. (School of Industrial Relations (UNSW), Annual Report)
From the foregoing descriptions there are evident patterns in the rise and rise of industrial relations from the 1950s. Almost always industrial relations develops as an interdisciplinary subject within economics, and in most cases appears as a changeling child, first permitted a brief optional appearance in an economics-based degree, and then expanding untU it outgrew its home base But records are sketchy and the recollections of the then pioneers are mindful of the others, perhaps unnamed, so that interviews have carefully skimmed over personal and local-political factors which might have provided valuable information into the nature or reasons for early disciplinary development. ^^ Moreover, the sketchy detaUs cannot be augmented with much documentary material because scholars and academic administrators have not always followed their own maxims about the significance of the historical context. The available documentation has almost always been destroyed or lost, as departments have developed, expanded and destroyed non-immediate material.
^^ Not only has Niland been a prolific research analyst but his activities were indeed rather broader - he has held senior positions in Austrahan professional organisations, as well as being President of the International Industrial Relations Association, the international body of academic industrial relations. He has been Vice Chancellor (President) of the University of New South Wales, one of the largest and most prestigious imiversities in Austraha, since 1992. 16 Most of the pioneer scholars of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s are still ahve. Among those who have died are Eingsley Laffer, Orwell Foenander, Des Oxnam, Geoff SorreU, and Norm Dufty, but even here scholars who had been colleagues were loth to attribute any but positive characteristics to their former coUeagues. 143 The beginnings of industrial relations at Sydney University: A case study
Developing structures
By contrast, material describing the development of industrial relations at the University of Sydney is an exception to the dearth of primary documentary evidence on the evolution of industrial relations in Austraha. The earnest and feisty Kingsley Laffer, who was also the founding editor of the Journal of Industrial Relations, was a pioneer of academic Austrahan industrial relations. Laffer led and propelled academic industrial relations at Sydney University from a single subject in 1956 to a full undergraduate and postgraduate program offered by what was soon to be a stand-alone department twenty years later. Moreover Laffer was sufficiently an historian to record and retain his formal correspondence, subject handouts and ideas about industrial relations, a significant documentary coUection which his successors protected. Thus the establishment of industrial relations at Sydney University provides material for an historical case study which clarifies some of the constraints and processes in the development of academic industrial relations.
Laffer's papers^'^ form a discrete documentary history, and provide a chronological, if personal and selective perspective of a prime protagonist during the first two decades of industrial relations at the University of Sydney. The Laffer Papers also reflect many of the individual, personal and broader disciplinary tensions experienced as industrial relations emerged as an acknowledged discrete field of study. This alerts us to the fact that disciplinary histories are almost always flawed, because they depend on the
^^ See A Note on Primary sources at the end of Bibhography 144 subjectivity of the sources and perspectives of the thinly spread or highly personal documentary material which survives.
Laffer, originaUy from Western Australia had graduated with a first class honours degree in 1944, and had begun teaching economics at Sydney University in 1944. Even after he began the industrial relations programme at Sydney, Laffer continued to publish in economics journals (Laffer, 1965, 1969) but he claimed in his personal writings that he recognised early in his career that industrial relations was a separate and interdisciphnary study.^^ Thus like Isaac, a close contemporary in Melbourne, Laffer's economics training offered both a foundation for his scholarship in industrial relations and the basis for a degree of dissatisfaction with economics which took no heed of personal, institutional or social factors.
At the University of Sydney subjects with industrial relations content had been offered in psychology, economics, law, and government from the early 1940s. However it was not until 1956 that the first discrete industrial relations subject was offered at Sydney. It was taught by Kingsley Laffer, who had been proposing separate industrial relations subjects since the early 1950s, (see e.g. Butlin to Laffer, 1954) In 1956 Laffer joined forces with Ted Wheelwright to promote the potential worth of an industrial relations subject. Given the competing pressures on university education, it is perhaps not surprising that in a joint submission, Laffer and Wheelwright had sought to persuade the Faculty of Economics of the viabihty of an industrial relations programme for both academic and vocational reasons. The proposed course, they asserted, offered not only practical / professional training aspects, but also, the development of such (initially undergraduate)
18 A further good example is Laffer's (1952) review of H. Clegg's (1951) Industrial Democracy and Nationalization, which Laffer claimed was of "considerable value to students of industrial relations... " 145 subjects would also stimulate research and strengthen relations between the University and the community. (LafferAVheelwright letter 31 May, 1955).
The first industrial relations subject was a success and student numbers grew steadily from the initial intake of twenty-three students. The head of Economics, Sid Butlin, had not been whoUy favourable to industrial relations. However, the initial success pleased him sufficiently that he claimed its success for the Faculty, even if it "represented a new development only in part", since various aspects of industrial relations had always been studied in Economics and Law. What was new, asserted Buthn in an article published in both the Sydney University Review and the Metalworkers Journal, was that
the special course embodies the first stage of Industrial Relations as a subject itself, not as merely a branch of applied Economics, although, properly, still closely associated with it. This seems an appropriate time to report tentatively on the experiment and by implication foreshadow its development. (Butlin 1958, mimeo, p.l)
The article made no mention of Laffer, but rather Butlin highlighted his own input
While overseas in 1956 I made a point of looking at what was done in the same field in Britain and North America. The British approach is sufficiently simUar to our own to call for httle comment. In the United States, however, development of the field is both far more extensive and takes more varied lines ... [in part because] Americans are more ready to believe that they have much to learn in the field, a belief which is strongest amongst business executives and trade union leaders. (Buthn 1958, mimeo, p.4)
146 In the latter part of the article, Butlin utihsed his new-found understanding of American academic industrial relations to identify areas of teaching and research that he proposed needed strengthening in Austraha, but with the proviso that some aspects of American (USA) academic industrial relations should be treated with caution. In particular, and perhaps mindful of Laffer's ambitions, Butlin was against any separation of industrial relations from economics as had occurred in the USA.
Self-contained, watertight schools have tended to develop and the separation, particularly from the main study of Economics, has not been a good thing (Buthn 1958, mimeo, pp.5-6, italics added)
For Butlin, more preferable, was the structure at lUinois where the industrial relations unit was "more or less self-contained, but attached to one of the more 'academic' schools, normally Economics". (Butlin, 1958, mimeo, Laffer Papers) It is dffficult to speculate retrospectively about Butlin's assumptions about industrial relations. There is no doubt that he saw industrial relations as 'applied' and thus inferior. Yet he openly claimed its success, albeit as part of economics. As weU, relations between Buthn and Laffer were known to be difficult.
The claimed success of industrial relations encouraged Laffer to begin lobbying Butlin for a second subject, possibly at about the time Butlin's article was published in Sydney University Review. Laffer argued that
The existing course provides an introductory survey of the complex of factors affecting industrial relations .... This course is very tightly packed but does not and cannot be expected to
147 provide adequately for the needs of serious students of industrial relations. (Laffer to Buthn, n.d. )i9
Thus, Laffer argued, there needed to be opportunities for "more advanced" study, based in part on Butlin's own assessment of the omissions in Industrial Relations I. Laffer saw Industrial Relations II as a logical extension of the introductory subject and had proposed that it comprise a 'basic' programme of two academic lectures per week in industrial relations together with a third hour set aside for legal and personnel practice issues. Laffer would continue to provide much of the teaching, but with about a quarter provided by the psychology department, and small blocs of additional lectures given by academics from politics and history.
But with the addition of a second subject in mind, Laffer explored other alternatives for meeting the increasing reaching needs. In 1956 Laffer had been assisted by F. T. de Vyver, an economics professor at Duke University who had a continuing interest in Australian industrial relations. (De Vyver, 1958, 1959a, 1959b, 1961, 1970, 1972, 1975) De Vyver's visits brought an element of prestige, as well as short-term teaching assistance, to the new programme. But Laffer was seeking more permanent gains for his programme.
In order to strengthen his case and reinforce support from business and industrial relations practitioners Laffer had utilised practitioners widely in his 'third' hour. In this way he had gained lecturing expertise in apphed issues, not only from law academics but also from legal and business practitioners. Laffer began to buUd on this with some systematic lobbying of businesses to support industrial relations teaching. Laffer not only wrote to individual businesses, but also wrote articles for business publications hke
^^ At the bottom of the letter "early 1958" is written in Laffer's handwriting. 148 Rydges, describing his programme, and its importance and relevance to business, unions and tribunals ahke. (Laffer Papers, 1956) He was in fafr part successful, gaining free or low cost lecturitig, and assistance with plant visits, such as to Johnson and Johnson,20 and monetary support such as from major sugar refiners, CSR, was put to paying for tutors in the early 1960s. (Laffer Papers, 27 October, 1960)
Despite reliance on business funding Laffer was intent on achieving an appearance of even-handedness between employees and employers. In notes about the industrial relations programme to Professor Sid Butlin in 1958 for example, Laffer asserted that
It might be as well, as we will be going to employers' organizations for funds, to balance anything you say about our relations with trade unions, by some reference to managerial aspects of industrial relations studies, including the appropriateness of dffferent types of managerial structure from the standpoint of industrial relations. (Laffer to Butlin, n.d 1958?, Laffer Papers)
Certainly it was important for Laffer to retain good relations with business not only because he sought business approval of the relevance of his emerging programme, but also there was great need for practitioners as lecturers.
By contrast, when addressing the Faculty of Economics, Laffer emphasised the breadth and intellectual rigour of the subject in his submissions. This
2^ Perhaps an example of Laffer's pragmatism, in aiming for acceptance from the practitioner community. One of his students recalls that in his latter years Laffer rejected most vehemently the need for practical assignment or analysis, arguing instead that intellectual analysis was sufficient and must always be central to industrial relations education. 149 was not simply a matter of submissions and descriptions of industrial relations. Laffer continued to research and pubUsh at the borderlands of economics and industrial relations to underhne the hnks between the two disciplines. (Laffer, 1965, 1969). But he also sought to estabhsh the bona fides of industrial relations as a separate academic discipline. Laffer, 1968, 1971) For Laffer, the success of the Industrial Relations Society was important, even though it had much closer ties to the interests of practitioners than its economics counterparts. More importantly, and in cognisance of the rising significance of journal publications for economists (Groenewegen and McFarlane, 1990, pp. 177-8), Laffer had also steered the introduction of the Journal of Industrial Relations in 1959, a publication which he edited from its first edition until 1975. In so doing Laffer was working in the 1950s and 1960s on several fronts to present industrial relations as upholding the same standards and criteria of disciplinary excellence as those set by the economists. At the same time he sought to develop the formal teaching structures recognised by the wider professional academic community, while embedding industrial relations into the community of practitioners.
Given this intense and effective activity and the sustained student numbers in the industrial relations subject, it is not surprising that Laffer began to lobby for increased staff for industrial relations. In this respect he was fortunate in the first half of the 1960s in acqufring for industrial relations the organisational psychologist, Maxine Bucklow and polymath lawyer, Geoff SorreU as members of the Faculty of Economics. Both scholars appeared to feel the same commitment to multi-disciplinary scholarship which industrial relations of the 1960s demanded. (Bucklow, 1964)
Laffer was stUl not satisfied. In one protesting letter to the Dean in the 1960s, for example, Laffer lamented the industrial relations staff-student
150 ratio which was well above the national average of 13:1 (Harman et al, 1980), a figure he claimed would be much higher ff it took account of Study Leave commitments. These, he asserted, led to Bucklow and SorreU teaching topics such as Labour Economics, and Industrial Relations Theory, which made unreasonable intellectual demands on these academics, (see Content of Teaching below)
But it was not an inevitable and smooth progression either within the embryonic department, nor between Laffer and the Faculty of Economics, most notably the Dean, Sid Buthn. Within industrial relations, Laffer's keenness to ensure the simultaneous progress of the journal and the teaching programme, whUe encouraging research and maintaining a high profile with the community of practitioners, gave staff few choices about their own time allocation. The role of Sorrell and Bucklow in providing support for Laffer was clearly important for the emergent discipline, despite their disagreements about content and theory. (Rimmer, Interview, 1999) It is hkely that they provided strong moral support as well as being joint signatories in the numerous proposals which Laffer put to the Faculty.
Once Laffer had more subjects and two more staff, he set about convincing the Faculty of the need for a full major, for honours and graduate programmes, for, as Laffer explained in 1964,
What is ultimately sought is a School of Industrial Relations comparable in standards to the good schools overseas. The developments suggested are essential steps in that dfrection. Very solid foundations have been laid and we are now ready to move on. (Laffer Papers, 15 September, 1964)
151 Such developments, asserted Laffer, would also assist in dealing with the issue of appropriately educated industrial relations staff, not only for Sydney University but for the growing number of industrial relations programmes across Australia. However, it was to be nearly a decade before Laffer achieved these goals, in part because of his difficult relations with Sid Butlin, and Butlin's countervaUing concerns about this wayward new discipline.
In response to the continuing proposals for expansion of industrial relations throughout the 1960s, Butlin was seen by Laffer as seeming to staU the development of a full major and separate disciplinary status. (Laffer, 1964, 1967). Upholding his earlier assessment, (Butlin to Laffer, 1957) Buthn perceived industrial relations as an adjunct field to economics, which, moreover, appeared to have a 'practical' rather than academic orientation. Laffer's demands for Honours courses and separate status were thus organisationally and intellectually undesirable. Despite Butlin's efforts in the two years before his retirement at the end of 1967, and after intensive debate at "some of the toughest committees I have ever experienced", (Laffer, 1981, 21-2), the Honours stream was approved. However, Buthn maintained his implacable opposition in the committee on Honours, in his role as head of department, in which capacity Butlin had final authority on what could be taught and by whom. Butlin, noting the staffing limits in industrial relations, asserted that there was insufficient capacity for Honours and postponed its teaching. (Laffer Papers, 1967, Laffer, 1981)
Laffer felt so thwarted in 1968 that he wrote a strongly worded two page letter of complaint to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, asserting that Buthn had resiled from an unqualffied promise to assist in the development of a Department of Industrial Relations, and laying forward the detaUs of earher agreements. Laffer's pleas for the intervention of the Deputy Vice-
152 ChanceUor were successful insofar as an Honotu-s stream was approved to begin from 1969. It is notable in this respect that much later, Laffer (1981), attributed the success in introducing Honours to serendipitous accidents and individual personalities. Long-time colleague Ted Wheelwright was Acting Head of Department following Buthn's retirement and Deputy Vice- Chancellor O'NeUl had been instrumental in the early developments of industrial relations.21 Nevertheless, Laffer's strained relations with many of the economists, and the doubts the latter held about the acceptabUity of industrial relations were to continue.
This became very clear in 1970 in Laffer's communications with the Head of Economics, Warren Hogan. There had been no academic appointments to industrial relations since that of Geoff Sorrell in 1964. As well Laffer continued to press for a secretary, given the increasing student numbers (see Table 5:1) and demands inherent in publishing the Journal of Industrial Relations, three times per year.22 Laffer's had two major complaints against Hogan, his continuing rejection of Laffer's request for a secretary, and Hogan's outline for the organisation of teaching of industrial relations in 1971.
The tone of many of Laffer's earlier letters to Butlin had been conciliatory or at least veiled, and he had long agreed that he and his staff were wiUing carry extra teaching loads in order to advance the disciphne. However, whUe Laffer's relationship with Butlin had been difficult, that with Hogan was even more forthright. This perhaps reflects Hogan's seeming abrasiveness, as well as what seemed to Laffer to be the continuing thwarting of his objective of a separate Department. Thus Laffer who was
21 O'Neill had been Professor of Psychology at the time industrial relations was set up at Sydney University, and because of academic interest and experience in personnel management, he had taught some of the early subjects. 22 In 1971 the Journal of Industrial Relations began to be pubhshed quarterly. (Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 13, 1971, p.211) 153 usually mindful of the need to be cautious in formal intra-faculty communications responded to Hogan's refusal for administrative assistance dedicated to industrial relations, with
I could not accept the scale of teaching envisaged in your letter of 29th September. ... If the university is too stupid to provide me with a secretary or to recognise the burdens associated with the Journal of Industrial Relations, (sic) it should not ask the earth as well. ... What sort of way to treat us is this? (Laffer to Hogan 1 October, 1970, Laffer Papers)
By dint of unrelenting pressures in the form of letters such as these and multi-pronged manoeuvres to obtain positive assistance for industrial relations, Laffer gradually detached industrial relations from Economics. By 1972 industrial relations finally had its own (part-time) secretary, appointed in Hogan's absence, and had resisted belated attempts by Economics to reincorporate the unit back into the Department. A new industrial relations position was created, bringing the number of industrial relations academics to four. Malcolm Rimmer came to the University with postgraduate training in industrial relations from Warwick University which was becoming internationally famous as a centre for industrial relations research and postgraduate teaching.23 In later years the number of academics with postgraduate Warwick education was to increase quite markedly.
Thus by 1973, less than twenty years after his first optional subject, Laffer had achieved a staff of four full-time academics, several part-time tutors, several Honours graduates and a large Honours class. He had played a central role in the establishment of the Industrial Relations Society to encourage closer links between practitioners and academics. Laffer had also
2^ See for example, reports on the Industrial Relations Research Uiut (IRRU) by Price and Bain respectively in International and Labor Relations Review, 1972, 1973 154 been the editor of the Journal of Industrial Relations and increased its circulation to respectable nearly three thousand. Despite these achievements, Laffer had stiU not attained his earhest objective of industrial relations being a recognised field of study to the extent that it could be designated a separate academic unit.
By 1973 Laffer was determined to push through a vote for a separate Department. However, before the Faculty could consider the proposal, Economics successfully sought an inquiry into the pass rates of industrial relations, which were relatively rather higher than the rest of the Faculty. However, an investigation found that the industrial relations students tended to have much higher Pass rates and grades than the wider Economics student population. Not surprisingly, Laffer was quick to seize the advantage these findings gave to industrial relations. At the same time Economics demanded that the four industrial relations academics should attend the Economics meetings, since industrial relations was stUl part of the Department. Laffer was quick to broadcast his outrage at this new, and belatedly defensive tactic. When the Vice-Chancellor intervened, and the new requirement was lifted, Laffer utilised the incident to highhght the acknowledged separateness of industrial relations.
It was in this envfronment that Laffer achieved separate status for industrial relations, and leaving nothing to chance, set about overseeing the wording of the advertisement for the chair in industrial relations. Kingsley Laffer retired in 1976, having wheedled and battled his way towards a goal which he had begun to attain in the 1950s, or perhaps earher.24
24 Former students of Laffer recall that he had claimed that his first attempts to develop industrial relations began in the 1940s. Upon Laffer's retirement H. A. (Bert) Tiumer was appointed as Visiting Professor and Head of Industrial Relations untU John Corina took up his post in 1978. 155 The story of industrial relations at Sydney University can be told more thoroughly because Laffer, ever the interdisciplinarian, saw the importance of history, and ensured that aU his formal correspondence and aU the initial subject handouts and papers on teaching were retained. This however raises the question of how far the Sydney University experience was reflective of that of other industrial relations programmes in other universities and CAEs.
Sydney industrial relations and the broader patterns
By the time of Laffer's retirement in 1976 there were industrial relations undergraduate degree majors at Melbourne,25 Monash, Newcastle, UNSW, and University of Western Australia and Sydney, in other words at about a third of universities. Moreover, there were tertiary or sub-tertiary programmes at CAEs such as Western Australian Institute of Technology (WAIT), South Austrahan Institute of Technology (SAIT), Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) and Queensland Institute of Technology (QIT). Within five years these would be joined by a number of other tertiary institutions from both the university and CAE sectors. Thus by the end of 1970s industrial relations appears as an area which is acceptable and worthy of academic study.
Of itself the separatism is fundamentally important, precisely because it legitimates the emergent discipline as sufficiently developed to stand alone. In this respect the legitimacy derives from the combined acceptance of the disciphne's development and particular attributes by academics, administrators and the community. That the development of industrial relations had achieved a separate, ff subordinate, status in several
25 The programme at University of Melbourne, however was under serious threat - See Chapter Six 156 universities raises the question of the enabhng conditions. AUied to this is a coroUary question - Is it the case that Laffer's intense and intensive efforts were unusual given the seeming inevitabihty of the development?.
There is no doubting the nature and the forms of resistance to Laffer's initiatives. Personality clashes may explain some of the dffficulties. What is also evident, however, is that many of the issues had their source in the ambivalence of the economists and other scholars, for whom Laffer's notions of interdisciplinarity were an anathema to purist notions of rigorous academic study. Moreover, despite the growth of professional tertiary education, the 'practical' aspects of industrial relations were also at odds with economists' perceptions of scholarship. This was because, perhaps more than other social sciences, the economists have promoted 'scientism' as a foundational assumption. 26 In other words industrial relations with its eclectic method and acceptance of the 'practical' appeared to economic scholars as the converse of what they were trying to achieve for their science.
Closer examination of the development of industrial relations at aU the universities suggests that there is a complex array of enabhng factors upon which the development of industrial relations in universities was dependent. But while universities share many attributes, they are also individual institutions with particularistic cultures (Douglas, 1987) and as NUand (1978, p.250) noted, they maintain different power structures. Thus some of the features which caused Laffer much grief at Sydney were of less importance at Melbourne or UNSW. There are, of course, well-known problems with any 'great man' interpretation of history - the view that one person is a 'father' of a discipline or culture. (Wooff, 1997) On the other hand
2^ Piatt (1996, pp.67-8) in a discussion of scientism in American sociology notes that scientism is associated with making "social science hke natural science, and thus with themes such as empiricism, objectivity, observabihty, operationahsm, behaviovtrism, value neutrahty, measurement, and quantification." See also Gordon, 1992, pp.51-6//" 157 the role of a champion to promote a cause or pattern is apparent in much of the sociology of science, and can be significant in paradigm changes. In the case of industrial relations however, the role of Laffer is notable among various champions (such as Ford or Niland at UNSW or Isaac or Hince at Melbourne) because Laffer battled his way on several fronts, not only for his programme but also the Journal of Industrial Relations and the advance of the Industrial Relations Society, despite its avowedly practical focus.2'^
There is also some evidence that the Sydney industrial relations programme met greater resistance than elsewhere. Plans for the chair in industrial relations at UNSW were being implemented just at the time that a fourth position (to be taken up by Rimmer) was being approved at the University of Sydney. Taken together with the resistance from Hogan to increasing staff, and the assumptions that economists could easily teach sections of the industrial relations programme, (Laffer to Hogan, Laffer Papers28) it seems likely that there were differing levels of resistance at different institutions.
Despite the evident resistance of economics departments to industrial relations, there were also factors which enhanced the emergence of industrial relations at all the universities and CAE's. The need for tertiary studies in industrial relations could easily be included within the patterns of
^' The Industrial Relations Society was formed in 1959 was avowedly not an academic society, but one in which the discussions and differences of practical men can take place under circumstances where the disciphnes of the academician, the administrator, and the lawyer may aU help to control and direct the course of the debate to the mutual benefit of all concerned (Kerr, 1962) Isaac (Interviews 1998) has recommended that a close study of the Industrial Relations Society is important because the society has been extraordinarily important for practitioners and practitioner scholars in the development of the pubhc face of IR as an hohstic discipline. It has not been undertaken for this project, in part because the hnks between IR scholarship and the IRS appear variable and frequently tenuous, and partly because of itself a study of the Society (which has large branches in every state and several significant sub-branches as well) is a massive undertaking. There is no doubt however of its significance for the profession of IR, but its importance for scholarship has yet to be demonstrated. ^° Laffer's letter to Hogan was an outraged response to Hogan's suggestions that economists with light teaching loads could fill industrial relations teaching needs. 158 the expansion of professional education. Indeed the absence of professionally trained practitioners was lamented in industry seminars and highlighted in Laffer's formal submissions. However, at the University of Sydney the value of professional education was sometimes tempered in presentations to Economics, in order to emphasise the inteUectual rigoiu: and breadth of industrial relations. Nevertheless, a second force for enhancuig the development of industrial relations, for professionals at least, can be found in public and community concerns with industrial disputation (e.g. the O'Shea case) and the controversies over wage fixation by the late 1960s.29 Taken together with the emergence of fields requiring dedicated tertiary studies, such as social work, the fitness of industrial relations at least as an undergraduate discipline, provided evidence and justification for the new field of study. Allied to the concerns over wage fixation or strikes, is a third factor that industrial relations generally was of considerable interest to the community. Employment was of great interest to most people, and the fact that the formal Australian system of regulation was seen as unique and subject to severe criticism led to debate over the issue, even as it narrowed community perceptions of industrial relations model works of the arbitral process.
A fourth major factor which strengthened the bargaining resources of Laffer and his colleagues was that industrial relations had clearly developed as a strong discipline in both the UK and the USA. This was evident not only in sabbatical visits of Australian academics to the two Anglophone countries, but also in the visits of widely respected scholars like Derber, Perlman and de Vjrver to Australia. In the main these scholars were economists who had found pure economics insufficient for their analysis, but who drew heavily on
29 The introduction of the Total Wage in 1967, and the Aboriginal Stockmen's Case (1966) and the first equal pay for women decision (1969) all generated a fair degree of pubhc controversy. 159 economics as the basis for their industrial relations. As was noted above they were also often roped in to teaching sections or whole subjects, which tended to influence subject matter as weU. The sahent points for now, however, are that the postwar decades were notable for the fact that innovations and practices in the UK and USA were seen as exemplars, and that industrial relations was accepted and growing in both countries.
Overall then, the case of the emergence of industrial relations at Sydney University was perhaps more flamboyant than that other universities, but it seems that the common threads are apparent in the forces promoting and constraining the emergence and development of the new discipline as an area of academic study. The personality of Laffer was clearly important in implementing and expanding the new programme at Sydney, just as the more covert approaches of scholars generally advanced the case at the other institutions. These kinds of differences were also apparent in the content of subjects and courses before the late 1970s.
160 Table 5.1 Enrolments Industrial Relations, University of Sydney, Selected Years 1956-1972 Year IRl IR2 IR3 other
1956 23 NA
1958 25 N/A
1961 33 11
1962 43 10
1963 47 10
1964 55 7
1965 65 7
1966 86 7
1967 94 15
1968 92 14
1969 112 29 C.E.
1970 131 41 C.E.
1972 147+24H 54+12H 6H C.E.
1975 156
Explanatorv Note IRl - Industrial Relations 1 (a fuU year subject) 1R2 - Industrial Relations II (a full year subject) IR3 - Industrial Relations III H - Students in Honours Stream C.E. — Service courses for Department of Chemical Engineering
161 Content of teaching 1956-1976
The first full year introductory subject at University of Sydney was ambitious and eclectic. It contained a macro examination of pubhc institutions, and micro / workplace issues, including psychological factors, the law, organisation theory, personnel practice and trade unionism. To quote Laffer the subject sought to examine
the functions, policies and problems of trade unions and employer organizations; informal groups and their signfficance; the role of the State in industrial relations; the determination of wages and conditions under arbitration and collective bargaining; industrial morale, labour turnover, absenteeism, industrial disputes; welfare, personnel and human relations policies and their effects; incentive plans; joint consultation and other forms of worker participation; the effects on industrial relations of administrative structure and technological organization; influence on industrial relations arising from the social organization of the community; legal aspects of industrial relations. (Laffer, 1957, Laffer papers)
In order to cover such a vast array of topics, Laffer chose high profile practitioners for the third hour of 'practical' lectures each week. For example in the latter 1950s, well-known Sydney barrister J. R. Kerr gave a short course within the 'practical lecture series on "The Law and Industrial Relations".30 Lloyd Ross from the New South Wales Labor Council and senior executives from private business also provided lectures on practical aspects of employment from macro and micro perspectives.
Within a few years and at about the same time as the founding of the Journal of Industrial Relations, Laffer had estabhshed two annual industrial relations subjects. Both subjects continued to be broadly based
^ Indeed Kerr, was a central player in the formation of the Industrial Relations Society and for a while a regular contributor to the Journal of Industrial Relations. 162 covering what was later to be seen as an extraordinarUy wide range of issues. The texts for Industrial Relations I for example included Brown's Social Psychology of Industry, Reynolds' Labour Economics and Labor Relations, Walker's Industrial Relations in Australia, Argyris' Personality and Organisations, Sayles', Behaviour of Industrial Work Groups, and Harrell's Industrial Psychology. The texts for Industrial Relations II were quite different, except Harrell was again set reading. In an academic year of approximately 30 weeks, the industrial relations students were expected to understand and be able to discuss aspects of labour economics, organisational and industrial psychology from an individual and group perspective, and the historical, legal, and current aspects of the institutions and processes of the public industrial relations system in Australia. In this respect it is evident that Laffer saw industrial relations in broadest terms, encompassing social and behavioural sciences, and from the individual to the national perspective.
By the 1960s, this multidisciplinary smorgasbord had been refined, but it still appears very broad without clear integration of the contributions from different disciplines. Nevertheless there was evidence of thematic development and an attempt at coherence within individual subjects and between Industrial Relations I and II. It seems possible that the tightening of subject content reflected the impact of Geoff SorreU, whose research and teaching interests covered trade unions, labour law and some industrial relations theory, and Maxine Bucklow, who published in the general area of industrial psychology and personnel management. For example in 1968 Industrial Relations I (Pass) covered four themes
163 1. The subject-matter of industrial relations
2. Employer -employee relations (conflicting and common interests, manifestations of conflict, trade unionism and wage determination
3. managerial organisations (personnel management; the individual difference phase; selection training etc; the human relations phase; the organisation phase)
4. the state and industrial relations (the law; employment relationship at common law; conciliation and arbitration machinery; determination of differentials and conditions of work under arbitration} (Industrial Relations I, 1968, Laffer Papers)
What linked these topics were the employment relationship and the policy- practical needs which accrued. Industrial Relations II covered more advanced work under the same four headings but with closer attention paid to economic and socio-technical factors. Except in the separate honoiu's subjects, the institutional processes and issues focussed entirely on Australia, but the management and organisation theory tended to draw on overseas literature, and contextual factors appeared less important.
At Sydney, the pattern of drawing the complexities of macro and micro, and social, political, legal, and economic factors ever closer together, continued through to the mid 1970s, when Laffer retired, albeit with continuing capture and integration of ideas from the allied disciplines. It was not however, that Laffer, and his colleagues were unreflectively reproducing their subjects year after year. Indeed it was quite the reverse. As part of his attempts to strengthen the case for disciphnary growth and rigour, which yet went beyond the basic public system of institutional industrial relations, (arbitration system, trade unions, employer associations, wage determination, legal aspects), Laffer produced numerous short papers,
164 attempting to give coherence to the "subject-matter of industrial relations". Moreover, these reveal an evolving pattern of thought from the first offerings in the 1950s which began with a strongly institutional economics focus, giving considerable weight to wage determination, arbitration and industrial law, before examining aspects of management of the employment relationship.^^ By the 1960s however, personnel issues were given much higher priority, and generally taught it appears by Maxine Bucklow or others with expertise in the area.
It is also apparent that even within industrial relations programmes, there was no single pattern of industrial relations, apart from evident acknowledgment that focal areas of study should be much broader the formal public industrial relations system. This was despite a continuing effort to develop a comprehensive and coherent subject. As the programme grew, and the immediate industrial relations environment altered, so the priorities and interests of the scholars also shifted. Thus by 1970s these academics had been teaching industrial relations for at least five years, and had become aware of the weaknesses of a broad programme which attempted to cover all of the elements of employment from multidisciphnary perspectives. There were attempts to unify teaching through a single framework but even in this there was disagreement, in large part because Laffer, unlike his coUeagues, held the view that the Dunlop framework was the ideal analytical framework.32
^^ In fairness to Laffer, it is apparent that the initial lack of workplace management issues related to his self acknowledged weakness in the areas of social psychology and personnel policies. (Laffer Papers). It is also worth noting in this respect that the Journal of Industrial Relations under Laffer's editorship tended to pubhsh more "management" articles than occurred under the editorship of Niland. However, other factors such as the shift in the central objects of analysis in the late 1970s and 1980s, and (possibly) the avaUabihty of other pubhcations make it difficult to identify causahty for the changing pattern of journal articles in the Journal of Industrial Relations. (See Chapter Six) ^2 In this respect, the approach of Australian academics was not dissimilar to those overseas. The debates over the role and worth of the Dunlop framework were considerable. See next chapter. 165 Colleagues recall disputes and debates at Sydney between Laffer, Bucklow and Sorrell about teaching priorities and organisation throughout the 1960s and early 1970s. Laffer wrote often of his ideals for an industrial relations programme. In these the core question was always "what is industrial relations?" (Laffer Papers, various; Laffer, 1968, 1974). The depth of concern of all three pioneer industrial relations academics is evident in two papers of seventeen and thirteen typed pages respectively, written in 1970 or 1971. Both papers are thoughtful and searching reviews of the subject matter of industrial relations and what should be taught to students. It seems likely that Paper 1, "Industrial Relations Courses" was drafted by Maxine Bucklow and Paper 2, "A Review of Industrial Relations Theories" was written by Geoff Sorrell.33 Both papers are heavily annotated with margin comments in Kingsley Laffer's inimitable, and mostly illegible, writing. Paper 1 (Bucklow?) is a statement of a teaching programme which ignores the extant industrial relations literature, altogether. Instead it is based on the assumptions that (a) conflict is inherent and endemic (b) technology is the basic causal variable and (c) that the organisation is the core site of study because that is where work and employment take place. There are social and psychological consequences arising from the interaction of the core assumptions, and it is the study of all of these which is central to industrial relations. Thus for Bucklow (1971? pp.6-7) "Industrial relations is concerned with those aspects of worker-management behaviour which reflect the conflict involved in the imposition of management controls and disciphne on workers ..." Laffer's margin comment is "too worker oriented". Bucklow's proposal for teaching first year was to teach aspects of confhct and organisation theory, group behaviour, industrial democracy and the concept
33 Malcolm Rimmer as a former colleague suggested the authorship, partly based on Bucklow's reference to her paper on Psychology and Sociology of Teaching Industrial Relations which she gave at an IRS Conference and also because of references to Bucklow's inteUectual heroes of Coser, Myers, Haire, Argjois and others. 166 of autonomy against an industrial relations criteria, "that is, the extent to which they meet workers' demands for control, autonomy and decision making". By contrast Paper 2 (SorreU) approaches his views of what was needed in teaching industrial relations through a survey of theories. The paper is particularly critical of Dunlop and Laffer, and gives most weight to Flanders, whose work in bringing the workplace into focus was "an important development from the original Dunlop theory". (SorreU, 1971?, p.4) The critique of Laffer is particularly strong, especiaUy Laffer's concept of implicit and explicit bargaining relations, by which Laffer had meant the whole gamut of relations from management decisions to coUective bargaining. Moreover, Sorrell rejected what he knew to be Laffer's strong view that, as an interdisciplinary subject industrial relations required an interdisciplinary theory. Finally, SorreU, like Bucklow, concluded that studying the enterprise or organisation was the best central organising principle for studying and teaching industrial relations. (Sorrell, 1971? p. 13) The margins of most of Sorrell's paper are peppered with "NO" in bold letters, together with numerous other comments from Laffer. Most of these are illegible, but it is clear that Laffer disagreed wholly with both authors, probably in large part because of their conceptualisation of interdisciplinarity of industrial relations and their rejection of Dunlop's systems approach as the central organising principle for teaching.
Rimmer's arrival in 1972 signalled the beginnings of a shift in the teaching programme, towards a more coherent and institutional approach, away from the eclectic collation preferred by Laffer. Upon Laffer's retirement in May 1975 the programme was wholly redesigned to an institutional approach, with marked similarities to that taught in the graduate programme at Warwick. (Rimmer, Personal Communication, 13 AprU, 1999) Rimmer's arrival also strengthened the hnks between Sydney University's industrial
167 relations and the British approach to industrial relations. This was to stand in contrast to the close relations being developed by other Austrahan universities with US academic industrial relations institutions.34
The debates at Sydney over the content of subjects and programmes was rephcated throughout many Australian universities in the 1960s and 1970s. In contrast with Sydney, Isaac, initiaUy at Melbourne and later at Monash emphasised the institutional factors affecting wage determination and rulemaking. He argued for the need to pay particular attention to the conciliation and arbitration system. Although greatly respected for his scholarship, his colleagues did not always agree with this focus for teaching and would seek to offer additional material or explore the structures and roles of the other collectivities, (employer associations and trade unions) and the theories behind the development of labour movements. (Howard, Interview, 1999)
** *Other British scholars arrived in close succession throughout the 1970s including John Corina, Stephen Frenkel, and Ed Davis, whUe scholars such as Nick Blain, RusseU Lansbury and Mark Bray went to the UK for postgraduate study. 168 Conclusion
The university teaching programmes of a discipline reflect and project scholars' perceptions of what constitutes the essential core of the disciphne, mediated by the external pressures on tertiary education, the propinquity and status of other disciplines, and where relevant the influence of the professionals. But a community of scholars are an inherent attribute of a discipline, and as social beings, scholars may respond in different ways to the mediating pressures. An analytical examination of the first fifteen or so years of Australian industrial relations teaching provides rich evidence of the complex interactions of factors which influence the presentation, nature and direction of a discipline. For the emergent discipline of industrial relations in Austraha, personalities, bureaucratic exigencies, and inter disciplinary status-seeking behaviour exaggerated the effect of a lack of clear disciphnary focus.
There is no doubt however that, in the 1950s the objects of analysis of industrial relations were a broad array of parties and processes in the regulation of the employment relationship. By the end of the period under study, in the mid-1970s, most industrial relations study had become narrowed to the collective institutions and formal institutional processes. Organisational and management factors had been all but ehminated.
In the absence of generalisable laws or theories such a narrowing of the objects of analysis are not surprising, given the demands of presenting the complexities of the macro and micro from various frames of reference. Moreover, institutionalism and the focus on the outcomes of conflict had also become the norm in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK. As a borrower discipline, which ascribed a high status to the US and UK, it is perhaps not surprising that the disciplinary focus narrowed to the institutions and outcomes of formal collective industrial relations. Overall, then, it appears
169 as if the pragmatic, professional and pedagogical elements aU combined to delimit the boundaries of the discipline.
Moreover, while the study of coUective institutions and formal processes of reaction and interaction comprised the object of study of the mainstream, there was by no means agreement as to how even these should be examined. By the mid-1970s, industrial relations in its hmited form, was an accepted field of study within Australian universities. But it was stUl new and mutable, and its progress in the ensuing decades was not at all foreseeable. The reliance on international scholarship and the lack of surety meant that industrial relations was open to colonising from any one of a number of disciplines or schools of thought. For the scholar-teachers part of the challenge of their discipline, however defined, was to take heed of the complexities, yet simplify them in order to analyse processes and present ideas in an effective and 'scientific' way which took heed of the non-scientific aspects of social beings. Despite the vastly different public industrial relations system, it is not surprising that the Australian scholars looked to the American and British models of analysis. But while this influence is a 'given' it deserves close attention, and a shift in the locus of analysis. That is, in order to investigate the reasons why different theories and ideas were taken up, and the processes by which British or American ideas were transferred to Australia industrial relations requires a broadening focus of analysis. This chapter has looked primarily to national economic, social, and political factors in the postwar era which redounded on universities together with the intra-university culture and climate. The next chapter takes a wide lens to Australian industrial relations and examines in general terms how ideas were transferred from the USA and the UK scholarly communities to Australia.
170 CHAPTER FIVE
THE TRANSFER OF IDEAS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: DUNLOP AND DONOVAN IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS THOUGHT:
1960-1985
Who is Right? - Keynes or Dunlop? Does academic research lead to policy decisions or do academics distill thefr frenzy from the ravings of some very active politician? (Eherenburg et al, 1977, p.lO)
Introduction
As was noted in the early chapters, a disciphnary history is a history of the transfer of ideas. This is because disciplinary thought is never static, and is always changing as methods, theories, ideologies and contexts change. The previous chapter examined the process of the development of academic industrial relations taking the transfer of ideas as a 'given'. However, when investigating the influence of international scholarship on Austrahan scholarship and teaching, it is worth attempting to analyse more closely the ways in which ideas are diffused, why some ideas are taken up wholly or in part, and others simply fall on stony ground. Certainly most scholarship is subject to international influences. Even before the age of cyber- communication, the demands of business inter alia ensured that ideas
171 transcended cultural or national boundaries with notable speed.i The objective of this chapter, therefore, is to understand the processes by which central elements of US and UK industrial relations scholarship have been rejected or adopted, and if adopted, the extent and nature of the adoption. What makes these processes particularly interesting is the fact that there is no doubt that the formal public industrial relations systems in aU three countries have had a degree of influence on the shape of scholarly studies. In order to understand the extent of adoption or rejection of analytical models from the US or UK in Australia, analysis wUl draw from scholarly publications and textbooks.
The transmission of ideas
Despite the evident importance of understanding the diffusion of ideas, the processes of diffusion and transfer have only rarely been studied systematically outside of the rarefied world of the sociology of knowledge. The difficulties of a systematic study of the transfer of ideas are especially apparent, but are all the more important in an academic disciphne such as industrial relations. This is because, as been shown in earlier chapters, industrial relations is separate from, but closely tied to other social sciences, humanities, behavioural sciences and the law. Moreover, beyond a few seff- assured scholars, industrial relations exponents have been fraught with self- doubt, about the validity of their 'interdisciplinary discipline.2 Nevertheless,
^ See e.g. the growth of scientific management in Evirope prior to World War II (Nyland 1997) or the pace at which some of the ideas from the Hawthorne experiments were implemented. (GiUespie, 1993) 2 Much of this self-doubt is self-imposed, and not hmited to industrial relations. However, industrial relations is rarely fovmd in European tmiversities although academic analysis of the work, management and employment is widespread. Moreover, industrial relations scholarship is rarely cited in other disciphnes, despite the considerable anal3rtical insights that industrial relations analysts have developed. 172 it is essential to come to an understanding of how ideas are transferred within the discipline, and also between industrial relations and other disciphnes.3 This chapter takes just one aspect of industrial relations thought - the influence on Austrahan industrial relations thought of two influential Anglophone mainstream 'schools' of thought from the 1960s to the 1980S.4 The chapter examines how the ideas of these 'schools' or strands were transferred to Australia. It raises general questions of how ideas are taken up, and what is taken up, and why certain ideas are accepted almost wholly, what ideas are transferred but are modified in the transfer, and what ideas are rejected. These issues raise further questions about why particular ideas or analytical concepts are accepted, modified or rejected. On one level, then this chapter is about a particular epoch in Austrahan industrial relations thought - from the latter 1960s to the 1980s - but on another level it raises questions about the movement of ideas, an area of analysis which is important in industrial relations, a new discipline which rests on interdisciplinarity.
One of the notable exceptions to the dearth of systematic analysis of the transmission of ideas in the social sciences is the conference held in 1966 (Goodwin and HoUey, 1968) at Duke University. In the resultant publication, some emphasis was given to the model of vector analysis, in which the mathematical and physical concept of vectors offers the opportunity to examine the magnitude and dfrection of the transmission of
3 See especiaUy Chapters 5 and 6 of Kaufman (1993) for discussion on some of these issues. '^ There have been occasional influences from non-Anglophone scholarship, such as the Swedish notion of the wages fund, and the German co-determination practices. However, untU the 1990s Anglophone scholarship has interacted at a far greater level than that between European and UK industrial relations scholarship. One reason for the dearth of non-Anglophone scholarship rests on the fact that despite its multiciUtural population, most Austrahan scholars are monolingual. More importantly has been the fact that luitU the 1980s, there was a strong tendency in Austrahan culture to look to the USA or UK for cultural or inteUectual benchmarks.
173 ideas. This also fits with the disease model of the transmission of ideas postulated by Coats and Colander (1989), in which they propose that one way in which ideas are spread is akin to a contagious disease. In this model vector analysis offers the opportunity, just as it does for epidemiologists to, monitor and therefore evaluate, the processes by which ideas spread. (Coats and Colander, 1989, pp.11-12)
Another model for tracing the transfer of ideas can also be derived from science, in this case, chemistry. The basis for this second model comes from the scientific process of chromatography which traces how gases or liquids are diffused. Consider, for example, a large piece of poor quahty blotting paper. If you tip a few drops of ink on it the colour will run - not necessarUy evenly. Leave it a bit longer and the colour wUl spread further, in some places retaining its true colour and brilliance, while in others it may not transfer at all or become lighter or the colours may break down, from green to blue and yellow. The value of this process as an explanatory for the diffusion of thought becomes particularly evident when investigating the transfer of ideas in a multidisciplinary discipline such as industrial relations. It is not only the force and direction of ideas (vector analysis) which has influenced the transfer of knowledge or knowledge-getting processes, but also the nature ('absorptive' attributes) of the recipients. In particular a process such as chromatography provides the beginnings of a model for understanding why some ideas have been transferred more or less completely, while others are translated in a distorted form, or do not transfer ataU.
In this chapter, these models provide insights in an examination of one aspect of the developments in the nature and dfrection of Australian industrial relations scholarship from the formative years of the 1960s until
174 the early 1980s. The starting point for this chapter is the assertion that, despite a tendency to avoid theory, (Bray and Taylor, 1986), Austrahan industrial relations has been most influenced by British and American industrial relations heuristic processes and modes of thought. In the chapter, the pattern of influence of the predominant postwar 'paradigms' from these two countries on industrial relations thought in Austraha is examined. The process by which Australian scholars chose (and modified) a particular US analytical framework over one developed by British scholars is then explored. Both frameworks were widely accepted in their host countries, and there is clear evidence that Australian scholars were famUiar with each framework. The models of transmission of ideas are then drawn upon to consider why one analytical framework was eventually preferred by mainstream scholars in Australia.
Industrial relations: The System v. Study
As was shown in the previous chapter, academic industrial relations was established through a series of tortuous processes into a discrete but hybrid discipline by the 1970s, having grown out of economics, labour history, law, sociology, and industrial and organisational psychology Definitions of industrial relations vary widely, depending on nature of the employment relationship, and its contextual influences, on the one hand, and the objectives of the community of scholars on the other. (Kelly, 1997, see also Chapter One and e.g. Hyman, 1994; Blyton and TurnbuU, 1994; Dunlop, 1993; Kaufman, 1993, Morris, 1993; Palmer, 1983; Hyman and Brough, 1975; Laffer, 1974; Brown, 1978a; Walker, 1964; ) What definitions of industrial relations generally share, regardless of location are
175 • a fundamental assumption that the employment relationship (which is the essential element in all industrial relations), is complex, and subject to a variety of social, economic and pohtical pressures, and wiU also reflect local cultural and economic norms
• a recognition that there exist macro and micro industrial relations
• an understanding that unlike personnel or human resource management, and like economics, industrial relations may be studied from a variety of ideological and social perspectives, using a wide range of methodology and techniques (Kelly, 1991)
Inherent or explicit in most definitions are notions of 'fairness', as weU as a recognition of both competing and shared goals and an acknowledgment of unequal power resources. Academic industrial relations is also characterised by a common awareness of scholars in inter alia the national industrial relations systems. In Australia this system has been seen, rightly or wrongly, as unusual.
The definitional attributes of industrial relations serve as a reminder that, whUe scholars operate within a real world context, the objective of scholarship is not simply to mirror or reform current practices. This highlights the fact that industrial relations as a study or academic discipline is different from a national industrial relations system. Just as pohtical science covers aspects of politics far deeper and broader than a national political system, so industrial relations scholarship is a field of study far deeper and broader than a national industrial relations system Nevertheless, it is axiomatic that a significant influence on scholarship wiU be the current and historical context in which scholars are operating.
At the level of practice, an industrial relations system can be described as the organisational, legal and economic framework which determines the
176 coherent set of norms and processes evident in the formal institutions of industrial relations in a particular enterprise, region or nation-state. UntU recently the conciliation and arbitration systems in place from around the turn of the century in Austraha and New Zealand have meant that industrial relations in those countries have long been subject to government policy. This has contrasted with those countries where the control and administration of the employment relationship has been characterised by an enterprise focus and voluntarism.
Thus in Australia and New Zealand with systems traditionaUy more in the 'public' sphere, than in the 'private' sphere,^ the practice and analysis of industrial relations in Australia have been subjected to greater political and ideological considerations than overseas. The centrality of the 'pubhc' processes of the administration of the employment relationship has also been the focus of scholars from overseas, many of whom found the level of government involvement curious, (see de Vyver, 1956; Perlman, 1954) Australian scholars too have at times paid considerable attention to the conciliation and arbitration system. A good example is given in the next chapter in the heated debates in the 1970s over the respective merits of the tribunal system and a collective bargaining system for employment regulation. The broad acceptance of trade unions in the control and administration of the employment relationship was evident in these kinds of debates as well, a strong belief that wages of Austrahan workers were set by the tribunals, rather than the market. (NUand, 1978a, Laffer, 1969, 1972, Kirby, 1962, Howard, 1984; Hancock, 1963; Isaac and Ford, 1966; Isaac, 1974. See also Chapter Six)
^ These terms which have gained more common parlance in the feminist hterature are clearly germane to the Austrahan situation - especiaUy, at present, when goverrmients and business are working to return the employment relationship to the private sphere.
177 Certainly, the 'pubhc' nature of industrial relations has been made more emphatic because national wage determination through the tribunal system has given governments in Australia greater access to this facet of economic policy making than in other countries. This national phenomenon has led to the perception of the Australian system as unique. How unusual it has been is a moot point, but there is no doubt that the structiu-e of the system has reinforced the conviction held by many practitioners and scholars that the control and administration of the employment relationship has been signfficantly different from that elsewhere. (Walker, 1956; HUl, Howard and Lansbury, 1982) One effect of the perceived dffferences may have been to mediate or alter the ways in which international intellectual developments have influenced Australian industrial relations scholarship. (see e.g. Markey, 1987; Plowman, 1989; Sheridan, 1990)
The British influences
Influences on Austrahan scholarship were traditionally derived from the nation's historico-political links to Great Britain. As a colony of Britain, and then a nation state within the British Empire and Commonwealth, Australian legal and political institutions have their source in Britain. UntU the 1960s, these were underpinned by dependence on important market hnks. Major firms in Australia were outposts of British firms, with particular similarities in management styles and employment relations. Throughout the nineteenth century and until the middle of the twentieth century the majority of immigrants came from Britain, so that it is not surprising that trade union structure also bore close similarities with that in Britain. Like Britain too, the industrial wing of the labour movement was complemented by a political party, with a concomitant broad set of principles
178 beyond the economism which has tended to dominate labour in the USA. (Sheridan, 1975; Hagan, 1981)
The surface features of the business, social, legal and political heritage have been replicated in academia. Australian universities were moiUded on British lines,^ and Australian scholars aspired to British models of scholarship. For those reasons, until the 1960s, academics mainly took sabbaticals in the UK rather than elsewhere and used British texts in their teaching. One of Australia's most influential and venerable scholars, economist, J. E. Isaacs took his PhD at London University, as did John Child.7
Influences from the USA
It is the paradox of the colonial nations, that they will replicate the home country mores and structures, while simultaneously trying to break from the tether of the imperial power. For that reason it is not surprising that Australia has long looked to the largest of the 'new world' countries, the USA, for ideas. After World War I this process gained pace as the USA gained international economic leadership.
In industrial relations, the pattern of following American ideas was reinforced by the fact that scholars from the USA had also had a long fascination with Australia. The scholar - judge who was the architect of much of the conciliation and arbitration machinery, Henry Botu-nes Higgins, lectured and published in the USA in the 1920s and there is evidence even
^ Or more properly Scottish lines, although there is no doubt that in the twentieth centiiry the University of Sydney, for example, took the Oxbridge universities as a model. "^ See e.g. Child, 1963, 1973, ChUd, an organisational theorist, was an early protagonists in the Industrial Relations Society who continued his research career in the UK from the latter 1960s.
179 earlier of American interest. Moreover from early this century US labom* economists have visited Austraha. (Goodwin, 1966) The very wording of the title of Judges in Industry by Mark Perlman^ reflected precisely the nature of the American fascination with the institutional system, while other postwar visitors such as F. T. de Vyver^ also sought to angdyse and understand the Austrahan system from the 1950s, and the lessons it might provide for the US patterns of labour relations. Following similar patterns of research interest to Mark Perlman and Frank de Vyver, other American writers such as Milton Derber, focussed on the processes of rulemaking in industrial relations in Australia. (Derber, 1970a, 1971) Their contributions were to be augmented and advanced throughout the 1970s with work of John Niland who obtained his PhD from Illinois in 1970, and BUI Howard and Peter Soberer, both of whom had PhD's from Cornell. (Interviews, Ford, 1997; Howard, 1999; Niland, 1997, 1998; Scherer, 1999).io
American management ideas had also been long influential in many industries, and were conveyed particularly through the occupational and industrial psychology literature. (Marshall and Trahair, 1981)ii While the hnks between management ideas and industrial relations thought are
^ See also M. Perlman, "An Industrial Problem: Australia's Longshoremen", Labor Law Journal, Vol 4 1953, pp.462-73, which more than his larger work focuses on management, . ^ See especiaUy, F. T. de Vyver, "The Weakening of Managerial Rights" Business Horizons, 2, 1, 1959, pp.38-48. What is notable about the work of both de Vyver and Perlman is that like Dunlop, they gave far greater credence to the role of management than Austrahan scholars. ^^ The primary interest of Howard, NUand, and Scherer was in economics, particiUarly the latter two. See e.g, Scherer (1981) and Chapman, NUand and Isaac, (1984). In this respect it is worth noting that NUand's first industrial relations pubhcation was in the last issue before he took up editorship of the JIR in 1975. BUI Ford also went to the US as a Visiting Scholar, but he was involved in aspects of union activism, whUe his inteUectual interests were in QWL and work organisation. (Interview, Ford, 1997) ^^ See also numerous articles in Australasian Manufacturer in the 1950s. This magazine- style pubhcation maintained close links with American counterparts, and frequently provided summaries of articles only recently pubhshed in the US. Much of the material reflected a concern for an improvement in working conditions, and a genuine interest in the material welfare of employees.
180 imperfectly understood, there is no doubt that Austrahan practitioner- analysts in industrial psychology and management in the decades before the 1960s attempted to introduce ideas about the organisation of work and the administration of the employment relationship which derived from American models of management, particularly Roethlisberger and Mayo, (see e.g. various issues Australasian Manufacturer and The Human Factor, Journal of the Australian Institute of Industrial Psychologists)
As the previous chapter noted, the influential labour law surveys by British educated lawyer, Orwell de R Foenander, 12 were joined by the first industrial relations textbooks in the 1950s. The text by the Austrahan Kenneth Walker, Industrial Relations in Australia, published by Harvard University Press was published in 1956, three years after Perlman's Australian study.i3 Walker's work^^ reflected how far he had been influenced by American ideas. It also set the pattern for textbooks for the next 20 years, in applying a modified Dunlopian framework and using notable cases from the arbitration system, but rarely dealing with management styles and processes. ^^
Overall, there is a sense in which the influence of American scholarship was to be greater than that of British scholarship, but the close cultural and economic links between Australia and UK, on the one hand, and the parallel
^2 See especially, O de R. Foenander, , Solving Labour Problems in Australia, Melbourne 1941, and Foenander, 0 de R., Better Employment Relations and Other Essays in Labour, Law Book Coy, Melbourne 1954 ^3 K. Walker, (1956) Industrial Relations in Australia, Wertheim Series, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. Walker had drawn on Dunlop's preliminary frameworks of the late 1940s. ^^ Walker's PhD was from Harvard, but he also took classes at MIT where he learned aspects of management approaches from the likes of Douglas MacGregor. (Personal communication, October, 1996) ^^ Management appeared to Walker as relatively unimportant in studying work and employment, except that certain types of management appeared to reflect or engender confhct more than others. (Walker, 1956, p.351) 181 structures of universities and of trade unions, on the other, meant that before the 1980s British influences on Austrahan inteUectual hfe were very significant. The attention paid to the 'Oxford school' provides clear evidence of that.
Flanders, Clegg and the Oxford School
The Oxford School reflects the reformist pragmatism of British industrial relations scholars of the 1960s. It had its antecedents in the 1950s and early 1960s in the work of Flanders and Clegg, (1954) but was most evident in the Donovan Commission, the grand exposition of the Oxford school in the 1960s. 16 The major recommendations of the Donovan Commission (1966) aimed not only to maintain the degree of participation that had developed in the informal shop steward movement, but also to contain it within new formality. These recommendations were thus the policy outcomes of a deep commitment to pluralism,!'^ which by the 1960s was a descriptor given to an industrial relations ideology. It was founded on normative assumptions of the ideal society as one in which collectivities of interest should be sufficiently strong and diverse as to ensure that no single interest group could predominate. (Fox 1966; Clegg, 1972, 1990)
In their analysis, the 'plurahst' industrial relations scholars began with the assumption that there existed a system of industrial relations which focussed on the making of substantive and procedural employment rules by managers, employers, and workers as represented by their collectivities. In
16 Hereafter, the Oxford School and Donovan Model wUl be used interchangeably to identify the particular and definable British approach to industrial relations. 1^ These days pluralism is an overused term, frequently utihsed (not quite appropriately) as a catch-aU term to indicate suggest acknowledgment of the confhctual aspects of the employment relationship. The term has caught the imagination of business hberals who seek to discredit ideas of competing interests in employment. It is also a preferred term for those analysts who seek to emphasise the antagonistic aspects of the employment relationship over the cooperative attributes. For a critical discussion of 'plurahsm', (and its imagined opposite, 'unitarism') see Chapter 7.
182 the British system of industrial relations "Each employee is hkely to be affected by a considerable number of rules and the complex of rules within a particular plant can be regarded as a system". (Clegg and Flanders 1961) In
Britain in the 1960s, the system in each plant was portrayed as a sub system of the complex of rules in each industry. British pluralists in the
1960s and 1970s thus focused on the British system, and their research derived from the British historical context. For these analysts, however, it was just as important that the system uphold the purpose of promoting equal access to the political and economic gains of capitalism. The egalitarian pluralism of the British school gave their analysis and studies a clearly normative element, with their writings providing clear evidence of thefr objective
to see a shift in the distribution of wealth towards those with lower incomes, and a shift of power over the conduct of thefr working lives and environment towards working men and women, and ... emphasising the importance of trade unions in industry, in the economy and in society. (Clegg, 1990)
Much of their analysis therefore was on the rules and rulemaking in employment but always utilising an institutional perspective, rather than an individualist focus. For these scholars the processes of understanding the practice and operation of rulemaking, had the purpose of finding ways of empowering workers, so that consideration of ideas of fafrness underpin much of their analysis, (see e.g. Kahn Freund, 1969; Davies and Freedland,
1983, pp. 12-28; Clegg, 1972; 1975; Flanders, 1967; Hyman and Brough, 1975
Chapter 4)
183 This is not to say that they sought radical economic reform. Neither did thefr analysis ehde management. Flanders was a practitioner claiming socialist ideals who moved back and forth between academia and union or activist roles. He saw management as having an essential role in making things better (Flanders, 1965, 1966). He was not alone in this view; British scholars appear to have investigated the role of management in thefr industrial relations analyses rather more than thefr US counterparts. Another British scholar, Hyman (Hyman and Brough, 1975 pp. 157-83) took the pluralists to task for taking the economic system as a given. In so doing, it was argued, they were upholding an economic system in which unfairness was unavoidable, indeed essential. Hyman insisted that the contradictions inherent in such approaches diminished the work of these scholars. Nevertheless, rather more than elsewhere, the objective of the British pluralists was to work towards a fairer society. To this end they gave considerable weight to achieving order through increasing effective participation, as is apparent in their emphasis on joint regulation. Thus, while the contradictions highlighted by Hyman and Brough (1975) hold true, the underlying, and sometimes overt, objectives of the Donovan analysts was a free society which would give weight to egalitarian values. By contrast, despite the efforts of Barbash (Barbash, 1964b) much of the American scholarship tended toward positivist functionahsm.
Dunlop and systems
The widely used industrial relations systems framework was developed by the American labour economist John Dunlop through the 1950s (see Dunlop 1948, 1950, 1958). It was devised as an analytical framework with the specific intent of integrating the study of industrial relations. Dunlop
184 argued persuasively that industrial relations had been investigated simply as a subset of several fields of study, notably labour relations, ('the laboiu* problem') varieties of management, (personnel management, scientific management, human relations), labour law, industrial psychology, pubhc policy and labour economics. From Dunlop's perspective, the outcome of study from all these perspectives had led to 'mountains of facts' which needed an integrating analj^ical framework. He saw the industrial relations as a separate system, wherein the actors and institutions could for purposes of research and policy making be studied within the separate entity of the industrial relations system, just as economists separate out the economic system from the rest of human activity.
In this respect, Dunlop was adding the structural functional model developed by Talcott Parsons to the fundamental ideas derived from his economics training. ^^ For Parsons, the fundamental assumption was that individuals are socialised into the system and the rules norms and laws pertaining to the system will uphold the socialised notions which ensure the stability of the system. The system therefore depends on
an acceptance of members of their belonging together, in the sense of sharing ...common interests ... where discrete unit interests can be integrated and the justification of confhct resolution can be defined and implemented. (Parsons, 1986; see also Parsons, 1951)
1^ DuiUop studied economics initiaUy in California, gaining his doctorate in 1937, three years before his later rival Arthur Ross. In 1937-8 he studied wage theories at Cambridge, before returning to take up his post at Harvard, with which he has remained associated continuously since. His orientation and epistemological norms are therefore those of an economist.
185 For Parsons, the structure (society) was bonded by the function (performance of activities perceived as needful for the structiu-e) of the individuals and organisations ('discrete units') who are committed to the stabihty and equilibrium' of the system as a whole. Drawing from these ideas, Dunlop's archet5T)al industrial relations system was tied with notions of consensus and equilibrium at any moment in time, where "an internal balance is hkely to be restored if the system is displaced". (Dunlop, 1993, pp.11-21, 43-61)
Dunlop's industrial relations system comprises actors (employers, including managers, employees and government (including agencies) and the coUective institutions) all bound together by a shared ideology to make the system work, and a shared set of contexts, (market, technological, social, economic, political). (Olson, 1969) The parties interact to produce and then operate within, a 'web of rules' which are the outcome of negotiation and bargaining. However, Dunlop (1993, p.8) specifically rejects the notion that industrial relations is simply about relations between employers and employees. For Dunlop the system is a complete system which assumes that the actors have different goals but are bound by shared perspectives of the system, and their shared occupation within the system. Since it is a system, attainment and maintenance of equilibrium is the appropriate outcome. In some countries Dunlop's system was taken as a template for public pohcy, but more often his framework provided the basis for describing and evaluating the control and administration of the employment relationship, with analysts augmenting their analysis with their own personal and ideological perspectives.
The mainstream approaches developed in the US and the UK were thus similar in that they were based on strong empiricaUy bound frameworks. However, they differed in their methodologies. Where the British framework
186 was particularistic, inductive, and had strong normative overtones, Dimlop's framework, based as it was on a model industrial relations system, was deductive, broad and positivist. ^^ Both were in a position to influence Australian industrial relations thought.
Australian Industrial Relations Thought 1960 - 1985: Context
As is discussed more thoroughly in the next chapter, the formal pubhc industrial relations system in Australia continued to operate as a collective and institutional system throughout the 1970s and 1980s. These were decades of continuing economic growth and high union density. A relatively high level of union consciousness meant continuing attention was paid to 'the labour problem' which was accentuated by a relatively large number of strikes, especially after the oil-shocks, although strikes in Austraha were of much briefer duration than elsewhere. In the main management tended to be ad hoc (with low levels of management training) and production-focussed, accepting unions, but generally ensuring their roles remained limited to those issues accepted as valid by the tribunal system. (See e.g. de Vyver, 1956; HaU, 1965; Byrt and Masters, 1974; Tsokhas, 1981) The media, together with Coalition Liberal (conservative) governments (until 1972) and activist conservative political pressure groups, identified the high numbers of strikes as being linked to leftist normative values, and sometimes to the spectre of communism. Differing perspectives on the last had spht the
^^ Dunlop is adamant that scholarly analysis must remain positivist and separate fi-om 'values'. He retains his long-held view that it is the role of the academic practitioner, the problem-solver' first to analyse, then if they wish, to add recommendations (ideals) as addendum. In this way the normative may be inserted into the regiUation, but only after, and separate from positivist analysis. (This stands curiously at odds with Parsons' (1986, pl21//) acknowledgment of the normative function of groups.) (Interview John T. Dxmlop, 14 October, 1997.)
187 Australian labour movement in the 1950s, a spht which business lobbies used to good effect.
Nevertheless, industrial relations processes in these decades were characterised by optimism about economic growth offsetting concerns of managers and workers, interspersed with short periods of numerous industrial disputes and considerable recourse to tribunals. Throughout these years, notions of collectivism were widely accepted, with the unions intersecting and sometimes leading movements for equal rights for women, and against war, racism and unfettered buUding construction, see e.g. Campion, 1980; Hagan, 1981)
Industrial Relations Thought
Before the development of tertiary programmes, as was shown in earlier chapters, most industrial relations analysis had been the province of the practitioners - the industrial psychologists at workplace level, and the lawyers and economists, as well as trade union officials, employer advocates and industrial tribunal practitioners at industry and national level, (see e.g. Henderson, 1954; Anonymous, Employers Review, 1956; Sharp, 1959; Bland, 1961) Initially Australian scholars were slow to adopt any analytical framework, perhaps because there were almost no academics trained in industrial relations. With a few relatively isolated exceptions, analysis of Australian industrial relations was the province of the practitioner, not the academic. (Niland, 1978b) Thus despite the publication of Dunlop's Industrial Relations System in 1958, and of Flanders and Clegg from the mid-1950s (Flanders and Clegg, 1954; Clegg, 1970; Flanders 1970; Fox, 1966, 1971), there was only occasional utUisation of an identifiable anal5d;ical framework in industrial relations studies in Austraha until the
188 1970s. (Journal of Industrial Relations, 1959-1970; Child 1962, 1963) This is perhaps because institutional industrial relations operated within the public sphere in Australia, together with the fact that the industrial relations academic community did not develop untU the early 1970s.
One of the early impetuses toward formation of an industrial relations community was a dedicated journal, the Journal of Industrial Relations, (JIR) the first issue of which was published in 1959. The JIR was to become a major source for Australian industrial relations publications for the rest of the century, and indeed was virtuaUy the only journal in institutional industrial relations for its first quarter century. In its first decade or so the JIR articles reflected both the nature of the public aspects of the industrial relations system in Australia and the intellectual training of the authors. The majority of articles in the journal dealt with the aspects of the employment relationship from a managerial, legal or economic perspective, or with collective bargaining or strikes as economic or legal processes. There were also articles on industrial psychology and personnel management in the 1960s, unlike in later years when the focus narrowed to institutional parties and processes.20 Nevertheless, the method was essentiaUy pragmatic and oriented toward dealing with the labour problem.21
By the 1970s however, there was clear evidence that scholars were using and evaluating both the British and American models.22 The economist turned
2*^ It is worth noting however that a high proportion of books reviewed continued to be within the fields of organisational analysis and personnel management. 2^ This is not uncommon in an emerging disciphne. For example, Jensen, (1969) notes the same tensions between practitioner orientation and scholarship orientation in the emergence of pohtical science. See also Ash (1983) 22 Of course Dunlop's influence reached fiu-ther back than the 1970s. For example, in his thesis submitted at London University in 1947, Isaac cited five of DurUop's pubhcations, albeit aU focussing on the economics of wages. This raises the question, not dealt with in this paper, of how far US thought influenced UK thought. For comprehensive discussion the relationship between US economics and the British profession, see Coats, 1993a, Chapters 8 and 21 189 industrial relations scholar, Kingsley Laffer, took the opportunity in 1972 to evaluate Dunlop's framework in his review of Kenneth Walker's new book Australian Industrial Relations System, which was pubhshed at the same time as a reprint of Dunlop's Industrial Relations System. At the Industrial Relations section of ANZAAS in 1973, Laffer analysed the definitions of industrial relations used by Dunlop and the British scholars, and found them both wanting, preferring his own definition which focussed on "bargaining relations" at the workplace (the individual effort bargain) and at national level (incomes policy). (Laffer, 1974) 23
Scholars claimed to prefer the British model, (Howard 1978) but there was plenty of evidence of the American model, particularly by Dufty (1972, 1974) and Walker. (1956, 1970), who even in the 1950s used Dunlop's earlier models as the basis for his analysis. Walker's 1956 book included a foreword by Dunlop, in which the latter noted approvingly not only Walker's use of "an explicit analytical framework", but also that "Professor Walker is necessarily concerned with the influence of the .. compulsory arbitration machinery .. [which is] both a decisive limitation and an opportunity in the larger environment". (Dunlop, Foreword, in Walker, 1956, n.p.) Walker did not seek to replicate Dunlop's model however, but rather, as Dunlop commented, altered Dunlop's notion of the parties, shifting emphasis towards the processes in the formal system. As with later Austrahan writers. Walker's analysis paid little attention to managers, and much more to the State and to government than Dunlop had proposed. Walker's modifications, reflected increasingly in the work of later scholars, that the
23 In the same Journal of Industrial Relations there were, inter alia, articles or research notes by Isaac, NUand, Groenewegen, Gordijiew, and Beaumont, aU economists, and simUar numbers of articles by scholars from organisational behaviour / psychology and law. This disciphnary array highhghts the influence of different disciplines on industrial relations, an influence which to some extent transects the cultvu-al-geographical patterns of influence, even if at times one disciphne appears predominate.
190 tribunal system was a dependent variable in Austrahan industrial relations analysis - the tribunals were the source of the problem and the focus of research - represented a significant shift away from Dunlop's model. (See e.g. Isaac and Ford, 1966, pp.267-85; Moth, 1972)
WhUe Howard was perhaps exaggerating when he talked of "Dunlopians v Flandersites small scale warfare", (Howard, 1978 p.34) there is no doubt that those scholars who were concerned with methodology (and they were very few) were ambivalent about the British and American models. For some (Howard, 1978; Ford, 1980) it appears that Dunlop's system was a useful teaching tool, but that for analytical or ideological reasons the British model was preferable because it seemed to allow for closer attention to social and political factors.
Dunlop in the texts
Introductory texts, particularly those which are widely used, are a useful measure of the direction of thought in a discipline, since they signify the foundational assumptions of the mainstream scholars, or those scholars who aim to capture the mainstream. Moreover, and this is particularly true of methodology, textbooks also dfrect the next generation of scholars to particular interpretative approaches.
Prior to 1980 Australian industrial relations texts were rare and generaUy cautious. Foenander's analyses of labour law and arbitration practice offered some insights, but with resort to legal method and technique. WhUe Walker's 1956 text utilised a proto-Dunlopian framework, it bears more than
191 passing resemblance to labour law texts or Perlman's 1953 study.24 These studies were insightful but hmited thefr attention to the formal institutional aspects of the regulation of employment. As was seen in the earher, such sources were used where the focus of attention was on the economics and legal elements of institutional interactions, as was the case at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and Melbourne. Besides these texts, the main sources in the 1970s had been various trade union studies, and the Macmillan anthologies on 'labour relations' and labour economics, (see Chapter Six) That these anthologies were pubhshed in three or four editions,25 attests to their continuing acceptance and perhaps the growth of industrial relations as an academic discipline in the 1970s and 1980s. The difficulty with such anthologies was that by their very nature they generaUy omitted any consideration of an anal3^ical framework, and instead presented industrial relations as a series of separate objects. Ford and Hearn (1980) claimed industrial relations as being so complex as to need a number of middle range theories which were separate but linked.26
In considering the anthologies of the 1960s to 1980s, it is also worth noting the close parallels between the Australia Labour Relations and Australian
24 Indeed, even the famously pohte OrweU Foenander (1971, p.142) in his positive review of Walker's revised edition wishes for "more critical analysis or comment on the subjects chosen" 2^ Australian Labour Economics: Readings - 1st edition by Isaac and Ford, (1967); 2nd edition, NUand and Isaac, (1975); 3rd edition, (1984) Chapman, Isaac and NUand. Australian Labour Relations: Readings 1st and 2nd editions, Isaac and Ford, (1966 and 1971) 3rd edition, (1980) Ford, Hearn and Lansbury; 4th edition, (1987) Ford, Hearn and Lansbury 2^ Ford and Hearn however, appear to take an exceptionaUy broad view of industrial conflict. They note (1980, p.5) in a parenthetic aside that "Dunlop's 'systems 'theory' of industrial relations basicaUy embodies a structurahst view of conflict'. These kinds of incidental remarks which occurred in industrial relations hteratvire attest to the recognition of DurUop's framework, if not evident acceptance of it.
192 Labour Economics series.2'^ Not only was Isaac a joint editor of editions of both, but also both anthologies drew heavUy on both the Journal of Industrial Relations and Economic Record articles for chapters. For example, nearly a thfrd of the articles in the thfrd edition of the labour economics anthology edited by Chapman, NUand and Isaac, (1984), had been previously published in the Journal of Industrial Relations. Such proximity of subject matter emphasises the continuing importance of labour economics for industrial relations in Australia, despite the avowals of scholars like Laffer, Ford and Hearn of the interdisciphnarity of industrial relations. In part this propinquity relates to the personalities and ideals of senior scholars like Isaac, Hancock and Niland who remained committed to thefr primary disciphnes, even while promoting industrial relations. Certainly, the 1970s and 1980s were decades when American models and theories obtained great importance for Australian economics. (Groenewegen and McFarlane, 1990) While the degree to which Niland, Hancock and Isaac upheld the tenets of the contemporary economic theories is a moot point, it is widely behoved that the American models of scholarship, economics was characterised by an unbending unidisciplinarity, deductivism and scientism. (Coats, 1993a; Gordon, 1991, p.49)
But the links between economics and industrial relations were not wholly based on aspects of knowledge-getting. The ties between the two disciphnes were at least partly administrative, and arose from the emergence of industrial relations from within economics departments in all of the universities except Monash. However, the economists' claims to being the
2^ This also becomes evident in subject guides for both labour economics and industrial relations where references to both anthologies were common for recommended reading. Visiting scholar and ACTU historian Cliff Donn and others at Macquarie University (NSW) taught a third year labour economics subject in 1978 (05344, Labour Economics A) which drew, inter gJia, quite heavUy on both ALE and ALR.
193 most scientific of the social sciences may also have seemed aUuring to the industrial relations teachers who were seeking legitimacy for their emerging field of study. The focus of the anthologies on the state and federal arbitration systems may also have reflected acknowledgment of the economists' insistence on unidisciphnarity, since those institutions were indisputably part of the public industrial relations system. With a defined object of analysis, these scholars were marking out territory which could be subjected to legal and economic analysis, but which was inarguably industrial relations. The anthologies then drew on numerous theories and techniques from economics, law, and politics, but generaUy appeared to attend to the intellectual standards of those neighbouring disciplines rather than to moving industrial relations forward.
By contrast textbooks gave much more explicit and implicit weight to Dunlop's framework. In the ffrst few years of the 1980s three major texts and several other collections joined the anthologies and other smaller books which had been available for some years.28 Of the two larger texts, Dabscheck and Niland (1980, pp.23-9) deal briefly with both the British model and, rather more critically, with Dunlop. Despite their criticisms, which are more interpretative quibbles, they implicitly employ a systems approach in their focus on the actors and their environments, and then augment their studies with a range of other middle range theories of the labour movement and of industrial conflict.
2^ SmaUer pubhcations such as O'Dea's Industrial Relations (1970) and several subsequent editions, Hutson's usefiU trade union focussed studies. Penal Colonies to Penal Power and Six Wage Concepts, were accessible, descriptive sources which were frequently found on subject guides. Among the new coUections were Cole (1982), Howard, (1984), and Aldred, (1984). HUl, Howard and Lansbury (1982) is not an anthology but rather a text within a management series; Chapter 2 is devoted to the Dunlop systems framework. It is discussed briefly in the next chapter.
194 By contrast, David Plowman, Stephen Deery and Chris Fisher were rather more specific about their approach. In the first edition of thefr text, (Plowman, Deery and Fisher, 1980) they dealt with the competing demands of the British and American approaches in two ways. Ffrst they sought to conflate the two as pluralist 'systems' approaches, providing selective descriptions and discussions of both. Second while they claim that the text follows closely a Dunlopian framework, almost all of their suggestions for further reading derive from the British tradition. Nevertheless what the Australian students of industrial relations learned from the book was an approach to industrial relations analysis which used a modified Dunlop systems framework. It is notable that the framework was modified particularly in terms of its actors, just as Walker had done over twenty years before. It was not until the third edition in the 1990s that Deery and Plowman (1991) dealt in any depth with managers. This reflected their perception, and one which is especially evident in much industrial relations research from the 1970s, that the locus of industrial relations was the pubhc sphere of rulemaking which necessarily ascribed most importance to the tribunal system.29 Indeed, they assert that "No student can hope to begin to make sense of Australian industrial relations until he (sic) has a clear idea of how tribunals are structured and how they work." Such an approach also stands in stark contrast to the ideals of Bucklow, Sorrell and Laffer who had hotly debated the subject matter of their discipline, but who had agreed that the roles and approaches of managers required at least some attention, (see Chapter Four)
2^ In this respect it is notable that Dabscheck and NUand (1980 pp.214-340) gave nearly one-third of their text to the tribunal system.
195 There were other notable differences between the uses of Dunlop's framework by Plowman, Deery and Fisher30 and Dunlop's original models, such as the lesser weighting given to the envfronmental factors by the Austrahan scholars, particularly the economic factors and product markets. In other words, a somewhat modified version of Dunlop's framework was applied as a device for structuring the depiction of Austrahan industrial relations, and it was this framework which imphcitly or exphcitly underpinned much mainstream Australian industrial relations analysis for the rest of the 1980s.
Reasons for uptake of Dunlop
Close analysis of the Dunlop and Donovan models is beyond the scope of this chapter, and in any case have been subject to considerable examination.3i What is germane to this chapter is that, from the 1960s to the 1980s, where there was any 'theory' at all, 'mainstream' Australian industrial relations scholarship tended toward Dunlop's systems approach, rather than the Donovan model. This is particularly evident in the texts which is a useful proxy for the importance ascribed to a theory or an analytical framework.
The preference for Dunlop over Donovan requires a brief return to the ways in which ideas are transmitted. Vector analysis, for example, can assist partly in explaining how the nature of the Dunlop and Donovan models led to one of them being more readily transferred to Australia than the other.
3^ The authors of the second and third editions were Deery and Plowman (1983, 1991). 3^ There is indeed a vast hterature. See e.g. Somers, 1969; Hyman and Brough, 1975, 1981; Wood, 1975; Kochan et al., 1986; Barbash and Barbash, (eds.), 1989; Kaufman, 1993; Hyman, 1981, 1995.
196 There were similarities in thefr methodological approaches, and in the obvious fact that the hterature from both countries was readUy acceptable to the mostly monolingual academic community. The force of the ideas of both models was apparent, as was the level of cultural acceptance of British and American ideas on Austrahan thought, although the links with Britain should not be underplayed.
However, a major difficulty of the British approach, particularly for the Australian scholars, lay in the complexity of the British model, and its concomitant specificity to the British system. The British pluralist model was an amalgam of ideas in which normative reformist considerations played a singular part, and the focus of reform was the British system.
Moreover, the term 'model' is perhaps too strong for the British strand, Clegg, one of the originators of the 'model' was unsure how definable was the Oxford - Donovan model, (Clegg, 1990). While others were in no such doubt, Clegg's own hesitancy perhaps explains why he explored (Bain and Clegg, 1974) the possibility of the Dunlopian model as an apt analytical framework, even as other scholars worked to develop the British model. What emphasised the possible diffuseness and complexity of the British thought was that it drew on abstract and theoretical notions weU beyond the three common sources - economics, labour law, and management psychology - of American (and indeed Austrahan) industrial relations thought. In this respect it is important note that much British industrial relations scholarship also drew heavily on sociology and political theory.
The national specificity of the British model constituted a further major difficulty in transposing it to other places. UntU the 1980s British industrial relations scholars rejoiced in the tradition of voluntarism, which rested on the perception that there was little overt state regulation of the control and
197 administration of the employment relationship. In Britain, particiUarly in the postwar boom decades, a great deal of activity occurred at industry level, between employer groups and regional trade unions, but it was increasing shop floor activity which was most notable. (Goodman and Whittingham, 1963; Clegg, 1972; Batstone et al., 1977) The growth of workplace industrial action tended to enhance scholars' focus at the level of the enterprise at a time when Australian scholarship was paying more attention to the macro issues of the 'public' sphere.32 Moreover, workplace organisation of unions in Austraha was not well developed, and the British assumptions of voluntarism led to differences in the nature of analysis, and its validity for Australian scholars.
All of these factors contrast with the fundamental and clear cut elements in Dunlop's systems model which could be represented diagrammaticaUy. (Craig, 1975; Dufty, 1975, Plowman, 1978; see also Hince's diagram in Plowman, Deery and Fisher, 1981, p. 14) As far as Austrahan industrial relations analysis was concerned, Dunlop's model had the added advantage over the British model that government agencies were identified as core actors within the industrial relations system.33 For Dunlop, the agencies which were active participants in the regulation of work and the employment relationship were actors, rather than contributory factors. These actors included not simply tribunals, but also organisations like OSHA whose regulations impinged on the conditions of work. In so doing Dunlop left the way open for virtually any government activity which directly influenced or determined the nature of work to be an actor under the category of 'speciahsed government agency'. However, it was not Dunlop's
32 While an enterprise focus was evident in the US system, DurUop's model did not depend on these kinds of nationally specific attributes. 33 Dvmlop rejected the term participant as too passive - he uses the term 'actor' in the sense of one who takes an action, rather than the more common theatrical interpretation.
198 intention to include those which indirectly affected the employment relationship, such as governments through economic or social pohcy. Rather his intention was to specify the industrial relations system as a separate model from the economic or social system, in just the same way that economists exclude non-economic factors from analysis. Hence for Dunlop, even matters such as unemployment benefits were relegated to industrial relations contexts, rather than as essential variables.
The role ascribed to government policy also hints at what may be the major difference for the Australian scholars between the Dunlop model and the British model. Dunlop's model was so constructed as to have universalist capacity. Broad differences in any of the actors, contexts or processes are not a problem. As Dunlop showed in his original Industrial Relations System as weU as in other work (Dunlop, 1969, 1977, 1993) his model was an analytical tool which was sufficiently malleable to fit macro or micro industrial relations in a variety of political and economic circumstances.3* As such it is positivist rather than normative in its underpinning variables. By contrast, the Donovan model attempted to identify the means to develop and channel collective organisation, and provide structures of support for employees (and employers) who fell outside the traditional coUectivist patterns, at least until they developed organisational security. The ideal was thus 'pluralism', though it is doubtful that any of the Donovan scholars behoved it would or could be achieved, or even what an ideal plurahst society constituted. What is important in differentiating it from the Dunlop model.
3^ The behef that the systems model was developed for multiple pohtico-geographical circumstances is evident from the case studies and the last chapters of the 1958 pubhcation (and others such as Kerr, Dunlop, Harbison and Myers, (1975)) which made clear Dunlop's intent that the systems model could provide a template for practitioners and pohcy makers, particularly in developing countries. WhUe discussion of that is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is worth noting here as ftirther evidence of the breadth of the model.
199 is that the Donovan model affirmed exemplars of coUectivism egahtarianism and employee rights, decidedly normative notions.35
Australian industrial relations thought as recipient
Australian intellectuals draw from many sources but there is no doubt that particularly in the time period under consideration here, British and American ideas were most influential. As far as industrial relations was concerned, the Dunlop and Donovan models were simUar in several respects. Both specffied rulemaking in the employment relationship as a dependent variable. In both models public institutions (the law, trade unions employers and government agencies) and the actors at the level of the enterprise (managers, non-managerial employees, work groups) were acknowledged as central to the regulation and administration processes. Both models were widely known, were replete with practical examples from case studies, and were cogently conveyed as frameworks specifically designed for the conduct and / or analysis of industrial relations. As such they were both also the subject of considerable debate, but what is important for this chapter is that by the early 1980s the Dunlopian framework had become the preferred basis for much Australian scholarship.
Understanding why Dunlop's model transferred more readUy to Austraha requires attention away from the nature of the models, and towards the recipients. The reasons for making a choice within a discipline to take up one paradigm (interpretive framework) rather than another, is multifactorial - as Kindleberger (1989) has noted neither plausibUity nor logical excellence
35 Kochan et al. (1986) and others have criticised Dunlop's model because it took no account of non-union industrial relations. However, Dunlop (1993) has refuted this and re- emphasised the universahty of his analytical framework.
200 is of itseff not sufficient. There are both supply side (the plausibihty, explanatory value, generahsabihty) and demand side factors (state of the disciphne, manffestations of the invisible coUege, the natiu-e of the predominant culture within the disciphne). That the Austrahan industrial relations community took up a modified Dunlop system rather than the British framework reflects not only the differences in the two models of industrial relations, (the source of the ideas) but also the nature of the small community of Australian industrial relations scholars (the recipients). In analysing the transfer of ideas, understanding the recipients is at least as important as the force and dfrection of the source ideas. Thus the featiu-es and self perceptions of the Australian industrial relations community, the historical context and the politico-economic climate of the 1970s, aU clarify why Dunlop became preferred for those mainstream scholars seeking a theoretical base.
In this respect there are five elements which deserve consideration. The first two are both to do with legitimacy - attaining legitimacy within the academic community and achieving legitimacy with the strong practitioner base. Despite a relatively high growth rate, the academic industrial relations community before the mid-1980s was smaU, and stood at the fringes of labour law, labour economics, and (perhaps) industrial psychology and politics. For many, including some of its leading exponents, industrial relations did not have disciplinary status, perhaps because of the absence of 'grand theory'. Industrial relations scholars saw themselves in need of a definable and ideally readily presentable 'grand theory', which would give them unquestioned standing as a 'real' disciphne. (Howard, 1978, Turkington, 1978, Laffer, 1974). It seems hkely that these seff-doubts were exaggerated because unlike in the UK, industrial sociology was not weU- developed in Austraha, and industrial relations was generaUy hnked to
201 economics and law. The latter are 'tight' disciphnes which have highly defined theoretical and methodological bases.36 Moreover, because of the role of public institutions in Australian industrial relations, it was, hke economics and law, replete with a strong practitioner base. As a consequence, despite its small size, the Austrahan industrial relations academics also felt that they had to work to be relevant to current practitioner concerns. As noted earher, the Journal of Industrial Relations, the primary 'academic' journal until the latter 1980s, had a strong practitioner bias. It was, in effect, the practitioners who set the agenda.37 The marginal status of industrial relations as an academic disciphne was exacerbated by the nature of research funding processes in Austraha. In general, funding was more easily accessible for recognised disciplines or those with a pragmatic basis. It seems likely that academic industrial relations was borderline in both respects. (Niland, 1978b)
Thus from the 1960s until the 1980s (and beyond?) academic industrial relations was a rural discipline at the margin of the social sciences within universities, and yet also viewed with some misgivings by the industrial relations practitioners.38 Some industrial relations academics believed that to gain legitimacy with those scholars in traditional disciplines, a clearly defined and tangible theoretical framework was essential. On the other hand, to convince the practitioners of the legitimacy of academic industrial relations analysis, two things were needed - relevance for contemporary imperatives and a surety that theories were 'practical'.
36 In this respect, it is worth noting that major IR scholars of the time, - NUand, Isaac, Hancock, Laffer, and Howard, to name a few - for example aU trained as economists, and exhibited economists' discomfort with intangible values and other loose ends. For discussion on loose and tight disciphnes, see e.g. Becher, 1989, and Coats (1993). 3'^ As Kaufman (1993) has clearly highhghted in his science-buUding v. problem-solving dichotomy, this was not a problem unique to Austraha. 3^ Keenoy (1985, pp.255-57) describes industrial relations as the CindereUa of the social sciences.
202 What exaggerated the marginality of academic industrial relations was the public fear of communism in Austraha and the portrayal of trade unions as potential hotbeds of radicahsm. WhUe Australian trade unions had long achieved legal legitimacy, and trade union density was high by world standards in the postwar era, social legitimacy was less readily acceded. Particularly in the first quarter century after World War II, media and government opinion alike had scorned any evident leftist views. Although government actions were never as overt nor as specific as that of the McCarthy era in the USA, the experiences of the Split within the Austrahan Labor Party, and the strong overtones of anti-Communism had a clear effect on Australian universities. They also probably influenced the dfrections of Australian academic industrial relations, which sought to remove aU apparent political signals. This is evident for example in Dufty's (1975) claims that Australian industrial relations were 'non-ideological'. Unhke in the UK evidence of overt pro-trade union views, much less left-radical bias, was strongly resisted in mainstream academic industrial relations in Australia.
As a consequence, industrial relations researchers in the 1960s to 1980s were faced with the difficult task of investigating a field where the activities of one of the parties was viewed as suspect, and yet where the effects of trade unions were perhaps greater than at any other time in Australian history.39 Not surprisingly, many industrial relations scholars took up the issue of 'the labour problem', in their quest to be 'relevant'. Among the academics this turned the debates towards strike activity, and to relate strike activity to that old chestnut of arbitration v. coUective bargaining. (See Chapter Six) The vigour of this debate was a strong theme in industrial
39 In 1980, union density stood at over 55% .
203 relations thought until the mid-1980s, narrowing the focus of scholars who also felt the need to deal with this complex topic, as ff it should be value free.
As exponents of a small and uncertain disciphne, seeking legitimation from governments, from funding bodies and from the other social sciences, industrial relations academics took up an analytical framework which was seemingly without sympathy to any ideology. Evaluating the merits of such a (non?) position is not relevant here, although it has been noted that this characteristic was also apparent in the USA where ideological positions were rejected and the "field became both more unified in outlook and more neutrally professional in approach". (Kerr, 1978, 133)^0 In order to promote the relevance and apparent rigour of their field, the Australian industrial relations analysts thus sought to draw on a model which appeared to sustain their 'value free' stance, while offering a positivist, if not h5^othetico- deductivist methodology.
On the other hand it is important not to overstate the extent to which Dunlop's systems approach was taken up in Australia. Ffrst, much Australian industrial relations thought remained a-theoretical, and more closely aligned to history insofar as analysis was based on observation or investigation of events and processes, utilising small interpretative models, but without clear reference to any wider theory. Other scholars found Dunlop's framework was inadequate in some way, many of them having come from economics, (see e.g. Dabscheck and Niland, Isaac. However, Laffer was also an economist and thought very highly of Dunlop's system) At the other end of the spectrum were those who claimed to use Dunlop's analytical model, but who omitted or greatly modified sections of it. Most
^ It is perhaps no coincidence that exphcit rejection of the left in the postwar years was rather more evident in the USA and Austraha than in the UK.
204 notably, from earliest days, Austrahan scholars excluded managers and management approaches, and were content to examine use those elements of the industrial relations system which most suited the concerns extant, strikes and the validity of the tribunal system. It was the same with Dunlop's contexts - technological and budgetary which were excluded or viewed in ways somewhat different from that laid down originally. (Walker, 1956, 1970; Dufty, 1975; Plowman, Deery and Fisher, 1981; Moth, 1972). A purist may even argue that what was transferred to Australian industrial relations thought was not Dunlop's framework at aU, since so many elements were removed or altered.
On the other hand, the extent to which Dunlop's model has been conveyed to successive generations of students, many of whom become practitioners, is evident in the apparent high levels of borrowing of Dunlop's book at almost any Australian university library, the number of times it appears on reading lists and the frequency with which it is still cited. By early 1980s, before the situation for Australian industrial relations scholars became further complicated by new issues, the preference for Dunlop's model over the Donovan approach was clearly evident.
Conclusion
A study of the transfer of the ideas from UK and USA to Australian industrial relations thought suggests that a modified US model was eventually more influential than that of UK. In part this reflects the breadth of Dunlop's model, its flexibihty and its capacity as a useful pedagogical device. But credence needs also be given to the absence of a normative element in the US-derived model, both in terms of the search for legitimacy and as a pedagogical tool. Students begin industrial relations
205 with a great deal of ideological baggage and often very definite, ff highly simplistic, perspectives on the surface aspects of industrial relations. In order to develop thefr capacity to examine the actors, processes and underlying motivations in industrial relations, teachers have sought a framework which does not appear to advance an ideological perspective. Dunlop's model has proven to be a safe and simple method of presenting the immense complexity of the elements of industrial relations to students - the macro as weU as the micro elements of the control and administration of the employment relationship. In the same way, Australian industrial relations scholars and analysts have sought to make their studies appear as 'scientific' as other disciplines and ideologically amenable to governments and state agencies in order to be relevant for public policy. As a consequence, despite frequent and wide-ranging criticism of Dunlop's model, it proved albeit with some twists, a far more enduring transfer for mainstream analysis, than the British model.
In terms of the transfer of ideas, what this process tells us is that the simple vector model dealing with the spread of ideas as seen in economics and epidemiology is not always effective as an heuristic device where there are choices about which ideas transmit readily, in particular where the recipient population is different to the transmitting population. In this respect a model of the transfer of ideas which gives greater credence to receptivity of the recipient provides an heuristic device through which to examine the transfer of academic ideas.
It has been shown in this chapter that the Austrahan industrial relations community proved resistant to particular ideas, and very responsive to those which could allow apparent 'value free' analysis. However, in investigating the broader questions of the transfer of ideas through a general conception of
206 the influence of two schools of thought on Austrahan industrial relations scholarship, a 'broad brush' has been applied. Such an approach is useful for analysing the questions raised in this chapter, but it tells nothing of the other catalysts for development nor of the detailed processes and ideas which reinforced or competed with the formation of what was appearing as a mainstream. If as was posited in Chapters One and Two, a discipline is a complex set of scholars, ideas, and subject matter, then describing that discipline requires close attention to the concepts and assumptions of industrial relations thought in the 1970s and 1980s. That is the subject of the next chapter.
207 CHAPTER 6
ESTABLISHING THE MAINSTREAM:
LATE 1970s TO MID-1980S
In the mid-1970s the arrival of industrial relations as a discrete academic disciphne was signified by the such events as the separation of industrial relations to a single department at the University of Sydney, the formation of an Industrial Relations Programme at University of Melboiu:ne, the expansion of industrial relations programmes into CAEs and at Monash, and the appointment of John Niland as the first professor and as second editor of the Journal of Industrial Relations. These structural developments were underpinned by clarffication and tightening of the content of the disciphne, away from the broad brush proposed by Laffer (See Chapter Four) towards a closer reflection of the salient issues in the formal industrial relations systems itself. It was shown in Chapter Five that the influence of the Donovan model had been largely conceded to the narrower and safer intellectual influences of Dunlop's systems. However, the very variabUity of these influences signifies how far industrial relations was still an under populated and inchoate disciphne. Thus, while there were some fixities, the core and boundaries were still fluid in the 1970s. Yet by the mid-1980s there was a definable mainstream, an accepted domain with its alhed methods, assumptions and analytical etiquette. By then the mainstream was under pressure on ideological and inteUectual grounds to broaden or narrow the focus of study and the method. This chapter and the next explore the multiple influences on industrial relations taking particular account of how a
208 mainstream was evolving, and what were the more influential forces on the intellectual domain of the discipline.
The structure of the chapter is as follows. The notion of what is a mainstream will be discussed in broad terms, in order to clarify what is exactly meant by this common but shppery term. Since context was particularly important for this emergent disciphne with pohcy orientations, that will be examined next. Then evidence of a mainstream in industrial relations wiU be investigated, first through an examination of the development and expansion of teaching programmes in the late 1970s to the 1980s. The second section takes cognisance of the centrahty of textbooks which distil and reproduce fundamental material for the next generation. The teaching programmes generated and in turn, drew upon the textbooks of the 1980s, in particular Plowman, Deery and Fisher (1981) Deery and Plowman, (1985, 1991) and Dabscheck and NUand (1981), as weU as others such as Rawson's (1978) and Martin's (1975) works on unions.^ The focus of the texts Uluminates not only what scholars saw as the core (mainstream), but also, by comparison to teaching programmes, the topics and anal5i;ical approaches at the margins. Thirdly, in order to assess the links between mainstream teaching and research, the Journal of Industrial Relations, the core disciplinary journal, is then examined. This investigation seeks the content and most common objects of analysis and methods in the journal, (strikes, unions, coUective bargaining versus arbitration, and industrial democracy (and wages))2 and how far these can be attributed to the role of the editor, the significance of public pohcy issues or the influence of international scholarship. The final section of the chapter wUl investigate
^ These publications of both Rawson and Martin were reprinted several times and revised at least once after their initial pubhcations. 2 Wage determination is also a very important area of study. It is not examined in this chapter however. See discussion below. 209 the similarities and the dffferences between the core of teaching, and the core in research until the mid-1980s, what characterised these central elements, and what influenced their development.
Mainstreams and transmission of ideas
Understanding the mainstream of a discipline provides the observer and participant alike, with a means to map the disciphne. Within every discipline there is mainstream, or what Dogan and Pahre (1990, pp.21-3) caU a patrimony, "the capital accumulation of many scholars' labor. It is common property ... which establishes disciplinary norms and standards". In the early days the mainstream wUl comprise few norms or standards, but each new programme in a tertiary institution and each new pubhcation strengthens or weakens particular ideas or norms. It is an organic process in which in the emergent phase, the influence of the few can be great. Until the patrimony has been sustained through different challenges, the influence of external factors such as norms of neighbouring disciplines or pubhc policy wUl continue to be important. Nor might certainty prevail once the mainstream is sustained, unless norms, values and structures are tightly and consistently controlled. (Whitley, 1982)
The mainstream is established and sustained through the 'voice' of the discipline - the teaching, texts, and publications. That is the means of transmission of ideas are the means of attaining and sustaining what becomes the mainstream. The teaching programmes and texts have a twofold influence. They provide the next generation with core notions and norms, and at the same time reinforce those notions and norms by distiUing the complex elements of the mainstream of the discipline into simple and certain ideas. These wiU be held by professionals and practitioners long
210 after elements wUl be overturned within the academic disciphne, and in this way may strengthen the mainstream, even ff aspects are later modified or replaced by subsequent research.
The complex elements, not contained in the texts, wiU sustain the patrimony in other ways. These are the subject of research investigations that are undertaken with a view to test facets of the mainstream and are pubhshed in books or journal articles. But before publication the research material is subject to refereeing by other academics chosen by the journal editor or book publisher. Such processes tend to reinforce the mainstream.
In the social sciences, these processes have tended to rely on reputational systems, where the leaders of the mainstream wiU reinforce the predominant concepts and methods. The leaders of the discipline can thus set, and then, reinforce reputational systems within the discipline. Ideas which replicate or amplify the mainstream will be accepted, whereas ideas outside the mainstream will not be accepted, at least not within the recognised 'voice'. (Whitley, 1982) Thus mainstream acts as a communication system - accepting and transmitting ideas which fit. Of course, in the noise of academia the mainstream is not the only communication system, and in the newly established disciphne, there will be opportunities at the margin to publish and present ideas.
However, once established, the mainstream acts as an intellectual hegemony which relies on the reputational systems. Such systems are particularly important when the neighbouring disciphnes place a high value on such systems. (Elias, 1982) This was the case for industrial relations from the latter 1970s, because economics, which was stiU often the home base for industrial relations programmes, became more tightly bound to journal hierarchies and increasingly rigid criteria of rigour.
211 Identifying what is the mainstream is therefore important in tracing the development of a disciphne and the main influences on the process of development. By attaining and sustaining a mainstream, the scholars within the discipline wUl know what ideas wiU be readUy accepted and those which will need to be reshaped to meet the norms and standards of the mainstream. For the graduates who learned the disciphne from programmes and texts, and also for scholars in nearby discipline, the mainstream becomes a fixed notion of the discipline, even after chaUenges to the patrimony have been acceded. Usually, though, the mainstream scholars will work to reject heterodox challenges. Indeed notions of orthodoxy and heterodoxy are themselves inherent to the discourse of the mainstream, legitimising some research, and casting other ideas out.
What is required in this chapter therefore is an understanding of what was the mainstream which evolved from the latter 1970s, and what influenced the nature and direction of this mainstream. However, since industrial relations as an academic discipline was still relatively new, and more open than most to influences from other disciplines and formal pubhc policy, these must be examined first.
Context: Public Policy and Business Pressures
Drawing upon the mass social movements of the latter 1960s and beyond, the Labor government under Gough Whitlam came to power in 1972 and remained untU the conservative coup of 1975. The new Labor middle-classes which had elected the government were rewarded with a number of major policy changes including a major social programme, a realignment of federal - state funding, and, as economic pressures increased, major changes in exchange rates and tariff pohcy. WhUe some of these initiatives reflected
212 Labor's commitment to equity and social weffare after 23 years in Opposition, others were responses to economic pressiu-es. (Patience and Head, 1979; Hughes, 1979; Catley and McFarlane, 1980) Unemployment and inflation had become apparent even before the oU-shocks of 1973-4. Average weekly earnings had increased by 11 per cent in 1970-1, whUe the average rate of profit had begun to decline in the late 1960s. The OPEC oU- shocks combined with the economic pohcy mix of monetarism and high Keynesianism, a series of minor governmental and economic crises and a capital strike resulted in massive inflation and unemployment. Average weekly earnings rose by over 30 per cent in the private sector in 1975.3 jn a climate of crisis and public deceit, the Whitlam government was dismissed on the 11th November, 1975 by the governor-general. Sir John Kerr.*
The Liberal - National Coahtion (Eraser) Government which followed aimed to 'Fight Inflation First', and, for the first time in the postwar era omitted 'fuU employment' as a government objective. Through a series of initiatives, the 1975-82 Coalition attempted to reduce wages and hmit trade union effectiveness, as well as commence processes of financial deregulation and reduction of government expenditure. (Mitchell, 1979, 1980; Donn, 1980) These had only marginal effects on inflation and by 1981 unemployment was over ten per cent. It was in this environment that the Labor Party under Bob Hawke was elected in 1983. There were two economic prongs in the Labor Government's policy, the first a commitment to the social wage, and second a commitment to competitiveness, which within a few years was evident in privatisation, deregulation and microeconomic reform. The Accords, a series of formal policy agreements between the Labor Party and
3 Rather less in the pubhc sector, so that overaU AWE of non-managerial employees rose by 25.4% * As noted in Chapter Four, Kerr, a former barrister was a foundation supporter of the Industrial Relations Society and the Journal of Industrial Relations. In the 1960s he had assisted Laffer with guest lectvu-e series on Australia Constitutional law. 213 the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). InitiaUy the Accords encompassed broad economic issues such as industry pohcy and health / education policies, but by the latter 1980s were mainly concerned with incomes policy, particularly wage determination. (McEachern 1991) The Labor Party succeeded in many of its economic objectives, and by 1989 the Australian Financial Review (14 September, p.8) could point to the fact the Hawke Government had underwritten the greatest redistribution from labour to capital in several decades. The Afrline/Pilots' dispute of 1989^ also generated significant attention of scholars and analysts; it was not only there was significant State intervention in the dispute, but also that the pilots sought pay increases well outside the Accord principles at a time when there was strong, if somewhat forced, agreement to upholding the corporatist commitment.
In the environment of renewed emphasis on wealth creation, the second half of the 1980s are also notable for the upsurge in varieties of 'cowboy capitalism', and financial writers were extolling the virtues of 'greed is good'. Moreover, there was increasing promulgation of the old Engine Charhe principle that 'what is good for business is good for the nation'. The protagonists in promoting business values were the new coUectivities of business, most notably the Business Council of Australia and the H. R. Nicholls society. These organisations, together with the effectiveness of 'dry' economists influencing government policy, had an impact on industrial relations at aU levels. (Pusey, 1992; McEachern, 1991)
^ The Airline/PUots' Dispute took place over several months from September 1989, foUowing rejection of the pUots' ambit claim for a 30% wage rise. The pUots were never on strike - they resigned after their unsuccessfiU hmitation of hours. As an issue for academic industrial relations, the dispute raised some curious inteUectual shifts, particularly when compared to scholars' reaction to the deregistration of the BLF. Unlike the Austrahan Federation of Air PUots the BLF was accorded a measure of quite unscholarly sympathy. 214 Industrial Relations in the 1970s and 1980s
The economic and political turbulence of the 1970s and 1980s was mfrrored in the formal institutional industrial relations processes. There were massive swings between centralisation (wage indexation periods and wage freeze) and decentralisation (wages explosion of 1973-5). In part these shffts reflected governments, the tribunals, unions and employers attempting to come to terms with the new international economic pressures, using a variety of methods, depending on political and economic ideologies. The flawed traditional indicator of industrial relations, strike levels, demonstrates the changing role of trade unions through the 1970s and 1980s. These peaked at an all-time high in 1974, fell briefly in the late 1970s, increased rapidly in the last years of the Eraser Coalition government, then fell more or less continuously through the 1980s, except for 1985 when the New Right initiatives caused major disruptions. (See e.g. Bentley, 1974; Carr, 1979) Burgmann, 1985; Gardner, 1987)
The New Right was perhaps the most effective pressure group of the 1980s. It had a clear effect on the Liberal and National Parties and on industrial relations, and possibly on the Accords. The effect on the Coalition parties was to drive both the Liberals and the National parties to the right, with the identification and marginalisation of 'Wets', the traditional liberals in the Deakin / Menzies mould. In a sustained and effective campaign throughout the 1980s they were portrayed as being 'soft' on weffare and on trade unions. The Liberal Party was purged of 'Wets' by the end of the 1980s, with the places of Peacock, Macphee and the like replaced by the new business liberals who were particularly committed to the elimination of trade unions and'deregulation'of labour markets. (McEachern, 1991)
215 The New Right approach to industrial relations was activated in the DoUar Sweets, SEQEB, Robe River and Mudginberri disputes of 1984-6. (H. R. Nicholls, 1986) In these disputes the New Right employers sought, with a fair degree of success, to ehminate or greatly constrain the role of trade unions and tribunals in the control and administration of the employment relationship. Other employer organisations such as the Chamber of Manufacturers and Business Council publicly disagreed with the tactics of the New Right, but more for their 'crash and smash' approach, than their objectives which appeared to meet widespread employer agreement.6 FoUowing from these highly public and aggressive tactics, the New Right employers and ideologues changed tack, and shifted their interest to the Liberal Party, the media, and the employer associations."^ The New Right comprised more than just those from business and politics. Conservative ideologues such as Henderson and Gutman daUied with intellectual analysis, while economists such as Michael G. Porter and Richard Blandy provided academic legitimisation at a time when the 'dry' economists of Treasury were attempting to cloak their activities in the social democrat undertones of the Hawke-Keating governments^.
' In a piece of exceUent crystal ball gazing, the BCA claimed in 1986 that non-union enterprise bargaining and individual contracts would take ten or more years, see e.g. Plowman, 1987; BCA Bulletin June 1986, McEachern, 1991 ^ The most notable celebration of New Right ideology in the 1980s was the Arbitration in Contempt Seminar held in early 1986 by the newly formed H. R. NichoUs Society, the Proceedings of which were pubhshed in the same year. (H. R. NichoUs, 1986) AU of the authors were male and aU but two of the twelve authors were privately educated. (Kerr was educated at Perth Modern and Kerr at Fort Street High) Some (GUbert - SEQEB, HoiUihan -Mudginberri) celebrated their anti-union successes, whUe others poiu*ed scorn on the tribunals and unions and laid plans for their elimination (CosteUo (Federal Treasurer from 1996), Kerr (former founding member of the Industrial Relations Society) Gutman, (who reserved his invective for the Hancock Report) and Henderson (the self proclaimed inventor of the pejorative term "Industrial Relations Club"). It is also perhaps worth noting that CosteUo taught industrial relations at Monash University in the 1980s. See also Copeman, 1987, pp.539-43 ' See also Centre for Independent Studies pubhcations such as James, 1987 216 other important effects of the New Right in the 1980s, besides its influence on the Liberal Party were that it encouraged the Labor Party toward market orientation more rapidly than it may have otherwise done. This was evident in the renewed commitments to microeconomic reform and privatisation, whUe also dampening union expectations and demands. The success of the new right tactics also offered a new legitimacy for employers' demands and assisted employers in articulating these demands for changes to industrial relations legislation. (BCA Bulletin, 1986-95, BCA, 1987, 1992)
But these events were the highly obvious industrial relations processes in the 1980s. There were also labour market shifts throughout the two decades, driven in large part by changing product markets, and increasing tertiary production. By the late 1980s the proportion of employees in manufacturing had fallen to around twenty per cent of the workforce, and decreasing numbers of the manufacturing workforce could be found in traditional trades and labouring occupations. The feminisation of the workforce, first noted in the mid-1960s, continued apace, in all occupational categories except trades. (A.B.S Cat. 6203) Finally, from the early 1980s there was an increasing reliance on workforce reductions, not only in the manufacturing and metal processing industries, but also in the rapidly growing but volatile finance sector. These kinds of changes influenced the structure and membership of trade unions, which in turn influenced the initiatives of unions, but particularly the ACTU.
There were also events and processes which favoured workers and unions in the 1980s, as well as an initially imperceptible change in management approaches which integrated with the anti-union initiatives, and which would have greater effects on employment in the 1990s, (see Chapter Eight) There were however significant changes in the workforce from the 1970s to the late 1980s. The continuing shift to white collar work, particularly in the 217 services sector, reflected both technological change and sectoral changes in production. What gave most gains to workers in the 1970s and 1980s were a series of tribunal and legislative responses toward making employment more equitable. Equal pay for equal work was decided in the Federal Commission in 1972, while a series of Antidiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Acts were passed in state and Federal parhaments through the latter 1970s and 1980s. In a similar vein, the adoption of multiculturalism as government policy and the evidence and recommendations of government inquiries, hke the Jackson Report (1976, see also Ford, 1976) highlighted the disadvantage of migrant workers, and led to policy changes ameliorating thefr working conditions.
Tertiary Education 1970s and 1980s
It is not surprising, given the politico-economic roller coaster from the early 1970s until the late 1980s that the Universities were also subject to change, although the most radical changes occurred in the latter 1980s. Change in the 1970s was evolutionary, and even the decision of the Whitlam government to provide free tertiary university education only had marginal effects. Thus, despite this major change in policy, the rate of growth of the post-school student population fell throughout the 1970s, while the number and proportion of older students grew. Moreover, in response to multiple economic pressures, the Labor Government of 1972-5 which had assumed aU financial responsibihties for tertiary institutions, had to hmit funding to universities in 1974-5, at a time when inflation was extraordinarUy high. Moreover, by eliminating the long-time pattern of triennial funding without consultation, the government threw university planning into disarray. (Harman et al., 1980)
218 Matters worsened over the next decade as governments attempted to deal with high unemployment and inflation. In its attempts to reduce funding for higher education, and at the same reduce what pohticians saw to be duplications, a large number of the CAEs were encouraged to merge with universities. Such initiatives, together with changes to the federal coordinating structures, (e.g. the formation of Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC)) were aimed at centrahsing the control and coordination of funding, and the direction of university activities. InitiaUy the Hawke government maintained the same policies, with the exception that it implemented pohcies to increase university enrolments, in part in order to absorb some of the high youth unemployment. Thus overall student numbers increased from 298,000 in 1977 to 341,000 in 1982 and 394,000 m 1987 at the start of the so-caUed 'Dawkins reforms'. That student numbers could grow by 16 per cent over a decade, whUe funding grew by only eight per cent, attests to the fact that universities had learned to do more with less, even before the 'Dawkins reforms'. This is despite the overhang from the years of great expansion and the prolfferation of new vocational courses which occurred from the late 1970s. (Western, 1990)
The 'Dawkins reforms' were a series of reforms foUowing the appointment of John Dawkins as Federal Minister for Education in the late 1980s, and reflected the commitment of the Hawke-Keating governments toward increased workforce training and decreased youth unemployment. The reforms reinforced and systematised the centralisation of coordination which had occurred piecemeal in the 1970s and 1980s, and re-emphasised the more-with-less motif and the role of universities as places of vocational training. At the same time, and drawing particularly on the American experience, there was also a shift to decentralise some structures with greater emphasis on management processes within universities, and 219 elements of competition for research and teaching funds. Such initiatives were dfrected at developing research agglomerations, particularly within universities, with the objective of directing attention toward the competitive elements of research funding, thereby generating 'efficiency'. For the newly established discipline of industrial relations these changes put pressure on its capacity to provide professional education and public relevance, perhaps at the expense of analytical and theoretical exceUence.
Academic Industrial Relations In Higher Education
Given the wealth of institutional industrial relations changes, it is not surprising that the 1970s and 1980s were decades of almost continuous growth in academic industrial relations in both the university and CAE sectors, (see Chapter Four) By the early 1980s there were three chairs in industrial relations including Mulvey's at the University of Western Australia (UWA).^ While there was no separate department until the later 1980s at UWA, Laffer's goal of a dedicated department of industrial relations had been attained University of Sydney in late 1975. However the temporary appointment of British academic H. A. (Bert) Turner as the first Head of the new department was such a blow to Laffer that he quickly retired and gave up his editorship of the Journal of Industrial Relations. (Dufty, 1976b)
Arguably the largest group of industrial relations academics in the early 1970s was at Monash mainly within the Department of Administrative Studies. The group, which had a strong economics focus, included BiU
^ John Corina had been appointed at Sydney in 1976, but due to Ulness had very httle effective input. The labour economist, Charles Mulvey, was appointed as Professor of Industrial Relations at UWA in 1982. In a curious example of the perceptions of economics and industrial relations Mulvey, unlike his coUeague, D. Oxnam, had never pubhshed an article in an industrial relations pubhcation, prior to attaining his chair. 220 Howard, Peter Riach, John HUl, and foundation scholar Joe Isaac. However, the group dissipated after Isaac left for the Arbitration Commission in 1974. Over the next ten years fuU industrial relations programmes were introduced at Newcastle, Wollongong and Griffith universities, as well as at several CAEs and institutes of technology, including Western Australian Institute of Technology (WAIT), South Austrahan Institute of Technology (SAIT), Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) and Brisbane College of Advanced Education (BCAE). (D. E. I. R., 1984, 1985, 1987)
In the same era business education began to develop in Australia into a separate and coherent strand, in which industrial relations, personnel management or some aspect of employment studies was the focus of teaching and research. During the latter 1970s and early 1980s scholars such as Lansbury 10, McGraw ii and Rimmeri2 worked in these business schools and enhanced their expertise of the integration of business and employment. (Interviews, Lansbury, 1998 and Rimmer, 1999) Like Vic Taylor, (Taylor, 1986, 1991) these scholars retained an industrial relations perspective in their research. (See Chapter Seven)
The process of development of an industrial relations programme at the University of Melbourne was rather more tortuous, despite the fact that
10 Lansbury obtained his PhD from the University of London in 1973, having researched aspects of the airhne industry. On his return to Austraha in the mid-1970s he became one of the most prolific authors (single author and joint author) on aspects of work organisation and management structvires and roles. His pubhcations before the end of the 1980s included Lansbury and Gilmour, 1978a, Lansbury and Prideavix, 1977, Lansbury, 1978a, 1978b, 1978c; Lansbury, 1979, Davis and Lansbviry, and HiU, Howard and Lansbury (1982) Lansbury has also worked with scholars from the Swedish Working Lffe Centre, including OUe and Ruth Hammerstrom and developed upon hnks with INSEAD. Unlike most of his peers, Lansbury came to industrial relations through his research into aspects of management. 11 See e.g. McGraw et al. 1987; McGraw and Dunford, 1987 12 As noted earher in the text, Rimmer joined University of Sydney in 1972, so is one of the very long-standing industrial relations academics. Besides an eclectic array of pubhcations (see e.g. Rimmer, 1981; Bray and Rimmer, 1986) Rimmer has been mentor to a very large number of academics, and widely admired for his pohcy advice to governments and ACTU. 221 individual subjects in industrial relations had been taught for two decades. (Interviews, Isaac, 1998; Hearn, 1998) In 1975 a coherent industrial relations programme was developed under the auspices of the Department of Economics, and with the aid of short-term special development funding from the university. The Industrial Relations Programme (IRP), operating in many ways similar to that of industrial relations at the University of Sydney, (see Chapter Four) was a separate entity within Economics. The structure and objects of the IRP also reflected an attempt to develop an academic unit similar to the American institutions where (eventuaUy) separate research and teaching units are also closely linked to and partiaUy supported by industrial relations stakeholders. (Kaufman, 1993) However, the IRP at Melbourne University had few resources and depended on the goodwill of the department for the provision of secretarial support and part- time teaching. Even with a staff of three the IRP was expected to provide undergraduate and postgraduate teaching, post-experience courses for practitioners, a research program, and a resource centre for students and practitioners. (Cupper and Hearn, 1978, p.84). WhUe the Industrial Relations Programme only lasted as a formal entity for four years, it attained a fair degree of success, with a dozen research Masters theses completed and a PhD under way, as well as a raft of undergraduate and graduate courses, a Working Paper series and provision of short courses for practitioners. As had been the case at Sydney, the Economics Department was not willing to give overt assistance to the new multidisciplinary programme, and when the special university funding ceased at the end of 1978, Economics withdrew its own smaUer level of support and insisted that the industrial relations lecturers remaining should teach economics.
In hght of the success of the IRP, in terms of students, particularly graduate students, and publications, as weU as the expansion of industrial relations
222 subjects and programmes at Sydney, UNSW, UWA, and the CAEs, the remaining industrial relations academics in the IRP sought and were granted a formal inqufry, chaired by former Economics and Industrial Relations academic, Joe Isaac. The Inqufry found a need for a separate industrial relations unit, in the form of a separate interdepartmental Labour Studies Programme, the Coordinator of which would have senior standing within the Faculty. The Report also recommended the new unit should be responsible for its own academics and course content. As Grfffin and Teicher (1983, p.322) noted, few of the Report's recommendations were accepted, and the "proposed LSP was quite severely emasculated by Faculty". WhUe some interdepartmental structures were set up, these were designed to be ineffectual, and the bulk of the teaching of industrial relations remained the responsibility of two lecturers. Moreover, the Faculty resisted a fuU industrial relations major, and it was only with considerable difficulties that the Labour Studies Programme was permitted to devise a minor or sub- specialisation for B. A. and B. Com students. Despite lack of control over staff and staff shortages, the Labour Studies Programme achieved considerable success in terms of coherent teaching programmes and undergraduate and postgraduate student numbers. Nevertheless, despite its evident success, it was not until the end of the 1980s that industrial relations attained full degree status at the University of Melbourne. (Cupper and Hearn, 1978; Grfffin and Teicher, 1983; Deery, 1991; Interviews, Deery, 1999, Griffin, 1998, and Isaac, 1998).
Thus the picture of industrial relations in higher education through the 1970s and 1980s was one of rapid but very uneven development. Despite the fact that industrial relations was promoted pubhcly in order to provide industrial relations professionals, there was also evidence of the 'academicisation'; of the discipline throughout these years at some 223 mstitutions. There is evidence of some variation between, for example, institutions in the CAE sector, many of which taught practitioners on a part- time time basis on the one hand, and on the other hand, the old metropohtan universities which were seeking to mfrror the traditional values of disciplinary pedagogy in higher education. Certainly, the number and spread of programmes in honours and postgraduate industrial relations grew from the 1970s. WfrUe some of the latter were also practitioner- oriented, such as the Masters in Industrial Relations at UWA from 1978, there were also more than forty honours students at the same time, and the first PhD's were under way.
As part of the preliminary corporatisation process being introduced into higher education from the late 1970s, but particularly in the 1980s, industrial relations research centres were set up to provide research advice and assistance to business, unions and government. (Harman et al. 1980) The original University of Melbourne Industrial Relations Programme and the University of NSW Industrial Relations Research Unit were examples of centres attached to academic departments, while the National Institute of Labour Studies, at Flinders University was a separate body which obtained a significant proportion of its funding from private sources. Following from 'the Dawkins reforms' such initiatives proliferated. Institutions such as the Centre for Industrial Relations Research, Sydney University (CIRRUS) and a combined Riverina CAE / University of WoUongong (Centre for the Study of Work) attempted the develop a research consultancy base. The Riverina / Wollongong initiative was also an attempt to achieve 'economies of scale' by combining small departments at Wollongong, Albury and Wagga Wagga.
224 Teaching: Content and Influences
The content of teaching in the 1970s and 1980s narrowed from that at Sydney University in the 1960s. In the earher years, aspects of personnel management, industrial psychology, and the emergent organisational behaviour were an important part of the programme. At institutions like UWA, these remained available to industrial relations majors and course work Masters, (see e.g. U. W. A. Interfaculty Handbook, 1981, pp.34-6) but in the main, institutional industrial relations and in particular the study of unions, had become the norm by 1980s. Every programme also gave a significant amount of time to the study of the arbitration system. This meant that the role of labour law and the ubiquitously designated 'quasi- legal' framework of the arbitration were central to most programmes. This focus on structures was generally complemented by studies of processes, from disputes, strikes and other expressions of industrial conflict, to collective bargaining, joint consultation, conciliation and arbitration. There were also issues of seeming immediacy such as new technology, redundancy, anti-discrimination, industrial democracy, and particular aspects of the workforce, such as white collar employees, women, and migrant workers. While there were variations in undergraduate course content - for some, industrial conflict was a complex attribute of employment, while for others industrial conflict was synonymous with strikes and was examined as an outcome - there was a clear focus on institutions and institutional processes from the late 1970s.
A survey subject was the most common introductory unit. In this, students would study an eclectic mix of unions, the arbitration system, and a sprinkling of theory. Although the CAE sector tended to have more practical subjects available, (see e.g. Plowman, 1978; Sheehan 1978;) the introductory survey subjects bore a close resemblance to each other. At the 225 Preston Institute of Technology in suburban Melbourne, for example, the subject Industrial Relations A taught by Brooks and Sonder in 1983, was an archetypal introductory subject, as is evident in Table 6.11^
1^ Preston Institute of Technology, like most CAE's offered both 'practical/professional training and academic education. See also BCAE handouts such as BCIR1004, 1988, Workplace Issues. 226 Figure 6.1 Preston Institute of Technology, (Melbourne) BB6421, Industrial Relations A,
Weeks 1-3 What is industrial relations? approaches to industrial relations; Industrial Relations as a system;
Weeks 4-7 Industrial Relations: Harmony or Conflict?; Strikes;
Week 9-10 Trade Unions: Origins, structure, functions and issues
Week 11 Employer associations;
Week 13 The role of the state;
Week 14-18 Conciliation and arbitration in Australian industrial relations; state industrial relations systems; Victorian industrial relations systems;
Week 19-21 Wage fixation in Australia; Prices and Incomes Policy
Week 22-28 Overseas industrial relations systems.
Source: Brooks, 1983, pp.370-87
227 Thus, like most universities, the introductory Preston subject dealt primarily with coUective institutional labour relations as objects for analysis. There were minor differences in subjects between universities. The introductory Preston subject above had less coverage of trade unions than many others. At Brisbane College of Advanced Education (BCAE) nearly haff of the introductory subject was on unions in the early 1980s, and it was similar at University of Sydney. (BCAE, 1984; Laffer Papers), whUe at UNSW semesterisation brought a whole semester on trade unions in introductory industrial relations from 1983.
These introductory subjects would be followed by closer attention to aspects of the institutions or their context. Almost all universities offered subjects which gave a central place to labour, trade unions and the formal means for channelhng their activities. (See e.g. UNSW, Department of IR, 1982, Annual Report, BCAE, School of Business, 1984) UntU the latter 1980s, managers and employers were generally absent from most courses, except as stage props, to be wheeled out in disputes or negotiations, less as actors, and more as a hatrack around which the action occurred. There were some notable exceptions, particularly in subjects which examined the Braverman labour process theory (see Chapter Seven), but in the main any examination of employers was limited to a brief examination of business collectivities. The structures and styles of management of employment or production and the roles and actions of management employees were unexamined untU the last year of the 1980s. Adam Smith's comment that no one questions masters or combinations of masters was stUl apposite for much industrial relations teaching.
While there were great similarities in topics in industrial relations courses, there were also differences in approaches. These differences generaUy reflected the level of use of the critical hterature, such as the Marxist or 228 "radical pluralist' approaches to strikes or the unions, (see e.g. Hyman, 1975, 1981, 1989, Clark and Clements 1977, Fox, 1974). However, these differences highlight a significant attribute of academic industrial relations which was that it had become an object oriented discipline to which different 'approaches' to the objects of analysis engendered different research methods. For example, from the above example, a module on trade unions examined trade unions with particular attributes (their objects, functions, structures, issues)
While this is dealt with more fully elsewhere, i4 the notion of industrial relations as an object-oriented disciphne in which the parties and processes are seen as objects to be investigated and analysed, assists in understanding the ways in which the mainstream developed. The value given by industrial relations scholars to multi-method empirical research was enhanced by the 'object' orientation, and perhaps for some permitted the lack of concern over theoretical and analytical scholarship. (Plowman, 1991)
However, such developments were not always purposive. Much industrial relations teaching evolved in an ad hoc way. Even in the late 1970s and early 1980s teachers were trying to teach new subjects with multiple objectives. After all, they were attempting to provide education for current and potential professionals, demonstrate disciplinary separateness and rigour, offer a full degree sequence, and deal with the biases that the field of employment engendered. As a result teaching approaches and methods varied greatly. Gerry Griffin who had come to Austraha as a PhD student in 1977 recalls being invited to teach comparative industrial relations because he had criticised the absence of a thematic component. In the early 1980s Griffin and foundation industrial relations academic Kevin Hince decided
1'* See section on textbooks below and Chapter Seven 229 that a labour history subject was essential for an industrial relations programme. Despite the fact that the historians were not willing to teach labour history, the industrial relations academics felt that some laboiu* history was preferable to none. Hince and Griffin purchased copies of the Builders' Labourers Federation (BLF) song book and used the songs as the basis for investigating labour history.i^ (Griffin, Interview, 1998)
Such unusual methods highhght a further problem facing industrial relations academics in developing teaching programmes. At issue were not only the content of subjects, but also the content of the programme as a whole. In general an undergraduate major comprised six to ten subjects in the disciplinary area of the major study. As weU as survey subjects, major studies included subjects which focused on labour studies, comparative industrial relations, labour economics, labour law, industrial relations policy, organisational behaviour, and labour history (Griffin and Teicher, 1983). At other universities, topics such as industrial democracy, aspects of the conciliation and arbitration system, and negotiation and advocacy would be in the major.
Three points are evident from such lists. The first is that the programmes were both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. They were multidisciplinary insofar as essential subjects for a major included subjects drawing from disciplines such as law and economics. The programmes were also interdisciphnary because they drew the multiple disciphnes together and also included interdisciplinary subjects such as labour studies. While scholars like Mainzer (1998) have argued that such an approach "may mask a fuzzy eclecticism that lacks any sense of what is most significant" the
1^ Griffin noted (Interview, 1998) that there was much greater opportxuiity for planiung and research in teaching before the mid-1980s because the pressure to pubhsh research was less demanding. 230 similarities in the industrial relations major studies and the core of topics around which other readily integrated topics were added, suggest that the programmes were coherent and focused. The other two characteristics of the major studies in industrial relations strengthen this latter perspective. Most of the subjects took an institutional focus, that is most attention was on the collective organisations and thefr formal roles in the institutionahsed processes of bargaining, wage determination and implementing sanctions. Organisational behaviour and personnel management were frequently taught subjects, but they tended to be electives, rather than core compulsory subjects. The more marginal role of the organisational and management subjects from the mid-1970s reflected not only the shift to an institutional focus but also a preference for studying labour rather than management. There were subjects on labour law, labour studies and labour economics, but not their converse, which in any case had rather a dffferent shape.
What is germane to this chapter however, is that the development of coherent undergraduate programmes at many tertiary institutions had a fafr degree of similarity in the later 1970s / mid 1980s. While such programmes drew on several disciplines, they were often taught by industrial relations academics, even if the subject area was outside their research experience, as labour history had been for Hince and Griffin. The programmes were also interdisciplinary in their approach, using theories and assumptions from various disciplines. The institutional and object-orientation of the programmes and subjects was particularly useful for the interdisciphnarity of industrial relations since students could be exposed to a range of interpretations and methodologies. While such approaches enhanced the capacity for multiple interpretations and apparent objectivity, greater
231 attention was paid to labour and the regulation of labour, rather than management and capital, i^
What differentiated industrial relations from nearby social science programmes was the frequency with which comparative industrial relations was offered. At least one comparative industrial relations subject was to be found in almost all programmes in universities, although it was less evident in the CAEs until the late 1980s. In 1984, for example, separate comparative industrial relations subjects were offered in bachelor degrees at Newcastle, UNSW (Hons), Sydney, Wollongong, Melbourne, Griffith, UWA, Western Australian College of Advanced Education, (WACAE) and Western Australian Institute of Technology, (WAIT) and in graduate courses at Macquarie, AGSM, Footscray, Melbourne, and the Brisbane College of Advanced Education, (BCAE). (D. E. I. R., 1985) The pervasiveness of comparative industrial relations is significant in that it was one area where industrial relations developed in a quite different direction from its parent disciplines. While comparative economic systems and comparative government were offered at some universities, these were never core subjects. Indeed, economist, John Nevile, on hearing of a comparative Japan-Australia labour market conference, is cited as having said
if I heard about a conference of Japanese and Austrahan biologists comparing the digestive processes of carp and kangaroo, I would think the exercise slightly ludicrous (Nevile, cited in Norris 1984, p.418)
1^ See Chapter Seven 232 By contrast, from the time comparative industrial relations was placed on Kingsley Laffer's list of essential subjects for his emergent programme, it was taught in most coherent undergraduate programmes.
This raises the question of why the area was seen as important. For Griffin and Teicher (1983), comparative industrial relations was a core area of study because Australian institutions at all levels tended to follow overseas trends. Moreover, teachers could utUise analytical frameworks such as Walker's (1970) "Strategic Factors" model, which drew on a broad Dunlopian structure, and which enhanced the capacity to teach issues-based topics. That is perhaps a partial answer to the question of the popularity, but given the interdisciplinarity of industrial relations and the avaUabihty of multiple methods and forms of inquiry, the ease of teaching is not siffficient.
Moreover, the tendency to "follow trends" is inadequate to explain the general view of the necessity for comparative industrial relations on at least two grounds. The first is that it contradicts the perception of many scholars that the formal rulemaking system in Australia was unusual. Regardless of approval or otherwise of the conciliation and arbitration framework, the system had only been tinkered with until the 1990s. In other words the influences from overseas on the formal system of industrial relations were minimal. On the other hand the influence of scholars from overseas was legion - even in the introductory subjects students were required to read Dunlop (1958) on systems, Hyman (1972) on strikes, or the edited coUection of Barrett et al. (1975) taking a mixed critical and positive perspective on industrial relations analysis, or one of the burgeoning studies from Warwick. As noted in previous chapters, the reliance on the Anglophone hterature was a feature of Australian industrial relations scholarship, which beside the evident hmitations of a monolingual academic community, reflected uncertainty among Australian scholars and an aUied perspective that 233 British and US scholarship was in some way superior. That such rehance overflowed into teaching is thus not surprising, and, in this respect, provision of comparative industrial relations subjects appears a logical and practical step.
There are also perhaps two other important, if more speculative, reasons for the signfficance of comparative industrial relations to research and teaching within the discipline. As has been shown in earlier chapters, much industrial relations analysis is at base comparative, insofar as much investigation compares workplaces, industries or methods of regulation. This was the practice of the Webbs and G. D. H. Cole. More recently, Dunlop's (1958) foundation work, Industrial Relations Systems was an exercise in comparative industrial relations, based as it was on the voluminous McNair Report, (1956) which provided Dunlop with evidence and Ulustrations of the effectiveness of his analytical framework, i'^ Similarly while much of the postwar British scholarship was overtly British in orientation, the tradition of comparing workplaces against each other or against a yardstick made the transition to inter-country comparisons a simple step. It was also an important step for scholars like Hugh Clegg in his most comparative publication, the well-used textbook. Trade Unionism under Collective Bargaining: A Theory Based on six Countries. Clegg's objective was to develop a theory of union behaviour based on the structiu'e and nature of collective bargaining. His contention was that to test such a theory, the study necessarily had to encompass several countries in order to
1^ Graduate students at University of WoUongong who were analysing Dunlop (1958) had in the latter 1990s questioned the nat\u"e and existence of the McNair Report. The hbrarians at the ILO in 1997 also, initiaUy doubted its existence. Nevertheless, they eventuaUy found it in a sub-basement of the ILO Library. Its formal title is the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Employers' and Workers' Organisations, (1956). It was the outcome of a massive inquiry undertaken by the ILO in the mid-1950s, but which maiiUy focuses on the formal system and legislation of all of the ILO members. The Chair of the Committee, Sir Arnold McNair, noted that the attention to legislation and pubhc regulation undoubtedly concealed important information. (McNair Report, p.25) 234 be generalisable. Even so, Clegg was typically seff-effacing about the status of his theory, but his discussion points to other central facets of industrial relations scholarship.
It does not establish predictive causal laws. There are too many factors at work for that, as is usual in the social sciences. On the other hand it claims to do more than draw attention to some interesting associations. Collective bargaining is put forward not only as an influence on other aspect of union behaviour, ... but as the 'main', 'major', 'foremost' or 'principal' influence. These adjectives imply that, where collective bargaining is the predominant method of regulation, its dimensions account for union behaviour more adequately than any other set of explanatory variables can do. (Clegg, 1976, pp.10-11)
For Clegg, as for most industrial relations analysts, investigation was necessarily grounded in the 'real world' because of the complexity of factors acting upon the processes regulating the employment relationship, in particular the indeterminacy of human decisions in dynamic political, economic and social contexts.
Indeed, as has been suggested in earlier chapters, an important impetus for the separation of industrial relations from economics, was that scholars hke Laffer and Isaac found their own disciphnary analytical frameworks too confining and unrealistic. Many of the later scholars have also expressed the same commitment to the greater value of the interdisciphnarity of industrial relations research. From this perspective to remove context or simplify the complexity, as it appears is sometimes the case in areas of economics or mathematical sociology, is to abrogate scholarly responsibUity. Thus, the only acceptable form of inquiry must be with real individuals and
235 mstitutions, 18 Since the individuals and institutions are subject to multiple influences, investigation is essentiaUy interdisciphnary in its understandings. Moreover, as with most social sciences, the complexities of interaction cannot be tested in abstraction or in laboratory conditions, particularly at the macro level. Yet, in Britain for example, the only pohtical envfronment under which trade union behaviour can be examined is the British political environment, which would confine theoretical development to a particular geo-political circumstance. An important means of deriving analytical models and generalisations therefore, is made possible by comparative analysis. Moreover, the object-oriented attributes of industrial relations teaching are particularly suited to comparative industrial relations, especially where the primary objects of study centre on national formal industrial relations systems. From the study of national systems, it was logical and anal5^ically fruitful to move to comparative industrial relations subjects which examined the parties and processes of institutional employment regulation with minimal reference to economic, cultural or historical context.
There is one further reason postulated for the popularity of comparative industrial relations, which was the mutual kudos achieved through visits from scholars from the numerous countries under study. These were what Griffin and Teicher (1983, p.330) termed "the visiting firemen". As noted in earlier chapters, De Vyver offered a lecture series in the early days at Sydney University, and scholars like Perlmani^, Derber2o, Donn2i, and
18 The problems with the assumptions of 'reahty' in this kind of empiricism notwithstanding. (See Godard 1993b, Johnston, 1986; and WiUiams and May, 1996 1^ See e.g. Perlman 1953, 1954, 1977. Perlman, 1995 is a useful personal retrospective 2*^ See e.g. Derber, 1971, 1977a 1977b. Derber's (1970b) notion of coUective bargaining as a form of industrial democracy was strongly criticised by Irving (1972). ^1 Doiui spent longer in Austraha than most US scholars. He completed a book and several major articles whUe teaching and researching in NSW. See Doim, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1983 and subject guide for 05344 Labour economics A, Macquarie University, 1978 236 Furstenberg22 were regular visitors, who were experts on thefr national systems.
This last alerts us to an important caveat about comparative industrial relations, which was that, while courses like that offered by Griffin and Teicher in the early 1980s, and research such as Clegg's trade union / collective bargaining model were genuinely comparative, much of what was taught as comparative was rather a study of overseas industrial relations systems. The novelty value of overseas systems was frequently promoted as an introduction to comparative methods of analysis, but there is some evidence that this was not the case.23
On the other hand, the significance of comparative industrial relations for teaching and research in Australian industrial relations provided an unintended outcome for the academics in Australia. This was thefr very willingness to consider, absorb and apply new methods and approaches. Thus they could draw on Hyman, Clegg or Kochan with little difficulty, despite their object orientation and the great differences between industrial relations systems. The capacity to adapt overseas models to particular Australian issues increased the eclecticism of academic industrial relations, but it also provided analytical strengths.
This was evident in scholars' awareness of what was attaining dominance in academic industrial relations the Anglophone countries. In the 1970s, as was noted in Chapter Five, scholars were influenced more by Dunlop's systems than the British Oxford School (Donovan) analysis, although the latter offered a richer basis for research according to some. (Howard, 1978)
22 Furstenberg's visits tended to be used for comparative industrial relations (and in particvUar portraying Austraha industrial relations) rather than for the study of Austrahan industrial relations, see e.g. Furstenberg, 1983 23 Fragments of subject guides for example suggest that each coiuitry was studies consecutively, and most early texts also were sequential, rather than comparative, (see e.g. Bamber and Lansbury, 1985; WUcynzcki, 1983) 237 By the later 1980s, partly as a consequence of continuing links of scholars such as Niland and later Lansbury, with North American universities, the publications of a group of US academics such as Tom Kochan. (see e.g. Kochan et al. 1984; Kochan et al. 1986, 1991; Lewin, 1987; Chehus and Dworkin, 1990) working to make some sense of the dry economics of government policy and the active deunionisation practices of businesses, offered Australian academics a new set of analytical frameworks which strengthened mainstream industrial relations. WhUe the strategic choice framework was not new, its broad applicability and apparent 'objectivity' provided a new and, for many, compelling method. The basis of strategic choice was that as the business environment changes, so the choices available to managers are filtered by and "embedded in particular historical and institutional structures, [so that] the range of feasible options avaUable at any given time is partially constrained by the outcomes of previous organizational decisions and the current distribution of power within the firm and between it and any unions, government agencies, or other external organizations it deals with". (Kochan, Katz and McKersie, (KKM) 1986 p. 12) The decisions and actions of unions and employees are simUarly founded on strategic choices and constraints.24
From the latter 1980s, the strategic choice framework was compeUing to Australian academic researchers (see e.g. Gardner, 1989) because it offered acknowledgment of the rising awareness of the centrgUity of business imperatives, as well as an apparently objective basis for study of employment and work in the context of business needs. Unlike some of the influential British hterature, it was seemingly uncritical of the inequahties inherent in the employment relationship, although it nevertheless took a
2^ Given the focus on the criticahty of management decision making, there is a cviriously Marxist undertone to the strategic choice framework remembering Marx's dictum that "Men make their own histories ...." (Marx, Eighteenth Brumaire) 238 normative approach to the unionisation potential of employees in un- unionised firms (KKM, 1986, p.249) Thus the KKM approach reinforced what was becoming mainstream industrial relations analysis through its focus on understanding what were evident phenomena, and through the imphcit acceptance of the 'labour problem' and unions as 'external organisations'. Most importantly the strategic choice framework, and its near variants offered a readUy applicable universahty. It was not constrained particularly by geographical or cultural constraints. It differed from what had become the Australian mainstream by ascribing a central significance to management and managerial decision making, which had been written out of much Australian Dunlopian industrial relations analysis, despite Dunlop's insistence on the role of managers, (see Chapter Five) The reintroduction of managers was not essential, however, since strategic choice analysis could be equally applied to unions, (see Gardner, 1989) Moreover, the treatment of management in the KKM conception of strategic choice fell within the Australian notions of institutions, of patterned groups which played a role in the regulation of work and employment. The US influence was thus important for many Australian academics in the latter 1980s, but to some extent it was counter-balanced by the broadening of industrial relations. (See Chapter Seven)
This apparent detour into the popularity of comparative industrial relations in the teaching programme has emphasised some central features about industrial relations as a discipline. That is, the complexity of the objects of analysis led scholars and teachers to attempt different forms of enqufry from other social sciences which were becoming increasingly abstract and formal. By contrast, industrial relations research and teaching focused on current and historical events, processes and institutions as ff they were objects, to be
239 examined from all perspectives, drawing on analytical viewing techniques from a variety of disciplines and perspectives.
Such an approach may lead to simple descriptiveness, rather than anal5^ical and theoretical progress. Moreover, it limits claims to academic rigour and disciplinary validity. Political scientist Don Aitkin noted in an approving review that a common reference text for introductory industrial relations, Don Rawson's 1978 edition of Unions and Unionists, was notable for Rawson's 'dispassionate commonsense'.25 By imphcation, Rawson's study of unions or the study of arbitration from the industrial relations perspective was not so much scholarship as 'commonsense;. This was always the battle of industrial relations scholarship - by its multidisciplinarity in teaching and research, it was seen as 'non-disciplinary' and therefore non-scholarly. By contrast in the same years, economics was becoming more oriented toward theory and technique. Students were introduced to the subject by reference to universal phenomena (supply, demand,) which were then examined using economic theory and analytical techniques.26
On the other hand, object orientation enhanced the very multidisciphnarity that teachers saw as a particular and positive attribute of industrial relations. The examination of strikes allowed for multiple perspectives and theories, so that students were referred to Hyman's (1975) sociological analysis, as well as Bentley's (1981) economic analysis and the labour law on strikes. Moreover, the object-orientation was suited to a field of study in which current events were widely discussed and reported. More than most
2^ This was perhaps all the more svirprising because Aitkin was a long-time coUeague of Rawson's at the ANU Research School of Social Sciences. Rawson's large hst of pubhcations included Rawson, 1958, 1962, 1981, 1982, 2^ Thus the economics texts from the 1970s were frequently adaptations of overseas texts, such as Samuelson, Hancock and WaUace.(1975). The adaptations were qmte rather shght and mainly involved replacing statistical data. Perhaps the greatest differences between Austrahan and US versions of Samuelson (et al.) for example, is that the former has a chapter on arbitration and wage determination. 240 social sciences, industrial relations was subject to mass media attention, generaUy from a narrow perspective (Carey, 1987; see also Davis, 1979; MacDonald, 1979: McCoU, 1979, Cole, 1984, pp.96-8). Industrial relations scholar-teachers could not ignore the unfolding processes of Eraser's attempts to constrain unionism or the ACTU-Labor accords of the 1980s. The object orientation of industrial relations allowed the unfolding policy shifts and events to be analysed with a degree of coherence and rigour, while retaining the commitment to multidisciplinary examination and interdisciplinary analysis.
Textbooks
An examination of calendars and subject guides has revealed that there were core topics to be found in almost all introductory subjects which were covered more intensively in later subjects. An array of elective topics went beyond the core institutional parties and processes, and a variety of analytical frameworks was evident throughout the era, particularly from the later 1980s. Nevertheless, there was an apparent mainstream. It was evident in the popular texts, particularly Dabscheck and Niland, and Deery and Plowman, where mainstream topics and approaches centred on formal rulemaking, the institutions and institutional processes. In particular, trade unions, industrial conflict and the Australian arbitration system appeared essential elements.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the appearance of several texts attest to the expansionary state of industrial relations teaching programmes. The anthologies of labour relations readings, (Ford and Isaac, 1966; 1971; 3rd edition. Ford, Hearn and Lansbury, 1981) continued on student reading hsts.
241 As can be seen from Table 6.1 most focus was on the concihation and arbitration system and trade unions.
The chapters on industrial conflict included a specially written chapter by Ford and Hearn, which attempted to take a broader view of conffict than was usually the case. Ford had been at UNSW for over a decade but had retreated from academic industrial relations cfrcles but had remained in the UNSW in the area of organisational behaviour. Though preceded by Maxine Bucklow, Hearn was the first woman industrial relations academic to publish widely in industrial relations publications. Like Ford, she drew on her working class background, for her reformist approaches to regulation of employment.27 For Ford and Hearn "industrial conflict was the very core of industrial relations theory and practice" (Ford and Hearn, 1980 p. 17) and their chapter addressed the significance of theoretical underpinnings for greater effectiveness in industrial relations research.
While specifically written for their volume unhke many chapters in anthologies, the Ford and Hearn (1980) chapter on industrial conflict also highlights two other major characteristics of Australian industrial relations texts in the early 1980s. Firstly, the specially written chapters were a source for academics as well as students. Like Ford and Hearn's, the chapter by Lansbury (1980) on industrial democracy, or Deery and Plowman's (1985) chapter on wages, were speciaUy researched and written for texts. This was in part because, relative to other disciphnes, the stock of research in industrial relations was still not very great, and also because the objects of study in this object oriented discipline were, as noted above, the
^ The only other woman academic to pubhsh more than one or two articles in the industrial relations hteratvu-e before the 1980s was Di Yerbury, who like Hearn eventually left academic research for academic administration. Later John NUand and Margaret Gardner also became senior academic administrators, which is possibly some kind of record given the smaU community of scholars in industrial relations. 242 subject of significant change. The economic and industrial relations tiurbulence from the 1970s dfrected scholars' attention to the changing objects of study. These objects of study all took an Australian focus, drawing on international literature for analysis or to highhght elements of the Austrahan system.
Table 6.1 Topics Covered in the Main Introductory Texts ofthe Early 1980s
AUTHORS FHL D&N PDF/D&P HHL
'IR 'theory' NO Ich Ich 2ch
Ind. conflict /strikes 3ch 2ch 3ch 2ch
Trade unions 7ch 3ch Ich 5ch
Management Ich. 8pp NO 15 pp
Emp'er Assocs 2ch 13 pp Ich 7pp
C&A /Tribunals 6-7 ch 3ch 3ch Ich
wage det'n 1-2 ch Ich-H 2ch Ich
State/Gov't NO Ich Ich NO
other 2ch NO 2ch NO
Explanatory Notes
ch - chapter PP - pages No - topic not covered FHL - Ford, Hearn and Lansbury (eds.) (1980) D&N - Dabscheck and NUand (1981) PDF/D&P - Plowman Deery and Fisher (1981) Deery and Plowman (1985) HHL - HUl, Howard and Lansbury (1982)
243 An overview of the texts and courses on industrial relations in the early 1980s demonstrate the apparent core and mainstream of the disciphne which had altered from that of a decade or so before. There was some widening from the earher texts of Walker (1970) or Foenander (1954), with greater attention paid to theory and analysis, albeit not usually in the substantive chapters. Like the earlier texts, those of the 1980s also focused very heavily on the formal public Australian industrial relations system, although generally there was reference to overseas material, such as conflict theory, labour movement theory and the like. There were variations between the major texts of the 1980s, but these tended to be in emphasis rather than in direction and, while they paid lip-service to methodological variants, all took a modified structural-functionalist approach.
There were some differences, and some forays into marginal topics, such as Ford's (1980, pp.572-7) chapter on research needs, Plowman, Deery and Fisher's (1981) chapters on technological change (pp.334-56) and industrial democracy (pp.357-90). In general however, there was a consistent focus on the formal public industrial relations system in Australia, a system which the authors portrayed as notably different from that of other countries, particularly Dabscheck and Niland,28 and Plowman, Deery and Fisher (1981). In his foreword to the latter text, Isaac asserted that
WhUe there are excellent foreign texts on industrial relations, they are not satisfactory introductions to the Austrahan system with its unique dispute settling tribunals. As the authors rightly point out, "No student can hope to begin to make sense of Australian industrial relations untU he has a clear idea of how
2^ These latter authors rejected Dunlop's systems framework, even though their assertion that "A rehable understanding of any industrial relations system would draw heavUy on social political, economic and legal background of that society". (Dabscheck and NUand, 1981, pp.1-2) appears to draw from Dunlop. 244 the tribunals are structured and how they work". Accordingly the book gives special emphasis to the processes by which the rules of work are determined ...(Isaac, 1981, p.18).
For Isaac, a pioneer in industrial relations, understanding the tribunals was very important. This was evident not only in his own research, (Isaac, 1947 1952, 1958, 1962, 1974) but also in anthologies co-edited by him. (Isaac and Ford; 1966, 1971; Chapman, Isaac and NUand, 1984) in both industrial relations and labour economics.
Most of the texts published in the early 1980s and noted in Table 6.1 contained a mix of those who could be deemed pioneers, and those who might be called the second generation.29 Ford, Hearn, Howard, and Niland could be designated pioneers, since they were involved before the mid-1970s in teaching, setting up departments or expanding weak academic units. Like Hince, Isaac, Laffer, Sorrell, Bucklow, Oxnam, and Walker, they had to draw largely on their own perceptions of industrial relations and their interpretations of the field overseas in order to develop courses and programmes. Moreover, their disciplinary backgrounds were, in the main, not from industrial relations.^o Yet, what was to become the most sustained textbook, that by Deery and Plowman (including the original edition by Plowman, Deery and Fisher, 1981) was the work of second-generation scholars, whose approach perhaps covered a broader area than that of
2^ Defining "generations' is a fraught exercise. Some might prefer to differentiate between the first pioneers, such as Laffer, Oxnam, Walker, Isaac and Foenander who introduced the notion of academic industrial relations, and the later pioneers who ensured the survival and consohdation of the discipline. The problem with the concept of generations is that it can excluded important scholars who cross the generation gap, most notably scholars like Rimmer (who was a central influence to scholars in the 1970s) and Yerbvuy, a Melbourne contemporary. Moreover, influential scholars like Martin and Rawson defy such categorisation, in part because they tended to operate away from what were to become centres of industrial relations. ^ Isaac, Laffer and Oxnam had come from economics, and Hearn and Ford had maiiUy pohtics training, while Hince originaUy trained as an accountant, and Walker's base disciphne had been psychology. (Interviews, Isaac, MvUvey, Hearn and Ford) 245 Dabscheck and NUand, particularly in relation to employers and contemporary issues.
While both texts presented a variety of approaches, they conveyed the material in a direct and self-assured manner. In this respect, they not only shaped undergraduate teaching, but also set the agenda for later topics and legitimised the mainstream of the discipline. While there were increasing strains on their focus and methods, (see Chapter Seven) the texts were a continuing source of reference and the bedrock of the discipline upon which the next generation of practitioners and scholars developed their ideas.
An overview of industrial relations scholarship 1970s and 1980s
As has been frequently stated industrial relations was always a self- doubting discipline. In the main this was still true in the 1970s and even in the 1980s, despite the fact that numbers of students and academics grew at an extraordinary rate. In the same two decades, publications also grew very rapidly. Half a dozen or more texts, ^i nearly twenty anthologies,32 and over forty research books^^ were pubhshed.^ Further, there were about 400
31 Including Walker, (1970), O'Dea (1970 and further editions); HUl, Howard and Lansbury, 1982; Dabscheck and Niland, 1981; Plowman, Deery and Fisher, 1981; Deery and Plowman, 1985; and in 1989. Dufty and FeUs (1989) was also pubhshed in the 1980s but in some ways represented a shift in industrial relations away from the heavUy institutional focus. The absence of even one chapter on the role of the State caused surprise in the academic community. As weU Rawson, (1978) and Martin (1975, and later editions) both of which dealt comprehensively with Austrahan trade unions, were commonly prescribed texts. 32 As weU as the various conference proceedings (e.g. Tvirkington, 1978 and Aldred, 1984; Blandy and NUand 1986) and various editions of Austrahan Labour Relations Readings and Austrahan Labour Economics Readings, in 1970s and 1980s, there were inter alia collections on confhct edited by Frenkel (1980), and Cole, (1984) power and equahty (Boreham and Dow - Vols 1 + 2 1980); vmion strategies Frenkel (1987) Ewer Higgins and Stevens 1985 and what is now a classic on critical industrial relations. Bray and Taylor, 1986. 33 Including studies of arbitration NUand 1978; Fisher 1983; Dabscheck, 1983; industrial relations history Sheridan, 1975; industry studies Dufty, 1972; 1979; the law, SorreU 1979; occupational studies Griffin 1985; GUmo\ar and Lansbviry; 1984; Lansbury; 1978; the ACTU, Donn 1983; Hagan, 1981 246 articles in the Journal of Industrial Relations, as weU as Research Notes and the inestimable March Annual Reviews on each of the major areas of iaterest in the formal public industrial relations system. Industrial relations academics also continued to pubhsh in international journals, just as they had in the 1950s and 1960s. Moreover the Australian Bulletin of Labour (ABL) and Labour History, both of which began publication in the 1970s, and contained articles by industrial relations scholars.35 In other words the small industrial relations community published prohfically, over a wide range of areas, but particularly in what John NUand caUed labour- management relations.36
A high proportion of new research was based on case studies, that is focal research on a particular site, event, workplace or group in order to generate closer understanding of broader issues. Thus Davis' (1978, 1981) study of democracy in trade unions was based initially on decision-making processes in one union, and broadened to six unions, while Deery (1982) drew on several models of redundancy in his case study on waterside workers. Case studies are primarily used for two separate reasons - as the basis for
^ These pubhcations were the resvdt of research by self-styled industrial relations academics. The selection of what is or is not an industrial relations pubhcations is rather vague at the edges, and reflects a certain level of subjectivity. Most academics would include Kriegler's 1983, Working for the Company, but not Schultz's Steel City Blues, despite the fact that they are of simUar (low) quahty, and indeed cover the same firm. I have limited the choices by including oiUy academics and only those who claim to be focusing on industrial relations. Thus, work of scholars hke Blandy and Richardson (1982) on labour markets is excluded while that of Hancock and Isaac on wages is included. It is the same with sociologists hke Claire WiUiams and Bob ConneU whose work dealt with industrial relations, but whose work was founded in and directed towards sociology. See discussion. Chapter Seven 3^ Although by the 1980s the ABL was becoming rather more a foriun for labour economics on the one hand, and for writers who sought to deregulate emplojonent on the other. See e.g. Brown and Rowe, 1983 3^ The use ofthe terms labour relations and labour -management relations perhaps deserve close analysis. They were terms used commonly by scholars who sought to narrow the focus of industrial relations to the formal interactions in employment relations, with a particular focus on labour as a coUective and separate entity. Almost always when labour-management relations, was used, the reference to labour referred to unions. 247 inductive research, or in order to obtain evidence for deductive research.3? Benson's (1982) case study on worker involvement in working parties in the Victorian power generation industry was part of a broader attempt to develop analysis on dispute settlement procedures, (see e.g. Benson and Dow, 1979; Benson, 1991) whereas the objective of GuUhaus' (1980) examination of the conflictual buyer-supplier relations in the retaU petrol industry was to test a research model of power relations originally developed in the USA.
While Australian industrial relations scholars have been somewhat sensitive about their preference for mainly qualitative and empirical research, such sensitivity has perhaps been misplaced for two reasons. The first is that the belief among Australian industrial relations academics that the simple case study was a most common form of research does not quite hold up, unless the notion of a case study includes multiple dimensions and sites. What has tended to become a most common industrial relations technique has been the 'complex case study' (Yin 1994; Kelly 1999) which includes multiple intervening variables within a broad context. Thus studies of industrial relations in remote mining communities have taken account of product and labour markets and the effects of isolation in company towns, as well as industry and national economic factors, and the role of unions and the formal industrial relations system, (e.g. Anderson, 1984; Kitay and Powe, 1987) In other words, the complex case study has been appropriate to industrial relations precisely because requfrements of explaining events or processes, far less achieving law-like status, require interactive and sometimes interdependent explanatory factors. 3^ The second reason that
3^ There are, of covirse, exceptions. The four case studies in Frenkel's edited 1980 Industrial Action: Patterns of Labour Conflict which Frenkel claimed were undertaken in order to develop a theory of industrial action. 3^ This is one basis for criticism of Dunlop's systems firamework - the isolation of the industrial relations system from the economic and social environment 248 doubts about industrial relations case study research are misplaced is apparent in the work of scholars such as Brown, (1981) and Batstone, Boraston and Frenkel, (1977) in the UK and Ron CaUus (CaUus et al., 1991) in Australia. These scholars demonstrate the utihty and effectiveness of multi-method research, and the hkelihood that case studies are rarely a- contextual.
Indeed a singular characteristic of industrial relations research has been the presence of multiple methods, within single projects, and among all projects. Such a sweeping view of validity and reliability was problematic, especiaUy in an era when modelling and abstraction were increasingly the criteria for rigour. Moreover, unlike disciplines such as education or political science, industrial relations scholars tended to avoid explicit use of terminology such as validity or reliability. Techniques such as triangulation are almost never referred to, even though the use of multiple sources for case studies (interviews, surveys, company / union documents) reflect the imphcit use of just such a technique. On the other hand there is no doubt that most industrial relations researchers rarely reflected on their techniques, as the absence of discussion on methods and techniques attests.
In order to explore more closely the nature and direction of mainstream industrial relations and what influenced scholarship, several sub-topics wUl be examined. The topics chosen are those which emerge as central areas in the literature, particularly the Journal of Industrial Relations the flagship of Austrahan academic industrial relations. There are some weaknesses to this approach. The basis for categorisation involves a subjective element and the choice of most common topics may exclude important undercurrents or less common areas of study which are nevertheless influential on the
249 disciphne.39 On the other hand, exploration of the most common sub-topics is apt for an object-oriented disciphne, whether the 'objects' are parties, processes, issues, or outcomes. Moreover, by disaggregating topics within the broad disciphne, there is more opportunity to assess the influences on aspects of the mainstream. Less 'popular' aspects are also covered in the next chapters which looks at the centrffugal tendencies in the discipline.
Several sub-topics were clearly the most commonly studied by Austrahan scholars were found in a survey of the Journal Of Industrial Relations from 1976 to 1988. These were
• collective bargaining v. arbitration (and allied questions regarding the arbitration system)
• industrial conflict (more often its manifestation)
• trade unions in Australia
• employee participation / industrial democracy
• wage determination
All of these issues required an institutional approach, in that they assumed that the primary actors were institutions, and it was the actions and imperatives of the institutions which required investigation. The term 'institutions' may be ascribed either to organisations or collectivities formed for an economic or social purpose, or to purposive, patterned and widely practised or acknowledged behaviour which functions to express or promote ideas of organisations or collectivities. In industrial relations then.
3^ There is a fvu-ther hmitation, based on the (subjective) choice of sovirces as the basis for choosing the most common areas of study. At worst this can lead to a distorted depiction. Gurdon's (1978) study of Australian industrial relations for example, examined the most common sub-topics in American hteratvire based on the hterature / thesis survey of NUand and Prothero (1976). However, the American hterature had a strong microeconomic aspect to it, and moreover, NUand and Prothero's survey had excluded any output from several universities, including the University of Sydney at a time when the latter was among the largest in terms of honours and postgraduate eirrolments. 250 institutions include not only associations of employees or employers and tribunals at various levels, but also coUective bargaining, wage cases and the less widely held processes towards achieving unUateral managerial rights or the right to take industrial action.
While wage determination was a very frequent subject of analysis, it is not unique to industrial relations. Of itself wage fixation is a vast multidisciplinary area of study, and while it has always been an important sub-topic within industrial relations, analysis of the hterature deserves a major investigation in its own right, in which the models and theories of labour economics could be given as much attention as the social, political, and institutional factors.^o As noted earlier, thirty per cent of articles in the labour economics anthologies drew on articles originally published in the Journal of Industrial Relations.(Chajpraan, Isaac, and NUand, 1984)
The first four topics in the above list were seen by industrial relations scholars as pecuhar to industrial relations, and certainly took up most journal space. These topics will be dealt with sequentially in the foUowing section. Drawing on interpretative analysis of the writings in Austrahan publications, the questions asked of each of the topics will be
• what characterised the literature
• what were the underpinning assumptions and theories
• to what extent were the debates and assumptions a product of influences, external to Australian academic industrial relations?
^ There has been remarkably httle discussion in Austraha about the differences between industrial relations and labour economics. Molhuysen (1975) argued there were vast differences with industrial relations best seen as an inferior subset of laboiir economics, but his challenge was not taken up. Despite it provocative title, Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, (edited by Kerr and Staudohar, 1994) makes almost no mention of the hrUss and differences between the two fields. 251 By exploring these most common areas of study it may be possible to identify the major attributes and influences shaping industrial relations. The first sub-topic is by far the largest, both in terms of numbers of articles, and also in terms of the vehemence of the debate. In part this was because of the perceived peculiarity of the formal system in Australia, especiaUy by the British and American academics, whom Australian scholars held in high esteem.
Collective bargaining v arbitration
As noted in earlier chapters, the doubts held by practitioners and policy makers about the efficacy of Australia's unusual 'compulsory arbitration' system flowed over into scholarly debates. These had been most evident in the articles in international journals in the 1950s, (e.g. Laffer, 1958, Isaac, 1958) and had continued, albeit at a lesser rate in the 1960s, between Laffer, (1962) Isaac (1962), Kirby (1962, 1965) and Hancock (1966). In the 1970s the issue gained momentum with increasing economic volatUity on the one hand, and a shift in economic thought on the other, (see e.g. Fisher, 1972; Dufty, 1979; Isaac, 1974; McLelland, 1976; Niland, 1976b; Donn, 1976; Crawshaw, 1976; Cupper, 1976b, 1977; McCarry, 1977; Fristacky, 1976, 1977) In all there were over eighty articles in the Journal of Industrial Relations in the 1970s and 1980s which wholly or partly dealt with the collective bargaining v. arbitration debate. The clearest exposition for collective bargaining in the 1970s and 1980s came from John Niland (For many the case for or against arbitration was self-evident and was assumed. See also inter alia Beattie, 1979; Buckley, 1971; Chambers, 1970, Kfrby, M., 1977; Moore, 1973; De Vyver, 1970).
252 Niland was a graduate of the first industrial relations intake to Bachelor of Commerce (Industrial Relations) at the University of NSW. After graduate study in economics and industrial relations in the USA, NUand returned to Australia in the early 1970s, where he initially taught economics at the ANU, particularly human capital theory which he believed was virtuaUy unknown in Australia at the time and which he saw as having immense potential for economic analysis. (Niland, Interview, 1997) In 1974 the UNSW advertised for a Professor of Labour Economics / Industrial Relations for which Niland successfully applied, becoming the first professor in industrial relations at Australia. Niland's publications have covered aspects of labour economics (manpower) and industrial relations.
For Niland, the successful industrial relations system is one which achieves order and stability in industry, through market interactions of employers and employees who are represented by unions. The intervention of a thfrd party in this respect is undesirable, for numerous reasons related to legalism, competition, joint goal setting, and the worth of a 'trade-off mentahty apparent in coUective bargaining. Thus for Niland any system which permits 'compulsory arbitration' has no redeeming features. It is worth exploring Niland's approach more closely because of his high degree of influence within industrial relations and in the business and industrial relations community in the 1970s and 1980s. Moreover, NUand's arguments in the collective bargaining v. arbitration debates, were the most complete, whereas other detractors of the system tended to take one or few aspects of arbitration as problematic in the industrial relations system, ^i
^^ In this section "industrial relations system" is used to describe the 'concrete system' as it operated in Austraha. This can be distingmshed from the abstract notion of an industrial relations system first described by John T Diuilop (1948, 1958) as a means of providing industrial relations with an integrating, analytical framework. As Wood et al. (1975) have noted there have been some difficiUties in unpacking the operational concept from the theoretical concept. Nevertheless in what foUows are references to the formal pubhc system as it operated in Austraha during the period under discussion. 253 For scholars such as Walker, Laffer and Isaac, an effective industrial relations system should also serve the pubhc interest by restraining excessive wage growth, as well as preserve a degree of eqtiity for the poorly represented workers. From Niland's perspective, the principles of comparative wage justice and flow-ons which had become inherent processes within the arbitration system increased rather than decreased the hkelihood of excessive wage growth. Moreover, from Niland's perspective the role of the arbitration system in setting minimum wages was inappropriate and inefficient. He averred the need for taking cognisance of equity as an ideal in terms of the public interest, but argued that the arbitration system was inappropriate for at least two reasons. First, he deplored the concept of the basic or living wage on the grounds that "there is no reason that any given worker's economic worth to an employer is related to the number of dependants of a typical worker". (Niland, 1976). Secondly, he argued that social aspects of wage determination such as minimum wages, annual leave and long service leave were more appropriately the province of government, rather than the industrial relations system.
For Niland then, collective bargaining provided more effective regulation of industrial conflict, and achieved more effective outcomes. This was because those involved in the bargaining would be more responsible because they, rather than a thfrd party, determined the outcomes. In this respect 'ownership' of the bargaining process meant that the parties worked towards an agreement that they would stand by. By the same token bargaining without 'the chilling effect' of arbitration would also ensure that trade-offs and compromises were more carefuUy thought through.
In all of this Niland assumed that the parties operated from "reasonably even power bases", in which power was defined as the "abihty to determine unilateraUy the terms and conditions of work". The notion of'countervaihng' 254 power was widely accepted during these years, (Galbraith, 1956), and NUand's significance rested not only in his wide-ranging pubhcations, but also on his editorship of the Journal of Industrial Relations for over a decade. From the mid-1970s to late 1980s Niland was also assiduous in obtaining research funding from a wide range of sources, and, unhke most other industrial relations academics., he unstintingly purveyed his scholarship in public fora, during his years as an industrial relations academic.42 jn this respect Niland promoted his commitment to coUective bargaining most practically through a prestigious and long term series of Negotiation Training Workshops. More than any other academic he reflected C. Wright Mills new American academic who had
a new sort of career, dffferent from that of the old-fashioned professor, has become available: the career of 'the new entrepreneur'. This type of man ... is able to further his career in the university by securing prestige ... outside it. Above aU he is able to set up on campus a respectably financed institute that brings the academic community into live contact with men of affairs - thus often becoming a leader in university affairs among his more cloistered colleagues. (C. Wright Mills 1949 cited by Hyman, 1989)
Wrights MUls' delineation is a remarkably apt description of NUand's efforts in the 1970s and 1980s. What Mills omits is that academic entrepreneurs such as Niland not only bring prestige in the business community but also, through their commitments to practical policy, their writings tend to be accessible and widely read. Thus NUand's promulgation of the anti- arbitration signal, gained rather greater weight, than the more cautious and considered work of Laffer or Isaac.
^ Kingsley Laffer, BiU Howard, Kevin Hince, Joe Isaac, and Keith Hancock entered the pubhc arena at times, as did BUI Ford, albeit in the wider context of the debates over the employment relationship. 255 In terms of Niland's scholarship several further points are worth noting. Ffrst his public focus tended to make his writings prescriptive rather than analytical. Because Niland was so vehemently committed to coUective bargaining he would even include contrary assertions as part of his evidence. For example, in claiming that Australian unions were overly committed to maintaining union density, a weakness he attributed to the presence of arbitration, Niland cites Wielgosz (1974) which showed that the finances of unions depended almost solely on membership fees.
More fundamentally, Niland's preference for collective bargaining derived in large part from a distaste for the law. Such distaste was expressed on the basis of three assumptions - a view that legalism was undesfrable, a view that the law should be a place of last resort, and a belief that the law limited business flexibility. His claims of legalism, although largely reflected in the trappings of the law, rather than legal processes, were not strongly founded, and depended on assertions of nineteenth centiu-y statesmen such as Kingston. What was notable in Niland's distaste for legahsm was that he objected to legal processes, which he saw as overly concerned with due process, rather than the more ad hoc, and therefore more flexible, collective bargaining. The preference for less process is also evident in his assertion that the law should be a place of last resort - it was not that NUand rejected the rule of law completely, but rather that in his view that Common Law is a sufficient resort of the industrial relations parties. The third objection to the law was that it rested on historical precedence. In this respect Niland saw as the law as
a guardian against change, whereas an approach that accommodates and facilitates change is needed in industrial relations dispute resolution (Niland 1978, p.77)
256 This last assertion encapsulates one of two paradoxes which flow on from the pro-collective bargaining view. That is, that whUe the law in general, and the arbitration system in particular, are portrayed as rigid and reinforcing the status quo, Niland's further objection to the arbitration system rested on its changeling form, which had enhanced or ensured its continuation. For Niland, such changeabUity of the system was however, evidence only of the successful attempts of the arbitrators and concUiators in achieving security for themselves and the system. The second paradox rests on the publicness of rulemaking processes in the arbitration system. Most processes were open and also recorded for the public record. As noted earlier, the Commonwealth Arbitration Reports and their state equivalents have indeed formed the basis of a great deal of Australian industrial relations research, and by their ready availability may have encouraged scholars towards such research.43 For the anti-arbitration lobby, one of the strengths of coUective bargaining was that it should be private, since its outcomes were the concerns only ofthe employer and the relevant union at the workplace. It is not that Niland rejected all government intervention - minimum wage legislation and legislation which allowed and enhanced collective bargaining were essential. Rather what NUand intended was that once begun, collective bargaining should be able to progress without interference.
In this and other respects, Niland inveighed consistently against arbitration drawing often on older hterature from the 1950s debates. Thus for example he cites Isaac's 1958 critique of arbitration, rather than the softer hne that Isaac took from the mid-1970s when he promoted the mixed arbitration and collective bargaining system, (Isaac, 1974) What critics, including himseff.
^ See in particular Fisher 1980 and Dabscheck 1985, 1989. That scholars perceived decisions as reflecting what actuaUy occurred is, of course, problematic. 257 had ignored, argued Isaac, was the adaptabihty of the system, so that Isaac correctly foresaw "the continuing need for arbitration, [but] it was not the kind of arbitration operating in the 1950s" (Isaac 1974, p.4)
Because the concihation and arbitration system was seen as the core of the Austrahan system, and because of the continuing volatihty of the economy, the focus on the arbitration system continued throughout the early 1980s. The debates received a further fillip with the announcement of a major inquiry into Australian industrial relations law and systems.
Niland again led the charge as joint convenor with economist Richard Blandy, of an invited conference attended by 44 men and two women (Burgmann and Compton). About a third of the participants were academics, (including a strong contingent of economists), a quarter were employers, and the remainder were from tribunals, the Inquiry itself, or from unions. The objectives of Alternatives to Arbitration Conference were to focus on the need for change, and emphatically "not a celebration of arbitration". The Convenors argued there were six major areas for consideration,
• The effect of arbitration on the extent and pattern of industrial disputation
• Innovation. "Does the arbitration system contribute to the inferior performance in innovation and technological change in Austraha?" (Blandy and NUand 1986, p.3)
• Competitiveness. Why has Austraha's competitive position changed adversely in a world context? Is there any reason to believe that the arbitration system has made a difference in this regard?
• The effects of macro industrial structures on micro enterprises.
258 • Unemployment and redundancy
• How arbitration undermines personnel relations. "Has arbitration created a focus on the role of trade unions ... to a degree which neglected the role of management ... in the workplace? Has organisational efficiency and dynamism been undermined by such a focus?" (Blandy and NUand, 1986, p4)
Given the carefully chosen questions and participants, and the avowed commitment to changing the system, it is not surprising that the Convenors could claim that the major outcomes of the conference were recommendations to the Hancock Inquiry for major change in the then tribunal system, and toward greater flexibUity and an enterprise focus. In the event the Hancock Inquiry Committee's Report recommended rather fewer changes than had been proposed at the Alternatives to Arbitration conference.
In response, Niland commissioned twelve articles for a special issue of the Journal of Industrial Relations responding to the Report. Eight of the twelve articles were from those who had presented papers at the Alternatives Conference, while a ninth was written by representatives from the Confederation of Western Australian Industry, who had previously published a highly critical paper on the arbitration system in the Australian Bulletin of Labour (Brown and Rowe, 1983, 1985). While some articles in the special issue of the Journal of Industrial Relations were lukewarm or focused on a narrow issue, several articles were vehemently critical, particularly those from employer organisations (Alien, 1985; although Noakes, 1985 was less critical). The academic comment was rather more mixed, and ranged from the graciously damning, (Blandy, 1985) to the mUd, such as Davis and Lansbury (1985) and Rawson (1985). These however,
259 were not academic papers, but rather commissioned commentaries on a recently published report. What was more notable for this project was the editor's choice of commentators, and the influences such editorial choices may have on the nature and dfrection of a disciphne, not only about the formal system, but also purveying views of other parties. The last word on the Hancock Report commentaries came from senior employer association representative, Bryan Noakes, who made the somewhat prophetic remark in the Journal of Industrial Relations that
Until the Australian workforce is significantly de-unionised or the basis of trade union organisation is changed, decentralisation will not occur. (Noakes, 1985, p.467)
That this section is longer than the next three sub-topic areas reflects the importance of the tribunals for many scholars and the complexity of industrial relations in the years when the mainstream was being established. It is worth noting here that disciplines may be shaped or redirected by purposive actions of senior scholars. NUand, the premier professor of industrial relations and the editor of the journal, was deeply committed to the American model of trade unionism and coUective bargaining, and his industrial relations research was dfrected to this purpose. (NUand, 1976a, 1976b, 1989)
There were two other evident influences on his attempts to re-dfrect industrial relations. The first was his view of the intellectual superiority of neo-classical economics (Niland, Interview, 1997). Like economist Clark Kerr, (Kerr, 1994) Niland saw himself as a revisionist neoclassical, where trade unions, like firms, have multiple sources of authority and multiple
260 effects on laboiu* markets and wages.44 As neoclassical economists, Kerr and NUand also gave a high rating to the power of trade unions, and hence thefr equality in collective bargaining. Kerr, indeed, "argued strongly for the protection of individual rights and freedoms in a world of powerfiU organisations" (Kerr, 1994, p.94) The second major influence apparent in Niland's efforts to re-direct Australian industrial relations scholarship was his practitioner orientation, evident in his Green Paper, (NUand 1989) in his prestigious negotiation courses, and in his close hnks with business. WhUe NUand was a consistent promoter of academic industrial relations and a supporter of novice scholars, his view of industrial relations was as a pohcy science which should have strong practical applications. Although NUand's influence on scholarship was less successful than he hoped, his influence on industrial relations policy was one of the most significant of all industrial relations academics.45
Trade unions
It is not surprising that a high proportion of Journal of Industrial Relations articles should cover trade unions and strikes. As was shown in Chapter Three, one of the foundations of industrial relations practice and scholarship was the labour problem, as manifested in workers' collectivities. Moreover, as has been shown in the study of texts and courses, there was a narrowing of scholarship in the 1970s toward taking the pubhc industrial relations
44 For Kerr, John Dunlop was the foundation source of influence, begiiming in 1938 with (in Kerr's view) DurUop's successful chaUenge of Kejnies' wage theory. (Kerr, 1994) NUand had rather less admiration for Dunlop, and saw Gary Becker as a central influence. (Niland, Interview, 1998) 45 Other scholars who had major influence on macro and micro industrial relations poUcy before the 1990s have included BUI Ford, Joe Isaac, and Keith Hancock. Les Cupper, formerly of Melbourne Uruversity was tireless and effective in 'operationahsing' the Employment Contracts Act in New Zealand, although his most important Austrahan research had been directed to employee participation initiatives at Dynavac. (Cupper, 1976, 1979) 261 system as the central point of focus. Within that formal system of rulemaking, trade unions were a central element, if not the most central element. This was because the tribunal system, the natiu-e of agreement making, and concerns over industrial confhct and industrial action, aU depended on workers obtaining bargaining power through thefr capacity for collective action.
Although studying trade unions was not quite so central to academic industrial relations scholarship in Australia as it was in the USA, unions nevertheless comprised a significant section ofthe hterature. Moreover with high union participation rates and an increasingly articulate ACTU from the mid-1970s, there was significant public and scholarly attention to unionism in this period. Noakes' comment above reveals how far unions were a central area of concern for some economists, the business lobby, and their ideologues, particularly given the increasing intervention in the employment relationship through Occupational Health and Safety and Anti discrimination legislation, and increased levels of industrial action in the 1970s.46 While strike levels fell in the 1980s, the apparent cohesion of the union movement through the Accord years generated concerns among some employers and business oriented 'think-tanks'.
There were at least sixty articles dealing with Austrahan unions and unionism in the Journal of Industrial Relations between 1975 and 1990, covering a very large range of issues of scholarly concern. Of these most dealt with state regulation of trade union activities, the membership of unions, particularly with regard to specific populations (migrants, women) or
4^ See also the survey articles in the Journal of Industrial Relations on "Employer Matters" in most March issues. Concerns about the "trade unions exercising the dominant power" (Spicer, 1977) were orUy exceeded by concerns over wage levels. Barring very few exceptions (e.g. Plowman, 1986) the "Employer Matters" were written by practitioners, imlike the trade vmion surveys which were generaUy written by academics. See especiaUy Spicer, 1976, and Lane, 1984 262 occupations, the role of union officials and union democracy, and trade union structure. The study of trade unions thus differed somewhat from the 'coUective bargaining versus arbitration' debates insofar as analysis was more broadly based and generally made greater use of theoretical underpinnings. Without the simplifying notions of the 'coUective bargaining versus arbitration' debates, the study of trade unions was rather more eclectic, although the underpinning institutional 'plurahst' assumptions remained the same. In style the studies ranged from the scholarly caution of Rawson47 and Martin48 to the more robust argumentation of GuiUe49 and Hince^. In between, the work of Griffin^i, Rimmer and Davis52 ^as thorough but less cautious than that of the older scholars. In general scholars tended to cite both the American scholars of the labour movement, notably Hoxie, (1915) Commons (1919) and S. Perlman (1928), but drew rather more on the British studies by the Webbs, (1897, 1902) Flanders (1966) and Clegg (1970, 1976) The preference for the British scholars perhaps partly reflected the British / Irish origins of Rimmer, Griffin, and Davis and British 'craft' training of scholars like Griffin, Rimmer, Bray and Davis. Another important factor, as was noted in discussing the choice of
47 See e.g. Rawson, 1958, 1962, 1981a, 1982a, 1986. 48 As weU as Martin 1975, 1979, Ross Martin wrote assessments of the ACTU Congress from 1965 to 1979 for the Journal of Industrial Relations. Curiously Ross Martin, whUe a major contributor to industrial relations hterature through his work on trade unions and his ACTU reports never saw himself as an industrial relations scholar, and has been rarely cited as such by industrial relations scholars. Given the frequency with which his pubhcations have been cited and the fact that his work was characterised by aU the mainstream attributes the curiosity of this elision highhghts how seK-attribution can be an important factor. Both Martin and Rawson had obtained pohtics PhD's in Austraha, but there were few other simUarities. (Rawson Interview, 1997, Martin, Interview, 1997). 4^ Howard GUI took the name of his forebears, GuUle, dviring the 1980s. Where he is referred to in a general sense, the latter name wiU be used. ^ See e.g., Hince, 1965, 1967, 1974, 1980, and Hmce and WUliams, 1987a, 1987b. It is also worth noting that the commorUy rephcated diagram of the DuiUop systems (Plowman Deery and Fisher, 1981, p.14 of PDF) was designed by Hince. ^^ See e.g. Grfffin 1982, 1983 and Griffin and Teicher, 1983 for examples of the ways that teaching can foUow research. ^2 See e.g. Davis, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1986., and Davis and Lansbury, 1986 for broader issues 263 Dunlop over Donovan earher in Chapter Five, was that Austrahan academics saw the British scholarship as taking account of a more complex array of factors. While the British mainstream studies were not generally seen as appropriate for teaching, some scholars, including the American trained Bill Howard claimed that British theory aUowed for more rigorous analysis.53
The contested legitimacy of trade unions had long led scholars to explain and justify unions' form, methods and purpose, (see e.g. Clegg, 1976; Flanders, 1970; Martin, 1989; Rawson, 1978, 1981a, 1982a; Rimmer, 1981) The rights of trade unions to exist was rarely questioned in the literature, but what they could or should do was implied or explicated. However, the fact that assumptions were left implicit, together with the broad array of topics within the union literature, make systematic study of the literature on unions, difficult. This is particularly so, since the objective is not a comprehensive study, but rather a brief investigation of what constituted and influenced the mainstream of industrial relations scholarship. One way of categorising scholarly investigation of trade unions is to discover what was the object of the scholars' attention. For example an internal / external categorisation can be made, referring to whether the object of study was the internal aspects of unionism or its 'external' actions and interactions with employers, tribunals, or other unions.
Other areas of the literature dealt with unions as organisations and examined their internal structure, membership patterns, and democratic processes. Such studies investigated questions of who participated in the government of unions, particularly how far the rank and file membership
^ The scholars who were originaUy from Britain or who obtained some of their graduate education from Britain did not limit their theoretical sources to British scholarship, but drew also on Durkheim (1933), and Weber (1947, 1968). 264 were involved in decision-making procedures. Often the studies would draw on British scholarship, (Flanders, Clegg, Hyman), but an important source was Robert Michels, (1962) who is among the best-known non-Anglophone scholars in Australian scholarship. His "Iron Law of Ohgarchy" asserted, inter alia, that officials in any organisation will eventuaUy seek their own survival in senior positions, rather than serve the organisation. Scholars such as Quinlan, Callus and Davis sought to rebut Michels, 54 sometimes specifically, (Callus, 1986) at other times by inference. (Hearn, 1976) Thus, many internal Australian trade union studies focused on particular subgroups such women or migrants, (e.g. Hearn, 1976, Quinlan, 1979; Turtle et al., 1984) or occupational groups (e.g. Laffer, 1976; Lansbury, 1976, 1977; Griffin, 1983;) while others were anxious to demonstrate or promote democratic structures and processes, sometimes as if democracy was a central objective of unions. (Davis, 1981, Sheridan, 1979; Fafrbrother, 1986) The underlying characteristic of these studies, then was that they were reformist, insofar as they sought to 'civilise trade unions' just as they sought to show that trade unions 'civilised' society. For these writers, trade unions were required to be more democratic, more sensitive, and less bureaucratic, than other institutions. Such ideals partly reflected a moral concern for democracy or the needs of particular sub-groups. However, more evident in the internal union scholarship was a Durkheimian concern to present unions as organisations which were or should be democratic and effectively representing their members' needs.^s If they were not then it was for
54 Often the cited reference is not Michels' (1962) Political Parties, but rather Hyman's (1971) pamphlet attacking Michels and demonstrating the capacity of rank and file to ensure democracy. Not the least bit surprisingly, there have been few, ff any, studies of Michels' "Iron Law ..." with reference to employer associations. 55 Such an approach is obviously not limited to the 1970s and 1980s in Austraha. The Webbs who are frequently cited in Australian studies of trade vmions had said in 1902, that "The Trade Union world has thus many of the elements of a fuUy formed Democratic state - an extensive popiUation, universal suffrage, a large proportion of active citizens, 265 reasons outside their control, because of "other pressing industrial and political problems" (Quinlan, 1979 p.280) or because migrants had no experience of unions.
The 'external' union literature in the Journal of Industrial Relations, that which dealt with trade unions in broad perspective, was smaller than the internal literature, and even more eclectic. A concern for the pubhc image of trade unions had led Dufty, (1981) and Davis (1979) to research pubhc opinions about the approval ratings, and the rights and responsibUities of unions. Postal surveys and interviews were used in these projects, with analysis drawing mainly on descriptive statistics.
Most of the rest of the external literature dealt with the links between the law and trade unions (Bray, 1980; Rawson, 1981) or trade union structure. (Rimmer, 1981) Concerns over trade union structure were often explored; that is the broad shape of Australian unions, especially the time-honoured argument of 'too many unions' which were increasingly expressed by business in the 1980s. Scholars took up these concerns, but generaUy sought to explain the difficulties of amalgamation or numbers of unions by drawing on industrial relations history and labour's origins, to refute or evade claims that reductions in the number of trade unions should reflect business demands. (Gill, 1979; Guille and Griffin, 1981). There was a thus reformist element to many of these investigations, which to some extent utUised or built upon the close links between scholars and the union movement in the 1980s. In this respect the Accords became important not only as innovative and adaptive union-government hnks, but as evolving processes which required uncovering.
and a class of salaried officials working luider representative committees ..." (S. & B. Webb, 1902, p.464) 266 FinaUy, among the articles which dealt with trade unions, there were several which sought to investigate Australian trade unions in light of labour movement theory from overseas. (Rimmer, 1981; Dufty, 1976a) Most notable of these was the article in 1977 by BUI Howard. (Howard, 1977) The article is worth a closer survey because it was widely pubhshed and remained one of the more widely cited articles.56 Drawing on American labour movements theorists and V. I Lenin, Howard argued that Austrahan trade unions, unlike those in other OECD-type countries, depended on the arbitration system for their existence and continuation. The basis for Howard's assumptions rested particularly on Perlman's notions of economism as the fundamental basis for trade unionism. For Howard, the 'typical trade union ' arose out of the need of workers to develop job rules in order to strengthen workers' job control and access to jobs. Fundamental to these assumptions about appropriate trade union roles, was the separateness of trade unions from business and the State. From Howard's perspective, the Australian trade unions re-commenced, (after near total destruction in the 1890s strikes) only because of the requirements of the conciliation and arbitration system. At the same time the union movement developed its political arm, the Australian Labor Party, and let some of its core functions move from the industrial wing to the political wing. As a result, Howard argued, unlike t5T)ical unions elsewhere, Australian unions were merely, "cogs in a bureaucratic machine" (Howard, 1977, p.272), dependent on the tribunal system and the political arm of labour for thefr existence.
5^ Howard was a scholar of long standing who advanced on his original economics training with a doctorate from Cornell in the 1960s. He began teaching at Monash in 1972, working to complement Isaac's close attention to tribunals, with an emphasis on imions and the labour movement. His publications covered unions, productivity bargaining, teaching, and centralism in the industrial system. In 1984 he edited a coUection of essays in honour of Kingsley Laffer, whom, despite their differences, he admired greatly. (See Howard, 1973, 1977, 1978,1984; Riach and Howard, 1973) 267 While its assumptions and logic have been contested, (Markey, 1985; Markey and Adams, 1997)5? Howard's article has been influential and its conclusions have rarely been doubted. Certainly it formed part of the mainstream. The article was reprinted in the basic texts (Ford, Hearn and Lansbury, 1980, pp,78-99) and became part of the invisible mainstream, that is those ideas considered so inherent to the field of study that they were part of the unquestioned fabric of the intellectual domain.58
For Howard, as for Niland, the trade union movement in Australia only existed through the support of the concUiation and arbitration system. Moreover, unions paid too much attention to broad 'political' issues instead of bargaining for their particular members. 59 Two further comments are relevant here. Despite its wide acceptance, the article draws on a narrow range of sources and is based on dichotomous analysis in taking an either / or perspective Howard's use of trade union theory accepts the vahdity of either a Leninist theory^o or an amalgam of American theory, which portray unions as political or economic organisations respectively. In so doing Howard neglects the extensive and more complex British analyses. Yet Howard's simplicity and clarity is perhaps one reason why his 'trade union theory' article was readUy accepted. That it also dovetailed later into the 1980s collective bargaining v. arbitration debate and drew on international theories to explain an Austrahan institutional phenomenon also assist in
5'^ See also Sheldon and Thornthwaite 1999 for further clear evidence refuting the dependence of Austrahan institutions on the arbitration system 58 In their analysis criticising measurements of citation as means of understanding a discipline, Dogan and Pahre (1990, pp.37-9) refer to the study by Cole and Cole (1972) which found that taUies of citation were skewed by lack of reference to work which has had such a deep impact on the field that the ideas have become part of the accepted paradigm and exphcit citation is not considered necessary" 59 It seems likely that such assumptions were made about employer associations. See e.g. Plowman and Rimmer, 1992. ^ It is worth remembering here that Howard draws on Lenin's theory before the faUed revolution. His later theories were less accepting of the pohtical potential of trade unions. 268 explaining why the article maintained credibUity. The importance of international theories was also important to the industrial conflict hterature which is the subject ofthe next section.
Strikes / Industrial Conflict
Journalese runs rampant, for just as aU brides are radiant, aU strikes are crippling. (MacDonald, 1979, 499)
Industrial conflict is an area of study which highlights the problem of a lack of concern for methodology among industrial relations scholars in the 1970s and 1980s. Industrial conflict is a slippery term with multiple meanings. It is used to describe a technical and fundamental attribute of employment relationships - the competing tensions between the employers and the employees. 'Industrial conflict' is also the term given to mean the behaviours manifested or expressed as a result of these inherent tensions. As Bucklow had explained in 1964
The extent of the manffestations ... varies within very wide hmits, from open strife to good long term accommodation between divergent interests; [but] in all industrial situations there are at the same time elements of co-operation and elements of conflict. It is then the purpose of the systematic study of industrial relations to attempt to understand the functioning of these basic relations in aU their manffestations, both harmonious and conflictual. (Bucklow, 1964, p.204)
Like Bucklow, Ford and Hearn (1980) and others (see e.g. Marsh and Evans, 1973) have argued, industrial conflict is a term which refers to a complex concept, based on competing goals between employers and employees in a 269 capitalist society. Yet the ambiguity of the term while widely recognised but not rigorously explored within the mainstream academic industrial relations in Australia in the 1970s and 1980s.
Thus, in contrast with Bucklow, most scholars ofthe 1970s and 1980s tended to use the term industrial conflict to mean strikes. This was not simply an Austrahan characteristic. Flanders (1968, p.20) refers to prolonged industrial conflict when referring to the 1926 General Strike, while Kerr (1954) noting the multiple meanings, asserts that since conflict is opposed to peace, the manifestations of industrial conflict, such as strikes, are therefore problematic. Nevertheless, much of the literature on claiming to be about industrial conflict, is about strikes or purposive forms of industrial action.^i
Inherent in industrial relations literature until the 1990s, is the assumption that at its core industrial relations is about the labour problem, and that industrial action of whatever sort was the archetypal manifestation of the labour problem. There were 25 or more articles in the Journal of Industrial Relations^^ which dealt directly with strikes between the mid-1970s and 1988.
What differentiates a number of articles in this category is that they sought to analyse strikes in terms of workplace culture or the disjuncture between workplace culture and the institutional system of industrial relations. (Frenkel, 1978; Edwards, 1979) While the links between the pursuit of industrial peace, (i.e. no strikes) and the economic notion of equUibrium
^^ For example. Plowman's (1992) bibliography of Journal of Industrial Relations articles used separate headings for industrial confhct and strikes. Yet four of the eight articles in the 'industrial conflict' section dealt with aspects of strikes, such as dispute data or strikes and the stockpUe thesis. ^2 For example, this counting excludes, case studies such as Beaumont's (1975) investigation of the NSW coal industry, Lang (1986) on the stockpUe thesis and Kambalda, and McCoU's (1980) study of the mass media portrayal of a South Austrahan meat industry dispute, as weU as case studies which take the causes of industrial peace as their focus. 270 deserve much closer analysis, it is worth notmg, once again, that industrial peace was for many a primary objective of industrial relations analysis, because it was a primary concern of business and government. Good industrial relations meant the absence of overt confhct.
In this respect, the language of industrial relations also reflected a conflation of abstract concepts, formal processes of interaction and actual outcomes. (Ford and Hearn, 1980) This was most evident in conflict where the terms industrial disputes, strikes and industrial conflict were used interchangeably, as if they dealt with the same concept.
Not all scholars foresaw the possibility of a total ehmination of strikes. Niland for example acceded to the inevitability of strikes. However, he adjudged that numerous short strikes (which characterised the Austrahan system) were less preferable than the longer strikes that could only occur when an agreement was being negotiated under both the US system and his then proposed enterprise focus model. This normative approach, which evaluates strikes on their length or timing sits oddly with NUand's determinedly positivist approach. Indeed what is interesting in studies of strikes is the prevalence of normative approaches taken by the positivist analysts when dealing with strikes. In Niland's case, whUe his approach to strikes was inconsistent with his other research, such inconsistency is perhaps explainable through his overriding concern with the unsuitabihty of the concUiation and arbitration system.
These issues also return the debate to reflections on the abiding concern with the labour problem as a central but implicit foundational imperative of much industrial relations scholarship of the time. NUand's inconsistencies also raise again issues of methodology, particularly the vahdity of the normative / positive differentiation. For scholars such as NUand and
271 Dunlop, the normative must be resisted completely, yet thefr positivism depended on normative assumptions about industrial harmony or at worst predictable disequUibrium, accepting the case that a strike free envfronment is a proxy for harmony and equUibrium for workers and thefr managers.
By contrast Frenkel's (1978; 1980) studies of strikes and other expressions of industrial conflict attempted to offer a theoretical interpretation of strikes which also offered a practical alternative to what Frenkel saw as traditional conceptions of strikes. Thus the continuing search for order is stiU evident in Frenkel's (1978) Pilbara study,
from a purely industrial relations standpoint the high incidence of strikes suggest that the institutions and procedures for regulating industrial conflict are defective and in need of reform ... based on a perspective whose focus is not simply the frequency or intensity of strikes, but one which is concerned with the wider pattern of industrial conflict. (Frenkel, 1978, p.390)
In so doing, Frenkel examines the pattern of strikes using a taxonomy simUar to Clegg's model of collective bargaining, in examining strikes in terms of their frequency, size, dimensions, organisational scope, duration, form and issues. What Frenkel is proposing is the British model of negotiated order as an alternative to the extreme 'ideal tj^Des' of unitarism or Industrial Justice view of employers on the one hand, and the Labour Rights view held by unions on the other, in which "conciliation cannot generally be achieved except through the use of industrial muscle". Like Niland, Frenkel questions the value of third parties in a Negotiated Order model. Like Niland too, Frenkel's analysis in this paper rests on the assumption that "bargaining power is seen to be reasonably equally distributed and due care is exercised in its use ..". (p.393). In this respect, it is worth noting once
272 again, that strong doubts about arbitration system in part may have reflected the quasi-laissez-fafre systems in both USA and UK. (see also Brown et al, 1978)
Other analysts writing on industrial conflict in the Journal of Industrial Relations in the 1970s and 1980s sought to investigate strikes or lockouts in order to understand the 'disease' from its manifestations. In contrast to the preference for case studies in academic industrial relations, many of these examined number, incidence or industry propensity to strike with an objective of identifying the ways of hmiting, redirecting or preventing collective employee action. Although, unhke in earlier decades, the spectre of communism was not raised as a possible factor enhancing industrial action, there were earnest attempts to identify objectively causes of 'militancy', itself a value laden term. (See e.g. Teicher, 1984, Bentley and Hughes, 1971; Creigh and Wooden, 1985; Beggs and Chapman, 1987). It is worth noting that many of these analysts were avowedly economists, and viewed industrial relations in its narrowest sense. Their view of industrial conflict as dysfunctional disequilibrium is evident. Such assumptions attest to the failure of industrial relations academics to convey the nature of their discipline even to those in nearby disciplines.
For the industrial relations scholars, the opposing objectives of employers and employees was axiomatic, but it was a necessary but not sufficient attribute of employment. Analysis therefore needed to take account of more factors than were evident in investigation of aggregate strike rates. The acknowledgment of inherent conflict, far from precluding cooperation and consensus in industrial relations analysis, led to concerns with attainment of cooperative production and industrial peace. Thus even conservative analysts such as Niland, sought to restructure relationships and reduce the
273 level, scope and content of bargaining in order to deal with the inherent confhct.
Industrial Democracy
In some ways the area of industrial democracy does not quite fit the epoch studied in this chapter. There were nearly thfrty articles dealing with industrial democracy and / or worker participation in the Journal of Industrial Relations from the mid-1970s to the later 1980s, but most were published earlier in this period. Like other mainstream topics, the issue of industrial democracy followed broader pubhc interest, in this case derived in part from the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, and in part from the apparent success of European models of codetermination. (see e.g. Szakats, 1974, Wood, 1978, pp.30-186) There were strong initiatives in State and Federal government departments, and the South Australian initiative, in particular drew a range of comment. (Wood, 1978; Anderson, 1977; see also Paunz and Patton, 1977) By the mid-1980s, however, much of the study of industrial democracy had faded despite an early rush of enthusiasm by the new Labor federal government which might have re-ignited debates. (D.E.I.R., 1985) Vestiges of the debates could be found in a flurry of studies of technological change in the mid-1980s. (Markey, 1988; Deery, 1982; Griffin, 1982;) In the main industrial democracy had passed into the softer realms of worker participation, as industrial relations scholars turned to new and seemingly more potent issues.
The industrial democracy debates appear a curious anomaly, for several reasons. Yet the number of articles, and the inclusion of chapters on industrial democracy in a major textbook, (Deery and Plowman, 1981, pp.357-90) and references in others texts, place the issue squarely in the
274 mainstream. Part of the difficulty in the industrial democracy studies, reflected what employers saw as an 'ideological' aspect, since for most scholars industrial democracy referred to the involvement in enterprise decision making of unions as representatives of employees. These concerns eventually advanced the decline of studies, or a shift toward the much mUder 'employee participation. (Vaughan, 1983)
More importantly there were three ways in which the industrial democracy hterature differed from the much of the rest of the mainstream. First, the notion of industrial democracy called into question, the hierarchical organisation of work. Where pohtical democracy was a fundamental right, the workplace was, as Hyman once noted "a miniature an-democratic state". Thus the investigation of industrial democracy had a more critical, and for some even a subversive, aspect to it. In so doing, scholars such as Vaughan, raised questions about the source and nature of managerial prerogatives, questions which were almost never considered in most of the mainstream literature. However, as Vaughan (1983, pp.322-3) noted whUe 'advocates' attempted "to construct a political-moral justification for participatory decision making", social scientists were bound by more complex rules which might contain normative propositions. Bound by rules of science, social scientists could not take up what was morally justifiable because the rational and empirical evidence was weak.
The second and third attributes of the industrial democracy literature that differentiated the studies from the mainstream, were linked to the locus of study and the use of comparative studies. While later material drew on notions of industrial democracy at the national level (Crean, 1984) most industrial democracy studies were undertaken at the enterprise level, at a time when workplace studies were less common. Often the industrial democracy studies compared practices in those countries where industrial 275 democracy had been effectively implemented. (Haddad, 1975, Lansbury, 1978) Such studies incorporated the pohtico-moral justification, into empirical studies of the overseas countries. What differentiated the analysis from the mainstream then, was that the formal public industrial relations system was not at issue. Rather, scholars were investigating the potential transferability of practices and processes based on workplace and enterprise constraints and opportunities.
Articles dealing with industrial democracy had all but disappeared by mid- 1980s. The reasons for the lack of academic or business take-up of industrial democracy were variously ascribed to "inherent adversariahsm in Austrahan industrial relations", (Elderton, 1984) the lack of strong socialist party, or widespread concern for equality, (Hill, Howard and Lansbury, 1982, p. 190; Davis and Lansbury, 1965) or simply that the case for industrial democracy was badly argued (Vaughan, 1983) Incidentally, it is worth noting that the countries which had implemented industrial democracy were European, such as Germany, Yugoslavia and Scandinavia, but at just the time that the evidence of their success might have been worth following, Austrahan academics had begun to look to the USA. (Kochan et al., 1986)
276 Summary of four major topic areas
Even this brief survey of four major topic areas of research in industrial relations published in the primaiy journal, the Journal of Industrial Relations,^^ has highlighted significant attributes of the mainstream of Australian academic industrial relations. Within the limitations of the topics chosen, the articles published in the Journal reveal consistent attributes of scholarship which tie closely with the industrial relations teaching programmes.
Regardless of the area of focus, the Journal articles for example almost always dealt with the parties, pressures and outcomes of the formal public industrial relations system, and the issues that arose from their interaction. Moreover, scholars took an institutional approach, as against methodological individualism which had regained predominance in economics, and to a lesser extent in politics. In the main scholars were concerned to explore and analyse the surface features of the system and sometimes to convey prescriptive improvements in the functioning of the system or its elements. Thus, the pro-union analysts would identify the civUising aspects of trade unionism or the ways that trade unions could be civilised, that is more democratic, more inclusive of particular groups or less dependent on bureaucracy. Despite the fact that there were many 'givens' in these analyses, multiple factors were generally ascribed to particular problems or issues. The main exception in this respect were scholars like NUand who were attempting to achieve a unidisciplinary focus for industrial relations by
^ Two other journals would reward further analysis. The Australian Bulletin of Labour provided useful surveys on the Austraha labotir market and sigiuficant aspects of labour economics, as weU as articles by industrial relations academics. From the late 1980s, Labour and Industry greatly broadened the pubhshing opportunities for academics writing from an 'industrial relations perspective' but at the margins of mainstream industrial relations. 277 excluding aU but economic issues from analysis and prescribing a narrower role for trade unions.
In these four topics, there were also clear differences to perceptions of power of employees and unions, but hke other abstract concepts such as managerial rights, democracy and issues of coercion and control, these were rarely subjected to thorough-going rational analysis. The one exception to the avoidance of abstract concepts and to the overwhelming attention paid to institutional parties and processes was to be found in the industrial democracy hterature, but by the late 1980s this had been reduced to mild consideration of employee participation schemes.
Conclusion
Academic industrial relations in Austraha in the 1960s and 1970s had covered a wide range of topics, ranging from a close focus on the tribunals through to broad brush analysis of factors which influenced the nature and regulation of work. By the late 1970s there were much more simUar patterns of teaching, which reflected the analysis of the formal public system within a near-Dunlopian analytical framework. As the number of programmes reflecting this pattern grew, so too did the nature of research narrow toward elements in what had become a particularly Austrahan version of Dunlop systems framework, with its British counterparts an acceptable variant.
Mainstream academic industrial relations thus evolved into an object oriented study of formal public industrial relations systems. The somrce was the concept of the labour problem, so that the study of unions, the arbitration system and 'industrial conflict' were central objects of study. In researching all of the elements which were of greatest problem to business, 278 industrial relations academics sought to present the moral and civU ideals which might make these objects more explainable or acceptable to business. In so doing scholars, who despite their increasing seff confidence, were nevertheless still battling for disciplinary independence and seff- determination, were seeking an uncontested inteUectual terrain which was theirs, acknowledgments and validation from their neighbouring disciphnes and acceptance from the students and practitioners of the practical and professional relevance. For scholars such as NUand these multiple and perhaps conflicting demands were accommodated, as long as scholars coiUd follow the tenor of the various stakeholders. For other scholars, the picture was rather more complex and so demanded different responses.
This raises a final point about mainstreams. They can compress a disciphne and marginahse the ideas and analyses which are heterodox. But as Dogan and Pahre (1990) argue, mainstreams can also act as anchors, from which the questing scholar can investigate less known territory. And that is the topic of the next chapter.
279 CHAPTER 7
ACADEMIC INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 1978 TO 1989:
OUTWARDS FROM THE MAINSTREAM
While the presence and characteristics of mainstream industrial relations analysis had become clear by the mid-1980s, (See Chapter Six) some disparity in approaches to teaching and research was also evident. Three particular and interrelated aspects were of concern to academics. These were the narrow focus on the public industrial relations system, the attention to the labour problem over other aspects of the regulation and administration of the employment relationship, and the lack of genuine grand theory. For many scholars these were drawn together by the evident positivism in industrial relations and the lack of investigation of the economic, political and social sub-structures which had profound effects on employment and work. Such developments were not surprising. As Dogan and Pahre (1990, pp.22-3) have noted, once a mainstream or patrimony is established, it acts 'an anchor a point of reference' from which "researchers are propeUed outwards ... [although] ... they do not lose contact with their origins". This was the case with the growing community of industrial relations academics who responded to the confining shape of the mainstream in several ways - broadening teaching, offering miUtiple analytical approaches to industrial relations in texts, directing research toward wider issues or underpinning assumptions, and through the formahsation of the academic community through formation of an academic association. These
280 were not necessarily purposive nor were the attempts at expanding the patrimony clearly accomphshed.
This chapter therefore wiU investigate the ways in which the growing scholarly community sought to broaden the mainstream of industrial relations scholarship. Chronologically it nearly paraUels the previous chapter, but where that was concerned with the centripetal forces on the development of academic industrial relations, this chapter deals with the centrffugal forces, the factors which sought to enhance broadening of academic industrial relations. ^ As with previous chapters, investigation wUl not be limited to the activities of the 'stars', but will include the 'normal science' practised by the great number of academics whose modest contributions constitute the majority of the disciplinary developments. (See e.g. Dogan and Pahre, 1990; Piatt, 1996)
The structure ofthe chapter is as follows. An examination ofthe elements of texts and teaching is undertaken to see how far these were different from the mainstream. In so doing the nature of these differences and extensions is investigated. This is foUowed by a survey of the 'left' scholarship, an investigation of its sources, and its impact on research and teaching within the mainstream, and as a distinct subfield. The foUowing section wUl investigate the linkages between the teaching and research in order to clarify how far these were integrated into the mainstream, or whether they were a recognised heterodoxy. FinaUy, the formation and expansion of the academic association wiU be considered, with particular attention being paid to the ways in which the Association of Academic Industrial Relations of
^ There may be a case for asserting that these ideas constituted a re-broadeiung, since at least some of the efforts of teachers reflected the broad notion of industrial relations, as Laffer first taught it. Such breadth was also evident in the editorial introductions to the first issues of the British Journal of Industrial Relations, and Industrial Relations (Berkeley) 281 Austraha and New Zealand (AIRAANZ) contributed to centripetal and centrffugal forces on the inteUectual domain of industrial relations.
Texts and teaching
As was discussed in previous chapters, the textbooks of the early 1980s closely paralleled and reinforced the emerging mainstream academic industrial relations. Texts covered unions, concihation, arbitration, collective bargaining, and industrial confhct / strikes at various levels, together with the ways that the state influenced these institutions and processes. The unspoken message of the texts was the need to deal with the ways in which labour, particularly as coUectivities, was a problem for business and governments. Collectivities enabled and enlarged overt conflict which stopped production, whereas whUe "covert conflict cannot be ehminated it may be regulated [through] forms of social control". (Dabscheck and Niland, 1981, p.53).
Indeed, from the perspective of one of the authors of a major text, it was the textbooks which gave a clear focus to the precise nature of academic industrial relations. (Plowman, Interview, 1998) It was not that the textbook authors were anti-labour or purposively pro-business. Deery, Ford, and Hearn drew on strong labour-oriented upbringings, while Lansbury and Plowman both claim adherence to social democrat reformist traditions. (Interviews, Deery, 1999, Ford, 1997, Hearn, 1998, Lansbury, 1998, Plowman, 1998, 1999) Rather, in making the issues of the public industrial relations system the central focus, the textbook authors reinforced the study of industrial relations toward that of the labour problem. In discussing this tendency in British industrial relations, which tended toward a reformist
282 tradition, Richard Hyman (1989) has drawn on sociologist, Robert Merton, who argued that
an intelligence staff for one stratum of the business and industrial population may in due course find itseff focusing on problems which are not the chief problems confronting other sectors of that population (Merton 1957, cited in Hyman, 1989 p. 14)
This was the case with much ofthe teaching and texts in industrial relations in Australia. As the 1980s progressed, scholars found themselves researching and teaching 'labour problem' issues related to job regulation and wage determination processes and levels, industrial peace, and the role of unions in society.
Yet the academic teachers and textbook authors demonstrated awareness that the labour problem was neither the only, nor most scientific approach. The early 1980s texts came out of the evidence of need for teaching support for the burgeoning industrial relations programmes. WhUe those texts (Plowman Deery and Fisher, 1981; see also Dabscheck and NUand; 1981) drew on Dunlop's systems approach, later versions (Deery and Plowman, 1985, 1991) cast thefr theoretical net more widely, whUe stiU giving primacy to Dunlop. This perhaps reflects the wide coverage of theories suggested by Ford and Hearn, (1980) but it was also a case where the texts foUowed the teaching, since many subjects were offering multiple approaches by the early 1980s. Even in the early versions, however, the texts offered chapters on theories of conflict or labour movements or plain industrial relations theories. These tended to be relatively slight taxonomies or simply hsts of theories or analytical approaches. Dabscheck and NUand's (1981, pp.83-100) labour movement theories, for example, dealt with four American labour
283 movement theorists, plus Australian Cathohc writers, the Webbs, and Marx and Lenin, the last two in about a page. There was a degree of personal preference in the choices - Niland had a strong distaste for the Webbs - but more importantly the summary interpretation of each theorist's position was stated as ff no other interpretations existed, and without any integrating discussion. This was the case in most texts - a brief interpretative summary of selected theories, perhaps with passing criticism, but no integration between the theories, or between theoretical interpretation and the rest of the text.
In presenting analytical frameworks on industrial relations, teachers and textbook authors drew in large part on Fox's (1966) typology of unitarism and pluralism.2 To these would be added 'radical', meaning Marxist variants and Dunlop's analytical framework. As was evident in Chapter Five, both the Dunlop and Donovan models were each, in some respects, variants of pluralism. However, Dunlop's framework was more schematic, universahst and did not depend on the sovereignty of multiple stakeholders, as did the British model. Rather, in the texts, the pluralism/unitarism categorisation was a broader, vaguer schema based primarUy on perceptions of what employers accept. The notions and debates around plurahsm and unitarism are well known (Bain and Clegg, 1974; Clegg, 1975, Flanders and Fox, 1970; Hyman and Brough, 1975; Marsden, 1982) and the weaknesses of such a simplistic dichotomy are evident. They were not referred to in the original 1980-81 Austrahan texts except in Ford and Hearn's (1980) industrial conflict chapter in the second edition of Ford, Hearn and Lansbury.
In this respect it is worth noting that Fox later rejected the typology, and moreover, shffted his own position from a 'piviralist-labour problem' approach to what some have (mis)-named radical pluralism. (Fox, 1966, cf Fox, 1974, 1985) 284 Indeed, the role of the textbooks as purveying this particular categorisation from the mid-1980s is perhaps the most influential blind aUey in the history of academic industrial relations. This was despite the fact that usuaUy no reference was made to the 'theory' in the remainder of the text. Its long term effects on the development of the disciphne are difficult to identify, but it is evident that the approach of the texts influenced scholarship and the ideas of the graduate professionals, (see e.g. Dabscheck, 1989b) It is not that industrial relations has been alone in this kind of simplistic framework in texts. Piatt (1996, p.65) notes in her historical survey of research methods in sociology that the acceptance of such techniques reflects "a more general intellectual need for simple modes of organising thought by polarities ...". (See also Schachter, 1989) What differentiated the industrial relations 'theory' was that apart from a bare and reshaped Dunlopian framework, it was generally absent in the body of the texts. This represented a lacuna in academic industrial relations sources, especiaUy given the lack of reflectivity over methods.
Even within a 'theory' chapter, the unitarist /pluralist framework was simply a descriptive taxonomy, a means to describe what appeared as the surface features of the objects of study, a means to describe policies and practices which permitted or disallowed plural objectives from employees or employers. At the same time, the rapid changes in economic pohcy and the public industrial relations system occurring throughout the 1980s demanded explanation and analysis, which directed scholars' attention to the matters of the moment. The pluralism / unitarism taxonomy therefore enhanced the hkelihood of descriptive analysis, whUe also emphasising the tendency to analyse industrial relations processes and events in terms of the laboiu- problem.
285 It was the same with the references to Dunlop's systems framework, a framework Dunlop explicitly designated as an analytical framework. Rather, it was a pluralist taxonomy which sought to deal with the labour problem by abstracting the institutions, events and processes in industrial relations from activities in society and the economy. Regardless of whether text book authors eschewed (Dabscheck and Niland, 1981) or utihsed (Deery and Plowman, 1981) the Dunlopian framework, object oriented investigation remained a valid form of knowledge-getting, with 'theories' serving at best to organise research and at worst to provide simphstic and mutuaUy exclusive frames of reference. (See Bray, 1992)
Yet as has been noted previously, industrial relations scholars appeared unwilling to accept narrow models which took little account of multifactorial determinants. Thus, unlike economics for example, industrial relations analysis of wage determination took account of pohtical and social factors, as did trade union analysis. (Brown, 1978b; Provis, 1986; Griffin, 1983) From the perspective of scholars hke Marsden (1982) this led industrial relations academics toward empiricism of the worst kind, concealing ideology whUe grubbing for value-laden facts. Many industrial relations scholars agreed with this assessment, (Ford, 1978; Taylor 1983) yet their continuing commitment to multidisciplinarity, together with driving force of major changes in the public industrial relations system, appeared to act as a barrier to the more thorough-going scholarship that many hoped for. Thus, despite Dabscheck's (1983) strong criticism of Marsden (1982), it is clear from the textbooks that the lip-service to theory in one or two chapters concealed the absence of theory and an imphcit bias toward the labour problem. This implicit bias in the investigation and analytical examination of the formal public industrial relations system was characteristic of mainstream academic industrial relations in Austraha. 286 Yet, there were shadows of other ideas and wider conceptuahsation in the texts. The very fact that the texts contained not only the weak plurahsm / unitarism distinction, but other theoretical and analytical frameworks indicates the doubts felt by the textbook authors, even if not widely articulated.3 It was not that scholars and textbook writers were unaware of the alternative potential paradigms which might inform their analysis, but rather that they could not see how such paradigms could be developed in the analysis of the labour problem, while still retaining academic and practitioner legitimacy. (Winchester, 1983; Bray, 1992) The apparent need for 'balance' in the education of practitioners, or 'objectivity' from neighbouring social sciences, led industrial relations academics, including the textbook authors, to investigate and convey thefr disciphne with a fafr degree of caution.
What strengthened these cautionary pressures were the influence of the Journal of Industrial Relations as the premier disciphnary journal, and the acknowledgment of senior academics of the centrality of the institutional 'labour problem' focus. Nevertheless, there were also several factors influencing the expansion or redirection of the mainstream from the early 1980s. They included the publication of a few 'heterodox' publications, but, perhaps more importantly in the long run, the ACTU shifted its imperatives toward a production or wealth creation objective in the 1980s. As weU, questions over the nature of corporatism as an ideal type, the pubhc debasement of 'plurahsm' by the New Right, and the industrial relations practices of the Reagan and Thatcher governments, led industrial relations
For example, current economics texts almost never include institutionahst or Marxian economics. 287 academics to look beneath the surface of events or re-enter broader areas or reconsider traditional ideas from other perspectives. 4
An abiding catalyst for consideration of these broadening influences was the teaching of industrial relations. For example, it appears as ff industrial relations academics, unwilling to pubhsh a great deal of left-centred material were willing to teach it. (see e.g. Riverina Murray / Charles Sturt University Study Guide; University of Sydney, Industrial Relations I handout, 1977;) There must have been few bachelor graduates who completed their industrial relations majors without a knowledge of Hyman's Strikes, (1975) or Braverman's Labour and Monopoly Capital.^ What differentiated these sources from much industrial relations literature in Australia was that they questioned the sub-structures of the surface phenomena, and in so doing drew scholars' attention to wider or deeper questions regarding the employment relationship. In this respect, there is a certain irony that Hyman's Strikes, for example, was acceptable, because its title fitted with one of the primary issues related to the labour problem, and moreover fitted with the institutional focus of industrial relations research and teaching. This was despite the fact that Hyman (1972, p. 10) asserted his own doubts in making "ritual genuflections in the direction of objectivity". But it was precisely in raising such doubts that Hyman
See for example the debates over appropriate frameworks for analysis of workplace mdustrial relations. (Littler 1988, Littler, Quinlan and Kitay, 1989b; Zappala, 1988b) or the debates over the BCA (1989) visions of enterprise bargaining. (Frenkel and Peetz, 1990a, 1990b) HUmer and McLaughhn, 1990, Drago and Wooden, 1990) Earher Kitay and Powe (1986) and Ewer et al. (1987) examined the Mudginberri dispute and industry pohcy respectively, attempting to draw on a new framework. See also see e.g. Bray and Littler, 1988; Bray and Rimmer, 1986; Deery and MitcheU, 1986; Frenkel, 1987; In this respect it is worth noting that in the very late 1980s and early 1990s, business ideologues and management practitioners referred approvingly to Braverman's conceptualisation of scientific management as they sought to convince employees the advantages of moving from "tayloristic' structure of work to new empowering human resource management modes of organisation. (BCA Bulletin, Kembla Coal and Coke (KCC)) 288 challenged the caution of the Austrahan industrial relations academics and turned them to conceptuahsing beneath the surface features of industrial actions. 6
Braverman's Labour and Monopoly Capital achieved sunUar influence even though it was rather less rigorous. The book is a polemic rather than an outcome of thorough academic research, and almost every aspect has been cast into doubt. As Noon (1991, p.509) has noted, the debate arising from Braverman's treatise "had revealed a formidable catalogue of theoretical deficiencies, methodological crudities and substantive omissions", (see also Wood, 1982; J. Kelly; 1982; Nyland; 1987; Bray and Littler, 1988) However, its presentation of the organisation of work using Marxist labour process analysis was clear, internally consistent and universahst - aU the attributes of good theory. Moreover, its readability, and lack of jargon made it accessible to students. '^
What is notable was the extent and longevity of use of pubhcations such as those by Braverman (1974) and Hyman (1972) in Austrahan teaching programmes. Despite their American and British origins respectively, they were frequently on student reading lists in undergraduate subjects untU the 1990s, and were, for example, included on the lists for Further Reading in the third edition of Australian Industrial Relations. (Deery and Plowman, 1991) This again raises questions about the transferabUity of ideas. Why were sources such as these suggested reading in subjects and texts nearly
Hyman was criticised by scholars in the UK for his claims of taking a Marxist approach, since by separating "industrial relations", he was in fact rejecting an essential aspect of Marxian analysis, that of totality. These debates deserved wider discussion in Australia, but as with much industrial relations scholarship, the influence outside of academic industrial relations, and perhaps the small group imdertaking the studies in the sociology of work, is minimal. Other left or mixed left-right sources were also commonly set reading, including Clark and Clements (1975) and the more mixed Barrett, Rhodes and Beishon, (1980). Fox's counterweight to his earlier forays into pluralism, (Fox, 1966) such as Beyond Contract (Fox 1974) were not suitable for undergraduate reading but were references in Masters courses. 289 twenty years after they were first published? The answer relates partly to thefr accessibUity and universality. They both utihsed particular national examples, but thefr explanations were transferable. Unlike the analyses of national phenomena in most Austrahan academic analysis which sought explain the outward appearance of the events, both Strikes and Labor and Monopoly Capital dealt with substructures from which surface events and phenomena originated. Thus they were transferable precisely because the ideas could be realised, regardless of culture or history and because both took the nature of capitalism as their basis.^ The second reason both books and their ilk remained common reading material was that they appealed to those academics who taught industrial relations but who were wary of the centripetal forces ofthe positivist and narrow approaches ofthe mainstream. This was not an either / or issue, but rather that the nature of industrial research and teaching should at least include the broader and deeper issues raised in these pubhcations.
Nevertheless, the left influences remained primarily at an introductory level and apart from the small literature noted below, appeared to offer little at graduate level. In examining the lack of left influence on scholarship in Britain, Brown (1978, p. 15), noted that while "[s]student essays ooze with ahenation, capitalistic division of labour .... and all the other semantically sticky signal-words of denim sociology. Yet the empirical research output is minimal." For Brown the paucity of empirical left research was in large part a consequence of simplistic perspectives and dependence on concepts that were "slippery to the empirical grasp". It is this commitment of industrial relations academics to 'practicality' and 'empiricism' which for Brown, as for many Austrahan academics, led to the lesser value of left scholarship.
^ It was nearly the same with pubhcations such as Clark and Clements, (1977) and Beynon, (1973) 290 There is a second reason for a centrist approach. This relates to the continuing battle for acceptance from other academics and practitioners. The textbook authors and subject coordinators tended to use a systems framework for organising learning in undergraduate industrial relations, because they were cautious and concerned to seem to appear both relevant and 'objective', just as Hyman had accused them. They were cautious because industrial relations for most people is immediately ideological, yet the demand for social sciences is to appear objective, even at the expense of intellectual integrity. The Australian academics, even if they were aware of the inherent contradictions focussed on the public industrial relations system as a means of seeming relevant and detached. Yet, the inclusion in textbooks and subject handouts of the alternative paradigms reveals a concern that the surface explanations were insufficient. By including these ideas in texts, the authors went part way to legitimating their role as a potential source of research and analysis. Such inclusion takes on greater importance in a new discipline, where the texts contained more 'new' material, than would be found in texts in an older discipline.
Left and reformist research
The Journal of Industrial Relations preference for centrist, mainstream writing, together with the cautious approach taken by textbook writers, meant that 'left' industrial relations scholarship was widely scattered in Australia. Yet as the evidence of subject guides and the general reference to material from Hyman, Braverman, and the like indicates, Australian scholars were at least intellectuaUy comfortable with 'left-wing' orientation. That which took pro-labour, rather than labour problem, orientation fulfilled a felt need in Australian industrial relations academics for most of whom,
291 inequahty in the employment relationship was an unquestioned and notable attribute which required greater attention from researchers. The rapid acceptance of a new journal in the late 1980s, Labour and Industry, which published articles from a variety of perspectives attests to the felt-need for a more encompassing journal, but until that time left and critical pubhcation opportunities were slight.
The fundamentals of the left scholarly interpretations had thefr source in perceptions of the relations of production in capitalist societies, taking account of political economy and left sociology.^ There were few evidently 'left' oriented articles in the Journal of Industrial Relations (See e.g. Bray and Rimmer, 1986; Reed, 1987; GuUle, 1985) so that, untU the commencement of Labour and Industry, outlets for left research tended to be in edited books, (see below), in the labour oriented journals such as the Journal of Australian Political Economy, (Taylor, 1982). This offers some evidence for the lack of left scholarship, or the cross-fertihsation between left scholarship and mainstream industrial relations scholarship. While theory chapters in textbooks referred to left models, there are few examples of references to publications in left journals or even Labour History.
As well as the left journals, edited collections such as that of Boreham and Dow (1980a, 1980b) and Bray and Taylor (1986) offer evidence that there was continuing research from a broader perspective. In their introductory chapter, drawing almost whoUy on the British critical material, Bray and Taylor offer a critique of mainstream industrial relations, noting in particular its narrowness, shallowness, the close focus on the labour problem
^ The term 'left sociology' is dehberate. Kaufman is wrong when he says sociology was never used in US industrial relations scholarship because it was leftist. The lack of sociology in US scholarship and teaching is probable, though not clear, but American sociology of the 1950s-70s took a variety of ideological perspectives, (see e.g. Piatt, 1996) WhUe industrial relations scholars drew more on sociology in the UK than in Austraha, the ideological content was also wide-ranging. 292 and the absence of management. The succeeding chapters deal with macro and micro aspects of industrial relations, with management styles and strategies, and union actions. The chapter authors, three of whom had begun their research careers at the University of Sydney, drew on a variety of theories including aspects of Marxist and feminist theory to investigate underpinning conditions. Thus what is notable in the essays in Bray and Taylor (1986) is the search for concealed structures, which, inter alia provide explanations and research agenda to complement the mainstream empiricism. Yet overall research in academic industrial relations from a Marxist or left radical perspective was much less than in teaching. (Bray and Littler, 1988) What is more apparent is that scholars drew on ideas from Marxist scholars such as Hyman or Littler, but then reshaped their work to less controversial frameworks. (Frenkel and Coolican, 1984).
Who is an industrial relations scholar?
The Bray and Taylor volume included a chapter by sociologist Clafre Williams, whUe only a small minority of those in the Boreham and Dow volume called themselves industrial relations scholars. This raises an incidental but useful question of subject matter and subject boundaries. Williams' (1986) orientation was as a sociologist on a subject matter which is as valid for a sociologist as crime, families, education or knowledge. It is not the object of study which dffferentiates her from an industrial relations or political economy scholar. Rather it is her intellectual frame of reference, her academic world view, which gives greater importance to foundation (left) sociological concepts such as class struggle, workers' consciousness, and class identffication, and lesser weighting to, for example, historical or economic aspects. This particularistic perspective does not limit her capacity to
293 investigate or provide inteUectual insights into an epoch in the then-named Telecom, but rather that those insights derive from her sociology. WhUe her analysis is more wide-ranging than, for example a labotir law study, it is unlike the industrial relations investigation, insofar as it is not a multidisciplinary study.
The same question arises in considering the extent of higher degree research in industrial relations. Margaret Gardner,lo who had been a Laffer graduate, sought in 1992 to identify doctoral theses completed between 1969 and 1989 in the areas of or pertaining to industrial relations. (Gardner, 1992) Gardner sought theses by title by scholars in industrial relations, labour history and some aspects of labour law and sociology, but very little labour economics and virtually no personnel management or industrial psychology. In acknowledging her choices were idiosyncratic, she identified a great proportion of the theses from labour history and sociology, including topics such working-class youth and ideology and street traders in Jakarta. Other scholars might exclude these topics but include aspects of economic or business history and organisational behaviour or psychology. In this respect the multidisciplinarity of industrial relations lends itself to contested boundaries.
That the boundaries of industrial relations are open is not in doubt. From the first Journal of Industrial Relations Laffer included economists' articles (Blandy, 1963; Gordijew, 1974), and NUand continued the pattern with articles from Addison, (1983) Beggs and Chapman, (1987) and Wooden, (1988) as weU as from law academics. (MitcheU, 1979; Stewart, 1986). Rather what is worth noting is that, where the boundaries of most social
^^ Even after Gardner left academia to take up a senior administrative position, she remained involved in academic industrial relations, as co-author of a weU-known text in the 1990s. (Gardner and Palmer, 1992, 1997) and as President of AIRAANZ in 1996. 294 science disciplines are fuzzy, they are more so in industrial relations. This is because 'objects' hke the employment relationship, work, unions, or the ideologies and imperatives of business or labour are inherently interdisciplinary, and similarly, open to analysis from multiple disciplines. Thus whUe the work of Claire WiUiams (1986) or Geoff Dow and Peter WiUiams, (1980) reflects their particular disciplinary standards of knowledge-getting, they can advance the stock of knowledge within industrial relations. Nevertheless these are sociologists or political economists writing on industrial relations issues, just as industrial relations scholars may write on areas that cut across human geography or labour history. What Williams (1986) and Dow and Wilhams, (1980) contribute is thefr particular disciplinary capacities to an aspect of industrial relations, a contribution which explored issues more deeply than was occurring in mainstream industrial relations in Australia in the 1980s.ii
Moreover, what this discussion has re-emphasised is that there was indeed an discrete industrial relations 'way' of knowledge-getting, a mode of research which was different from other disciplines. That such a mode covered a variety of ideologically bound forms - positivist, Marxist, critical - suggest that the mode was not strong enough to be paradigmatic in Kuhn's most definite sense of the term, although most disciplines in thefr broadest sense are divided by ideology. Nevertheless, even in the 1980s, the epistemological foundations of industrial relations were still highly diffuse. However, there was sufficient in the 'industrial relations way' - the shared language and acknowledgment of complexity in dealing with work and
^^ Conversely, Ross Martin's self-exclusion fi'om industrial relations highhghts another aspect, which is the way that other scholars perceive their disciplinary boundaries. It is hkely that many of the authors of the 113 theses in Gardner's siirvey wotUd see their thesis as a contribution to the hterature of pohtics, sociology or labour history, rather than to industrial relations. 295 employment, assumptions that inequality in the employment relationship is an important attribute, and the acknowledgment that employment is subject to social, economic and political pressures - which differentiated it from the approach of scholars from sociology, law, or economics.
Textbooks, Teaching, Outriders and the Transmission of ideas
What has been apparent in the previous sections was that some industrial relations academics attempted to resist the restraining nature of what had emerged as the mainstream, by introducing, developing or applying theories beyond the mainstream. These scholars were resisting two driving forces, firstly, the narrowing of the objects of analysis, in a discipline which was primarily object-oriented, and, secondly, the forces which might make industrial relations a unidisciplinary field of study. The latter, of course had been Dunlop's goal in producing his original Industrial Relations Systems (Dunlop 1958) but the Australian academics saw industrial relations as requiring more diverse approaches, without quite knowing how to develop a discrete and theoretically based discipline.^^
The texts and teaching programmes reveal awareness of the limits of mainstream positivist empiricism in academic industrial relations. While some teaching of broad theoretical perspectives was found in honours and postgraduate programmes, (see e.g. Melbourne 1983), there was also a high incidence in the 'theory' chapters of the texts. But the theories were
^ UrUike those in human geography, (where scholars are deeply inculcated with questions of methodology and phUosophy of knowledge, see e.g. Johnston, 1986; Peet, 1999) most industrial relations scholars have shown no interest in branches of phUosophy such as epistemology or the sociology of knowledge. Yet, more than in vmidisciphnary sciences, multidisciphnary fields of study demand a stronger, not weaker, appreciation of these aspects of knowledge getting, but this seems unhkely in industrial relations. 296 simplified and rarely tested by the Austrahan academics, beyond a few examples such as those cited above.
Teaching thus played a notable role in defining the parameters of Austrahan academic industrial relations. The relative newness of the discipline, together with environmental factors, impelled teaching toward some consideration of theories, mainstream and alternative, albeit from a simple stance, which is ultimately not effective. Piatt (1996) offers a simUar diagnosis for methods teaching in sociology in the first haff of the twentieth century, when she finds that
it seems likely that teaching needs may have contributed to the prevalence of conceptualisations of the range of methods which are simplistic or stereotype practice: such material is easier to teach (Piatt, 1996)
The industrial relations textbooks of the 1980s had a doubly important role, since they were also references for academics beginning to teach and research in industrial relations, but whose primary disciphnary background was in neighbouring disciplines, or who had been practitioners, or who had arrived as industrial relations academics from overseas. ^^
Other centrifugal forces
The centrifugal forces in the mainstream paradigm were not aU related to teaching. As was noted in Chapter Six, the latter 1970s and 1980s were a veritable roller coaster of public policy developments. Moreover, the pubhc
^^ This number was decreasing by the 1980s as those with graduate traiiung, especiaUy fi'om Melbourne, Sydney and UNSW became academics. Nevertheless, there were stUl scholars such as Markey, and O'Brien (from Labour History) Bvirgess (Economics) and Nyland (Economic History). Kramar had been a imion official, whUe Littler, Palmer, and Leggett had graduate education in management or industrial relations in the UK and arrived in the 1980s. 297 policy environment in the USA and UK ran contrary to those in Austraha. At the same time as the Fraser Liberals were introducing what then appeared as repressive anti-union legislation, the British Government courageously attempting the last gasps of British Labour party pohcy for nearly two decades. The Commonwealth consensus pohtics in the Accord years from 1983 stood in sharp contrast to the pohcies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments, and also to the initiatives of the Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland. There were other influences too - labour- oriented competition policy was explored in Europe, especiaUy Scandinavia, and widely discussed. (ACTU-TDC, 1987) Moreover, the Accords were revised frequently, as the policy focus shifted from macro to the micro. AU of these shifts, together with some academics playing an advisory or research role with the Accord partners (Interviews, Rimmer, 1999, Deery, 1999), directed industrial relations academics to issues of immediacy. Nearly a thfrd of the articles in the Journal of Industrial Relations in the last half of the 1980s dealt with current or recent issues or events. Finally it appears as if the pohcy claims of the 'New Right' (H. R. NichoUs, 1986) had a perverse effect on some industrial relations scholars, dfrecting thefr attention away from tribunals and the labour problem toward consideration of issues of power, prerogatives and ideology. (See e.g. Dabscheck, 1989)
These changes thus tended to widen scholars' fields of view, and ran contrary to the inward pull ofthe mainstream. The corporatist nature ofthe Accords, the rise and faU of interventionist industry policy, the wealth- creation and productivity focus of the ACTU, the increasing effects of microeconomic policy initiatives on the employment relationship, and the rapid introduction to the national vocabulary (and thefr aUied significant effects) of terms like downsizing and restructuring constituted broader issues than had mainly been the case a decade earher. As the 1980s ended, much 298 economic policy was directed at the level of the firm, and underpinned proposals to shift the locus of the formal industrial relations system to the enterprise, (Blandy and Niland, 1986) as award restructuring gave way to the initial forays into enterprise bargaining. (Rimmer, 1988a; Quinlan and Rimmer, 1989; McDonald and Rimmer, 1988)
In cognisance of this downward shift, together with avowed concerns with productivity levels, and the focus on microeconomic policy, the Federal Government proposed a national survey of workplace industrial relations in 1989. While the outcomes ofthe AWIRS 1 and AWIRS '95 surveys are out of the chronology of this chapter, it is worth noting here the central place of industrial relations in its broad sense, and the continuing downward pressures on the pohcies and study of industrial relations. (Callus et al. 1991; Morehead et al., 1997)1^ But while the locus of public and academic industrial relations was shifting toward workplace and enterprise, the issues were necessarily broadening once more to issues of management, profitability and organisational factors.
In the early 1980s, industrial democracy had been the one regularly studied topic which drew debates away from the mainstream concern with the surface features of pubhc institutions and processes, and toward abstract notions such as rights and prerogatives. Like industrial democracy, the rapidly expanding list of new areas in the middle and latter 1980s were hnked to mainstream industrial relations scholarship, but were not of the mainstream This was because, these topics demanded researchers look beyond the narrow aspects of labour-management relations in the pubhc sphere, to issues of productivity, the place of trade unions in the wider
^^ Both Frenkel (1988) and Rimmer (1988b) had proposed just such a survey as a means of strengthening industrial relations analysis as the locus of activity shifted toward the enterprise, which scholars assumed wovUd shift the focus of research. 299 society and economy, and the pressure on, and strategies of employers. It was not that mainstream industrial relations disappeared or even thinned out - the discussions in Chapter Six reveal that was not so - but rather that the locus and direction of much industrial relations research was shifting and intensifying.
However, the flurry of events also served to ensure that industrial relations scholars remained unconcerned over their paucity of method, or the nature of their discipline. They used a toolbox of theories - with only occasional reference to factors and structures beneath the surface. Thus by the end of the 1980s, both centripetal and centrifugal forces were acting upon the intellectual domain of industrial relations.
There was also one other important influence on the development of academic industrial relations which tended to push the academic community toward the broader conceptions of industrial relations, and away from the mainstream, and that was the formation and expansion of a scholarly society.
A disciplinary association: Force for broadening or narrowing?
The Industrial Relations Society (IRS) had been founded in Sydney in 1959, with Kingsley Laffer as a driving force had continued to expand to aU states, and to underwrite the Journal of Industrial Relations. By the late 1970s the IRS had a significant membership and links with international associations, such as the International Industrial Relations Association. However, whUe many academics were members, thefr membership tended to revolve around the joiurnal. Conferences of the IRS tended to be practitioner oriented and closely focussed on the issues of the moment. Much earher some useful fora for industrial relations academics, had been developed, (Turkington, 1978; 300 Fisher, 1981) but it was not untU 1983 that the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Austraha and New Zealand (AIRAANZ) was formed at its first conference, (see Benson and Hince 1983) As is shown below, the association flourished.
An academic association can play a significant role in the development and direction of a disciphne. Such an association only emerges when an intellectual community has developed sufficient mass and impetus to be able to claim a group interest and capacity for an ongoing network. Of itseff an academic or scholarly association gives evidence that the discipline or field of study has enough scholars with a shared investment in a particular intellectual territory. Scholarly associations can be likened to speech communities - networks of scholars who share the same vocabulary and shared language in a particular area. In this respect associations become institutions, which have a life of their own, with rules and patterns of interaction which ensures their continuity. Within the scholarly association, rules and norms develop which may act to strengthen or challenge to dominant paradigm or web of disciphnary rules. Ehtes may form and communication processes develop which may enhance or hmit ehtes, enhance or constrain innovation.
Whether there is a community paradigm, "a set of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by members of a given community ..." (Kuhn, p.175) is perhaps less important, for a new formal grouping. Rather, in the new academic association, a network of scholars agree to formalise communication channels for both cognitive and 'social' purposes, which are hnked through the common ground of disciplinary interests. By so doing, the newly formalised institution performs several roles though the formal and informal interactions and channels of communication. Indeed the actual
301 provision of communication channels is a fundamental function of an academic association, especiaUy where members of the community are geographically isolated from each other. ^^
In part, the roles and effects of a scholarly association wiU depend on membership rules, on who may become a member of the community. (See e.g. Coats, 1993a) Original choices and later changes about who can be a member will influence the patterns of communication, the cognitive and social imperatives and, indeed the direction ofthe discipline. Some academic associations are open, some closed; some are hierarchical, and some egalitarian; some have strict formal structures, while others are informal in every respect. For example, Goodman and Berridge (1988) note, in reference to the British Universities Industrial Relations Association (BUIRA) that
The early decision of BUIRA to admit university academics from all disciphnes, with the simple criterion of an interest in industrial relations, may have been influential in promoting a wide-ranging, rather than narrowly confined, approach to research and teaching of the subject in Britain. (Berridge and Goodman, 1988, p. 156)
The founders of BUIRA therefore confined membership to academics, but on the other hand, in assuming the multidisciplinarity of industrial relations did not control the disciplinary area .
By contrast, the IRRA in the USA took a different structure, partly related to the geographical size ofthe USA, but also in acknowledgment ofthe needs
^^ This function may alter as use of Internet becomes more sophisticated. SmaU sub- communities can develop hnks through internet groups where previously scholars may have remained separated. Since the early 1990s for example a group of radical organisational theorists in several countries, most of whom are members of larger academic industrial relations associations, have maintained a network for debate and discussion. (Commimication, Chve GUson, University of Waikato, 1995) 302 of practitioners. (Stern, 1992) At regional Chapter level, practitioners greatly outnumbered academics, which in turn led to the imperatives of practitioners driving the dfrection and focus of debates. Even more constrained are dual academic- professional organisations such as those of engineers, doctors or accountants, where barriers to membership are further constrained by formal degree and practice requfrements.
Regardless of the objectives of the founders and later decision makers, there may be both intended and unintended outcomes of an academic society. With the formahsation of the organisation, concepts and issues can be legitimated or rejected as reputational systems develop. Thus the potential exists for disciplinary associations to enhance broadening, dispersion or narrowing, depending on its structure and the goals of its members.
AIRAANZ
In Austraha the formation and growth of the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ) and the outcomes of its primary activity the, initially biennial, conference wiU be briefly examined in order to understand the structure and effects of the organisation. In particular, the structure and outcomes of AIRAANZ wiU be evaluated in hght of the attributes of scholarly organisations discussed above, and particularly with reference to what effect, if any AIRAANZ had on the mainstream.
Before AIRAANZ
With the exception of a few brief seminars and conferences, the main opportunity for industrial relations academics to share or discuss thefr ideas
303 were the various Industrial Relations Society conferences and ANZAAS Section 24A, the short-lived industrial relations sections appended to the Economics section in 1974.16 (Oxnam, 1974, Ford, 1983, Turkington, 1978a) While the Industrial Relations Society provided the academics with an excellent opportunity to associate with practitioners in an informal environment, there was little occasion for intellectual debate, or discussion over research and other matters more immediate to academics.
Aware that amid the rapid development of industrial relations as a disciphne, there had been "few opportunities to contemplate how far we have come and where we are going" (Turkington, 1978b), a group of scholars organised what some have since called the 'Son of AIRAANZ'^"^ conference in Wellington in 1978. The introduction to the Proceedings of that Conference (Turkington, 1978a) notes that the fifty participants were active in "socialising in the informal sessions" (p.iv) and appreciated the opportunity for discussion and debate. This was perhaps not surprising given the spread of academics. Nearly half of the participants were from Australia, but they came from fifteen different and widely separated academic institutions. While there were four academics from UNSW, they were employed in three separate departments. In other words, as has been shown above, whUe the academic industrial relations community had grown rapidly, the academics were nevertheless, widely scattered and without a regular recognised forum. Nevertheless, there were no specific proposals for the future after the 1978 Wellington conference, although joint organiser and proceedings editor Don
16 At the 47th ANZAAS Congress, in 1976 for example, at least 12 papers were presented. Curiously only four of those (Hearn, Lansbury, Niland and Rimmer) were at the "Son of AIRAANZ". (ANZAAS, 1976; Turkington, 1978, pp.272-3 1^ Gender specificity noted - two of the participants were women, June Hearn and Margaret Wilson - both presented papers. Others have noted that it is genealogicaUy Ulogical to refer to the prior Conference as "Son" - but that is its title - such is the Ulogicality ofthe evolution of ideas. 304 Tmrkington hoped that this was "the beginning of a series which evaluates IR in this part ofthe world" (Tiurkington, 1978b p.v). This view was echoed by John NUand in a paper which identified issues in the dearth of research funding for industrial relations. NUand suggested formation of an organisation similar to the IRRA which would focus research efforts and sponsor regular workshops. (Niland, 1978b p.252). i^
For the most part, the papers given at the 1978 pre-AIRAANZ Conference provide evidence of the doubts that scholars held for their disciphne in Australia and New Zealand. A third of the Conference proceedings dealt with scholarship in the UK or USA, highlighting not only the extent to which research in these countries was a model for the scholars in Australia, but also the evident differences in approaches. (Brown 1978a; Lansbury, 1978d. Levine, 1978a, 1978b offered extensive prepared comments) Nevertheless, Turkington's (1978, p.v) proposal for following more closely the American example of greater interaction between practitioners and scholars was less in accord with most scholars' goals than Brown's exposition on academic industrial relations in the UK.
What was notable about Brown's (1978a) paper was the degree to which he encapsulated the concerns of some Australian scholars about the breadth or narrowness of industrial relations scholarship. In so doing Brown emphasised the need for empiricism, rather than modelling or abstraction, as a means to rigorous research. For Brown, (1978a, p. 16) "The employment relationship is at so complex a confluence of different forms that any simple
1^ It is worth noting that "Son of AIRAANZ" took tacit recogiution that a combined Austraha and New Zealand group was logical and worthwhUe, a factor which has remained evident and unquestioned. The close hnks between Austrahan and New Zealand scholars deserves further research. 305 modelhng of it is a forlorn activity."i^ Indeed, argued Brown, the need in industrial relations was to continue the broadening process, then becoming apparent in British teaching and research. Taking up the perennial concern of industrial relations academics with ideological pressures, Brown proposed that
In an area so clogged with prejudices as industrial relations, the first task for academic research is in broadening the frontiers of ignorance; in showing people thefr pre-conceptions are ill- founded. (Brown, 1983, p. 18)
In other words. Brown was not only encouraging the broadening of industrial relations, but also confronting head-on the 'problem' of objectivity which many scholars carefully ignored.
Barring a few seminars and the industrial relations section meetings at ANZAAS, the next solely academic industrial relations meeting was not until 1983. Among the objectives of that conference was the establishment of an academic association. Where 1978 had been in the main expository and tentatively idealist, the 1983 Conference was almost cocky - there is a brash hopefulness about the papers and the proposals. This perhaps partly reflects the political environment of the day particularly in Australia where the early days of the Accord signalled an optimistic future for workers and study of work and employment. The Proceedings show that the participants
19 To bolster his argument, Brown, takes a not uncommon defence of industrial relations scholars, of drawing hnks with economics. He tells the story of MarshaU who despised the low level scraps of mathematicians which separated the economic theorist from the 'vast laboratory ofthe world.' (Brown, 1979, p. 16) 306 not only foresaw a growth period in teaching and research, but also seemed very aware that they were 'pioneers' in the new organisation.20
At the first conference, two sessions were set aside for the formation of the Association. The focus was on encouraging research and teaching, providing intellectual encouragement. A non-hierarchical cooperative approach was stressed, in which coUegiality and communication were seen to stimulate debate and enhance rigour. These ideals were reflected not only in the absence of formal titles such as Professor / Associate Professor, but also in the opportunities for informal debate at informal social occasions. The logic was not simply that of individuals maximising their social utihty, but rather more that intellectual improvement was nurtured in non-hierarchical, non- threatening situations, leading to the development of a "common pool of ideas .... that will strengthen teaching and research in industrial relations". (Benson, 1983b, p.v)
This fundamental objective of strengthening industrial relations research and teaching was reflected in the aims of the newly formed association. These were very similar to the foundation goals of BUIRA, (Berridge and Goodman, 1988) and included aims to convene conferences, inform members of developments, make periodic surveys of members' research and teaching activities, lobby for improved statistical sources, and affifrate to other organisations, as approved by the Executive. Most of those original goals remained, although some were not followed through in 1990s.
A Constitution was written after 1983 and adopted at the 1985 Conference. The aims of the Association were incorporated, as was the decision that membership was open to anyone engaged in industrial relations teaching
^ The cockiness of the Yoimg Turks was perhaps justified. About sixty per cent of those original 54 participants in 1983 had achieved status of Professor or Associate Professor by the mid-1990s. 307 and research, in a simUar mode to the BUIRA membership control. Included in the Constitution were the processes of decision making and the structure and nature of the Executive. Besides an elected President, the Executive was to comprise Vice-President, Secretary and Conference Convenor, a smaU Executive committee and such co-opted members as the executive saw fit. Thus, from the beginning, effective representation and procedural efficiency were emphasised but with a minimum of formality. 21 The informahty was continued in the conference organisation itself, with virtuaUy no invited papers after the first Conference and active attempts to avoid ehte sessions. As suggested below the topics covered and methods used were broad-ranging indeed. In this respect, the AIRAANZ Conference papers provide valuable insights into the discipline, precisely because anyone could present papers. Unlike journal publication, there was no editorial selection or refereeing process.22 Scholars at all levels could present papers on any topic that they perceived as appropriate to AIRAANZ.
Convened by John Benson and Kevin Hince, that initial AIRAANZ Conference was a careful mix of commissioned and offered papers. The keynote speech was given by soon-to-be President, BiU Ford.23 It reflected the tensions and challenges of industrial relations academics seeking to
21 The role of the founding members in designing the structures of an organisation are significant. In this respect the impact of the ideas of academics such as John Benson (foundation secretary) and Kevin Hince (later the first Honorary Life Member) in setting up the rules of AIRAANZ should not be under-estimated. 22 Refereeing of papers was introduced in the late 1990s in response to Federal government points score system of determining academic prestige. Pubhcation of a refereed conference paper was given greater weight to a non-refereed paper. In these kinds of ways, government policies can influence the structure and pattern of scholarly activities. 23 In one of those curious paradoxes of academic life, many scholars in the 1990s noted their deep debt to Ford and their admiration for the breadth and far-sightedness of his scholarship and practical work in reahsing his academic goals, such as the Darhng Harbour agreement. This is despite the fact that he only pubhshed one article in the Journal of Industrial Relations and gave no further papers at AIRAANZ after 1983. (Interviews, Rimmer, 1997; Ford, 1997) 308 balance the scholarly with practical relevance, and contains some ideas ahead of thefr time. In promoting the need for research into skUls development and the learning organisation, Ford (1983, p.3) asserted that "we urgently need to find out before we become underskiUed and underemployed nation". To enhance such research Ford recognised the positive attributes of industrial relations researchers, and "the diversity of values, interests, objectives and priorities (p.3), but these would be more effective if there were more thorough comparative analysis with closer attention to home grown theories. This last was a particular point for Ford, indeed, the title of his keynote speech was "Industrial Relations Studies Down Under: The Need for Intellectual Decolonisation". It was the case. Ford (1983, p.4) argued, that "Many academics still transfer ideas and theories developed in the UK or USA as if they were fossilized colonies or copies of those countries." This awareness of the debt to, and the doubts about, overseas influence continued through to the 1990s.24
The rest of the conference was structured around some of these issues with sections on industrial relations theory, the contributions from other disciplines, current issues and a large section on teaching and teaching materials. A vast majority of the papers were critical of mainstream industrial relations in one way or the other. The most representative of the mainstream papers was critical of Dunlop's analytical framework, but in other respects was a slight, but censorious survey of industrial relations theories weakened by the author's tendency to conflate the public industrial relations system with academic analysis of industrial relations. (Dabscheck,
24 There were two other invited papers from two UK scholars at the 1983 conference , Bamber (1983) on technological change and PurceU's provocatively titled paper on aspects of British industrial relations. In the event PurceU claimed it was too early to teU whether it was "Tragedy or farce...", but that the early Thatcher initiatives had "led researchers to broaden their horizons and return to some of the base disciphnes for stuniUation". (PurceU, 1983, p.202) 309 1983b) Other papers, more constructively and with a view to strengthening academic industrial relations, sought to identify gaps and to propose improvements in the research methods of Austrahan and New Zealand academic industrial relations. Thus Patmore, (1983) Frenkel (1983) and Anderson (1983) offered insights from perspectives of history sociology and the law respectively,
Through the development of an industrial relations history, industrial relations academics will be provided with a broader historical perspective .. [and] .. a further dimension for the development of theory in industrial relations. (Patmore, 1983, p.80)
What scholars like Patmore were emphasising was the capacity of their respective source disciplines to expand and deepen industrial relations research. It was the same with MacDonald's analysis of research on employers, and those of Callus, Plowman, Tsakunas and Smith on issues related to contemporary problems in empirical research.
Perhaps the most apposite paper for this chapter was Taylor's critique of academic industrial relations, which focussed in particular on scholars' lack of concern over methodology. Such an absence of interest had led them to fulfil Marsden's (1982) criticism of mindless fact-grubbing. But Taylor was not simply critical of scholars; rather he made a cautious attempt to present both orthodox and 'radical' models of research. In particular, Taylor promoted a dialectic method. As Taylor eventually admitted however, the traditional problem with a thorough-going dialectical method was its basis in 'totality', the total inter-relatedness of all aspects of economy and society. 25
25 Just as Hyman's critics including Marsden, 1982, criticised his Marxist interpretation because the concept of totahty within a single disciphne contains a fundamental internal contradiction, (see Note 7) 310 Nevertheless asserted Taylor, consideration of such methods were vital for disciphnary progress, but only if there was "fafr discourse and discussion [rather than] acrimony and ritualistic bloodletting." (Taylor, 1983, p.226)
Where the overriding theme of the first AIRAANZ conference had been about how to strengthen and broaden industrial relations, the 1985 conference was more bound up in issues of the moment, demonstrating yet again the competing tensions on academic industrial relations. Indeed the keynote address at the Conference was presented by Keith Hancock (1985). In terms of industrial relations academic activity, the release of the Hancock report, (Committee, 1985) together with the labyrinthine twists of the Accords, led to a renewed dominance of institutional and pubhc policy research. (See Chapter Six) While the continuing questions about ideal futures for the discipline continued to lurk in the shadows, (Isaac, 1985) pubhc policy issues demanded greatest attention. Thus at the 1985 conference, papers on the changing public policy environment examined structural change v. changing structures, the patterns of wage fixation and the role of the state and the legal system on industrial relations, (see e.g. Kramar, 1985; Strachan, 1985) The renewed focus on institutional research perhaps explains why there were only a few papers on teaching. Where there had been eight papers on aspects of industrial relations teaching at the 1983 Conference, there were only two in 1985 - an explanation of the very new technology of computer databases, (Cseti, 1985) and a brief one from the redoubtable Bill Holdsworth. (1985) The final section of the Conference was called Dfrections for Research and included papers by economists and a lawyer (see e.g. Scherer, 1985; MiUs, 1985) reveahng once more, the fascination that exponents of other disciplines have for industrial relations, and the continuing compulsion from industrial relations academics to understand
311 where the traditional disciphnes stood in relation to thefr multidisciphnary field.
In sharp contrast to metropolitan Brisbane, the 1987 Conference was held on the Massey University campus out of town in the smaU city of Palmerston North in New Zealand. Participants had two choices for accommodation - either basic on-campus student accommodation in Egmont Court or motels some miles away, although the avaUabihty of choice in no way mitigated the livehness of the Conference. While notions of social coUegiality are rarely covered in the literature on disciplines, there is no doubt that such notions can influence disciplinary development. Drawing on some industrial relations literature, it could perhaps be argued that the social interaction at conferences, and patterned behaviour of constructive comment, may generate high trust relations. (Fox, 1974) Certainly, where scholars are widely scattered, conferences substitute for department or faciUty cohesiveness which in turn can generate collaboration or open debate.26
The Proceedings of the 1987 Conference were divided into two parts the Literature Surveys (see below) and the papers, although the Conference programme integrated the papers and the literature surveys. The idea of hterature surveys had been an initiative of earlier association meetings and reflected the fact that there was a dearth of bibhographical literature. That paucity tended to encourage scholars to rely on very few sources for thefr research or teaching.27
26 I have been reminded that the "high trust relations" were not immitigated. Responses to papers such as Drago and Wooden's (1989) neo-hberal econometric analysis, or Nyland's (1987) revisionist Taylorism were only exceeded in "acrimony and ritual bloodletting", (Taylor, 1983) by the responses to Nyland's (1990) paper on "Sex differences in industrial relations". In other words, even in the informal coUegial and overtly supportive environments there were imphcit but rigid rtdes which Wooden and Nyland (twice) broke. ^ Several important exceptions were Ford, Coffey and Dunphy (1981) on technological change, Plowman and Walker (1985) on theory teaching resource, Pauncz and Patton, (1977) on industrial democracy and Yerbiu'y (1984) on dismissal and redundancy law 312 The literature surveys (Hince and WiUiams, 1987a, Vol 1) were also broad, covering labour law in Australia and New Zealand, (MitcheU, 1987; Anderson 1987) labour process literature (Littler, 1987) labour history, (Markey, 1987; Roth 1987) and employer associations (Plowman, 1987) although they evinced much less optimism about academic industrial relations. Particularly pessimistic was the bibhographical paper of Blain and Plowman (1987a) which identified a significant number of gaps. Curiously however, while regretting the narrowness of academic industrial relations in Australia, they sought to examine the hterature through a mainstream lens. Thefr categories of pubhcations began with a summary of the literature industrial conflict, (pp.22-3) after which followed, unions, (pp.23-4), employer associations and management, (pp.24-5), industrial regulation, (pp.25-6) wage determination (pp.26-7) employment conditions and issues, case studies, (pp.29-30) and international and comparative studies. The logic of academic industrial relations for Blain and Plowman had its source in the mainstream approach to the labour problem. Thefr paper, which was also published shortly after the 1987 AIRAANZ Conference in the Journal of Industrial Relations (Blain and Plowman, 1987b) was influential in portraying industrial relations in its narrow mainstream sense, (see e.g. Boxall and Dowling, 1990)
Ofthe non-survey papers almost all dealt with trade unions or the role ofthe state. However, these did not clearly fit with the positivist mainstream approach to industrial relations. For example, neither Sheridan's (1987) analysis of the 'Run-in to the 1949 Coal Strike' nor Nyland's (1987) analysis of the use of scientific management principles in the 1920s timberworkers' claim in the arbitration system were not in the traditional bounds of mainstream analysis. Both of these papers drew on aspects of management and markets, both frequently excluded from the narrow mainstream. 313 Similarly, the papers by Bray (1989) and Lever-Tracy (1989) on contract and part-time work sought to apply broader scholarly methods to issues which were emerging as significant labour market issues. The two papers on teaching (Sonder, 1987; FeUs and Weaver, 1987) dealt with the potential for computer assisted learning and an outhne of educational needs in teaching industrial relations to management / business students. In choosing to present these papers at an entirely non-moderated conference in 1987, the academics were revealing the capacity of industrial relations researchers for breadth, even while their theorising remained minimal.
The breadth of the twenty published papers from the 1989 Wollongong conference revealed once more the diversity in industrial relations scholarship to which Bill Ford had alluded in 1983. As with the previous conferences (excluding the literature surveys) there was no attempt to specify a theme, or seek out particular kinds of papers. The papers ranged from bibliographical essays to statistical analyses to historical and recent case studies of the ways and means in which the nature and management of employment is influenced. Only one paper on teaching was presented and that was the last time a paper was presented on teaching for some years.
Papers demonstrated a growing concern with the impact of the changing envfronment on the study of industrial relations (GuUle Sappey and Winter, 1989; Haworth 1989 - see Chapter Eight), while Thornthwaite's (1989) study of EEO and the decoUectivisation of labour and Taylor's (1989) gem on "Product Markets Industrial Relations and The Contested Terrain" examined the impact of change on industrial relations practice and the imphcations for scholarship.2^ What characterises these papers is the
2^ Vic Taylor has had a simUar impact on scholars as had BiU Ford. Although not a prohfic producer of papers, he was both a mentor to other scholars and provided papers such as this and his 1990 discussion on management education and industrial relations (Taylor, 1990) which were respected for their insightful approach. Taylor was probably 314 capacity for mterdisciplinary research and the capacity for theoretical models from other disciphnes to be transferred to industrial relations research. The papers of McGraw and Palmer (1989) and Sutchffe and Kitay (1989) heralded a growing interest in areas of industrial relations outside the traditional unionised manufacturing sector, in this case smaU business. In a simUar vein papers by KeUy (1989) and Castle et al. (1989) focussed on a particular enterprise, an emergent trend also evident in the impending AWIRS Workplace Industrial Relations Survey and other material (e.g. Callus, 1988; Zappala, 1988b) Littler et al., 1989)
By the end of the 1980s, AIRAANZ had estabhshed itself as a scholarly society, which gave voice and opportunity for analysis and debate for the scattered industrial relations academics. It would continue that role throughout the 1990s. As one of the founder members, Gerry Grfffin later asserted
We began as a reaction to the traditionalists, the old fogies, but I suppose now we are the old fogies." (Or words to that effect. Personal Communication, Griffin, 1997)
The attempts of the Young Turks to overturn or respond effectively to the 'traditionalists' were only partially successful in the 1980s, in part because the welter of public industrial relations events overtook scholars' hopes to cast off the constraints of the mainstream. A number of AIRAANZ papers proved of sufficient mainstream accord as to be published in the Journal of Industrial Relations (see e.g. McGraw and Palmer, 1990; Blain and Plowman, 1987a; Nyland, 1989). Nevertheless, there were also many other
the only academic from the prestigious Austrahan Graduate School of Management (AGSM) to write for the left-wing, Journal of Australian Political Economy. (Taylor, 1986) 315 papers which demonstrated that, while the scholars acknowledged the mainstream as an anchor or simUar, there were evident centripetal features in academic industrial relations. The significance of the diversity in the AIRAANZ papers is important because there were no attempts to moderate or limit papers, so that the conference papers reflect more clearly than the Journal of Industrial Relations indications of the trajectory of industrial relations scholarship. The influences of British and American scholarship whUe continuing, were not as considerable as they had been in the 1970s, but the sources were more eclectic, drawing on labour history, management theories, and sociology as well as economics and labour law and studies. The increasing membership of AIRAANZ through the 1980s, an increase which occurred at all levels of the ever-hierarchical academic community, attests to the impact of a separate and academic industrial relations scholarly society. The breadth of the conference papers attest to the centrifugal tendency becoming apparent in industrial relations; they also attest to the role that a scholarly society can play in influencing the nature and direction of a field of study.
Conclusion
This chapter began by considering the centripetal and centrffugal forces on a discipline or field of study - and, in particular the significance of such forces for a 'rural' and newly estabhshed discipline. It became quickly apparent that there were at least two possible trends in academic industrial relations. As Table 7.1 suggests, the mainstream perspective mfrrored the formal public industrial relations system based on a shghtly distorted Dunlopian framework, and taking, generally implicitly, the 'labour problem' as the source of scholarship. However, as has been shown there were also
316 broadening tendencies and influences on scholarship which sanctioned multiple and critical approaches, and which did not necessarUy take the
Figure 7:1 Some different perspectives of industrial relations in the late 1980s
NARROW BROAD Subject matter formal institutions in 'TOTALITY' or at least the regulation of employment relationship and employment systems of regulation enmeshed with economic, political and social constructs main actors conciliation and multiple collective / individual arbitration, employees / trade unions, employers' and their associations area of focus enterprise focus macro/micro focus national economy interrelated profits / national surplus value, PLUS incomes / (but not closely related costs in scholarly material) disciplinary unidisciplinary multidisciplinary perspective hmits of regulation of production and work - aU analysis employees, generally in factors, with emphasis on collectivities (mainly in employees at aU levels non-managerial work) basis for business intent (with analytical and pohcy intent? research 'fairness'); the 'labour for business and employees problems
business conception of the 'labour problem' as a given. Such initiatives therefore enhanced an outward propulsion from the confines of the
317 mainstream, which, however, depended on the mainstream as an 'anchor'. These alternative perspectives revealed the potential for academic industrial relations to be inteUectually and analyticaUy broader than the mainstream. The left and critical scholarship appeared to gain strength from the growth of industrial relations programmes and also from the formation of AIRAANZ, which of itself proved to be a source of legitimation for industrial relations scholars. As the 1980s progressed, and the seeming need to analyse interrelated social, economic and political factors from both a micro and macro perspective, many industrial relations academics questioned the narrowness of the mainstream, or simply ignored its limits. Scholars stiU retained their interest in trade unions and tribunals and industrial peace, and it is evident from the number of papers at AIRAANZ conferences on immediate issues, that the broadening of their scholarly endeavours was constrained by the immediacy of a rapidly changing envfronment and regulatory processes of industrial relations. Teaching also strengthened the narrow mainstream approaches with the formal public system providing 'relevant' teaching material which also marked industrial relations off from other fields of study.
Yet those same public policy pressures, together with the activities of pressure groups such as the New Right, also enhanced the expansion of subject matter, as aspects such as EEO, managerial prerogatives and strategies, changing workforce composition and the hnks between macro- public issues and micro-private issues aU became immediately important to the nature and regulation of work and employment.
In other words, rather than continuing to confine research to formal institutions of job regulation, many of the second and thfrd generation industrial relations academics were ascribing importance to the impact of
318 wider socio-economic and pohtical phenomena which acted upon work and the employment relationship. Others were drawing on new techniques of research which allowed critical approaches which attempted a deeper analysis of current events and institutional practices. Indeed, a paradox of industrial relations research from the late 1970s was that the many challenges and changes to the traditional pubhc industrial relations system not only enhanced a broadening of research in academic industrial relations, but also kept drawing scholars back to mainstream issues, to wage determination (e.g. under the Fraser government), to the pubhc system as a whole (e.g. the implications of the Hancock report), and to the machinations of the Accords. All of these were issues within the rubric of mainstream academic industrial relations.
This also alerts us to the fact that, barring a few exceptions, industrial relations remained an object-oriented field of study throughout most of the 1970s and 1980s - the issues, parties and changing processes were objects which scholars saw as deserving investigation and analysis. Thus theoretical development remained minimal, and instead scholars would draw on analytical approaches and theories from other disciplines. In other words multidisciplinary aspects of industrial relations remained a key for much analysis. The exceptions to this are the labour economists who wrote in the areas of industrial relations, and, to a lesser extent, the scholars who took Marxist29 or varieties of labour process theories. There have been ideologicaUy based divisions among the former while, as was noted above the latter are united more by their claims as to origins rather than internal
2^ There is a tendency to ascribe Marxist analysis with a homogeneity that is not evident in the Marxist hterature on labour history for example, (see e.g. the debates between Thompson and Althusser in the 1970s) As Marsden (1983) has argued, much of what is caUed Marxist is misnamed, and is simply miUti-focussed critical scholarship. 319 agreement. What differentiated the left and 'critical'^o scholars from the mainstream was that the epistemological foundations of thefr work acted to broaden their subject matter, and at the same time provide for critical, rather than positivist, approaches.
Yet despite these centrifugal forces, increasing student enrolments in the 1980s, and the high profile of public industrial relations during the Accord years strengthened the mainstream. It also gave the academic study of industrial relations a new self-assuredness, an attribute which was to prove premature, as the next chapter will demonstrate.
^ There is some differentiation between those critical scholars who draw on various Marxian models of analysis, and those such as Fox (1974; 1984) in the UK, who draw on multiple inteUectual models, but reject Marx. WhUe there is no single clear equivalent to Fox, a large number of industrial relations academics cite his work as being influential. 320 CHAPTER EIGHT
THE HAYEKIAN SHOCK OF HRM?
[They] have stepped upon the territory of our science hke foreign conquerors, in order to force upon us their language and thefr customs, their terminology and their methods, and to fight intolerantly every branch of enquiry which does not correspond with their special method. (Brue 1991, p.222, citing Monger, Errors of Historicism)
Introduction
As foregoing chapters have shown, industrial relations developed as an area of study open to multiple influences, partly because, as a 'rural' disciphne there were many areas where ideas or methods had not yet been rigidified or developed. Moreover, its interdisciphnary perspective was foreign to those who perceived intellectual rigour as being dependent on unidisciplinarity. FinaUy, most of the objects of study were subject to public pohcy and pubhc debate, which exacerbated both the lack of assuredness within the discipline and the continuing focus on objects of study with httle consideration of method.
While the formal public industrial relations system dealt with the regulation and administration of coUectivities and the rulemaking that occurs from the interaction of the institutions, the study of industrial relations was always rather broader for many academics - in much the same way as economics as discipline was rather broader than public economic pohcy. Nevertheless, industrial relations was still an object-oriented discipline. Its scholars examined and analysed parties, processes, and outcomes in the rich fabric of macro and micro aspects of employment and work, as objects which requfred
321 close investigation and analysis. However, from the late 1970s much of the study in mainstream industrial relations had narrowed to coUective organisations and tribunals, in order to identify the most effective means of achieving industrial 'stabUity' and efficiency, drawing on the notions of the labour problem. Much of the debate through the late 1970s and 1980s was shaped by the senior scholars in the discipline, many of whom directed thefr attention to aspects of the arbitration system, and its effects on rulemaking, trade unions and employment, those objects which were seen as particularistic to the discipline. These were aU traditional elements of community perceptions of what constituted industrial relations. Yet, as was shown in Chapter Six, there was increasing change and uncertainty in the public arena of Australian economic and political polices as a result of changing government and business policies. The decentralisation and economism that John Niland had been promoting for over a decade became achievable, as governments and businesses grappled with more demanding shareholders, changing economic policies, and international economic volatUity. (GuiUe, 1989; NUand, 1989; Quinlan and Rimmer, 1989; O'Brien, 1990) In this environment it is not surprising that the patterns of management of production and employment were also changing.
The objectives of this chapter are to ascertain the effects of these changes in the enterprise and the wider envfronment on industrial relations from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, together with the changes within academia. In particular, attention is given to the seemingly sudden impact of the study of human resource management (HRM) on the discipline of industrial relations. In this respect, the nature and influences of UK and US industrial relations scholarship are considered, for these had not only provided intellectual models for Australian academic industrial relations in earher
322 decades, but also the business oriented HRM had much earher assaUed academic industrial relations in these countries. The chapter wUl conclude by asking two questions. The first is raised in the title of this chapter - was the emergence of HRM an Hayekian i shock to the disciphne of industrial relations? Once a tentative answer to this can be found, a final question could be asked - in hght of these changes, what is the future of academic industrial relations in Australia?
The notion of an Hayekian shock achieved popularity around 1990. Governments of countries such as Poland and New Zealand attempted to convert their planned or protected economies to free market economies. (Sachs, 1990) Rather than a gradualist transformation, the objective of an Hayekian shock2 or 'big bang' was major and irreversible change through a rapidly implemented set of actions, (see e.g. Gregory and Stewart, 1992, pp.426-8, 464-8) In terms ofthe transfer of ideas, an Hayekian shock could be seen to be a major crisis in a discipline's inteUectual foundation. It would be externaUy imposed, rather than an internal Kuhnian revolution such as occurred with the theory of relativity or the marginalist revolution in economics. In an Hayekian shock, the rupture to the 'normal science' of the discipline is externally and purposively initiated by an identifiable discrete body. Like the newly freed market economies, the change would be major and irreversible. The trajectory of research focus and inteUectual development would thus alter significantly. If the core of the discipline is altered then, the prior centrffugal and centripetal forces on the field of study may therefore also alter in their effects.
^ After Frederick A Hayek, notable Austrian economist. See e.g. Hayek, 1944, 1945 2 In fact an Hayekian shock was contrary to Hayek's own views that gradual change was probably more effective, "however much one may wish a speedy return to a free economy. ... Nothing would discredit the system of free enterprise more than the acute, though probably short-hved dislocation and instabihty that such an attempt wotdd produce." Hayek 1944, p. 192, Note 1)
323 The structure of the chapter is as foUows. After identifying the main contextual aspects of the epoch from the later 1980s to the mid-1990s, the foreshadowing of HRM wiU be examined. Included in that section wUl be some discussion of the practice and study of HRM, albeit with the ubiquitous caveat that there is no agreed definition of HRM. The nature of the papers on HRM presented at the 1990 AIRAANZ conference wiU then be examined, together with a brief overview of the debates. Before examining the longer term consequences of HRM on industrial relations scholarship, the impact of HRM on scholarship in US and UK wUl be briefly investigated and compared with that of Australian scholars. The broad responses of scholars in these two countries were quite different despite the fact that the emergence of HRM in those countries occurred under the very similar pohtical regimes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, unlike Australia where Thatcher- Reagan type policies were not encountered untU the latter 1990s, weU after the emergence of HRM Nevertheless, the influences from the UK and USA on the responses of Austrahan industrial relations academics in the early 1990s will be considered.
Academic industrial relations and the wider environment
As was shown in Chapter 6, the narrowing of industrial relations toward institutions of job regulation had occurred as a consequence of a mix of factors including the not wholly successful dfrective role of senior scholars, the increasing influence of American scholarship, not only in industrial relations but also in economics, and the rich and dynamic unfolding pubhc policy and initiatives of business and unions in the Accord era in Austraha. While these underpinned the mainstream, the nature of the expansionist and innovative public policy shifts, and even some of the shifts in industrial
324 relations scholarship in the USA, also impeUed Austrahan academic industrial relations outward. There were thus centripetal and centrifugal forces on industrial relations - the centripetal forces derived from the core scholarship which drew on British and USA influences, and from within the academic community itseff which grew rapidly and developed some cohesion through the 1980s. The centrifugal forces, the outward impulsions of the disciphne, educed from widely held convictions of Australian industrial relations scholars that, essential to thefr analysis, was cognisance of complexity of their subject matter, such that it crossed traditional disciphnary lines. As a concomitant, they tended to reject models and abstraction, and indeed attempted to interfuse multiple contextual influences into their scholarship. Because they focused on the complexity of the interactions between contexts, parties, processes, ideologies and powers, and because most were "towed by public policy issues", (Gurdon, 1978) research tended toward fragmentation. While there were shared values and core attributes, the study of the regulation and administration of work and employment tended to cover a multiplicity of topics. It was object oriented research, rather than theory driven research.
The dynamism in pubhc policy noted in the previous chapter continued through that final years of the 1980s and into the 1990s as governments sought to grapple with Australia's apparent inability to compete in what was perceived to be a volatile and increasingly interdependent global economy. The Hancock Report of 1985 (Hancock et al., 1985) had been laid aside, but the Niland, (Niland 1989) and Hanger (1988) Reports propounded major changes to state industrial relations system. There were over a dozen major State and Federal legislative initiatives in Austraha in the first haff of the
325 1990S.3 WhUe industrial relations had always been 'pohtical' (Crouch, 1982), the massive wave of legislation in the early 1990s amidst intense pubhc debates over deregulation and corporatisation heightened the pohtical attributes of industrial relations as practice and as study. In many respects the debates had shffted weU to the 'right', with Labor parties promoting policies which a decade previously had been an anathema to Labor and labourism. (Head, 1988; Ewer et al., 1991)
The initiatives of governments aimed at shifting the locus of formal industrial relations processes toward enterprise bargaining was reinforced by the continuing proactive initiatives of the union movement which underwent a major structural change under the aegis of the ACTU. (Ewer at al., 1991) The rapid amalgamation process undertaken from about 1992 meant that by the mid-1990s about 90% of unionists belonged to one of a dozen 'super-unions'. Allied to the amalgamation process was a 'rationalisation' process where, as employers had long requested, the number of unions represented at any enterprise was greatly reduced. (Keenoy and KeUy, 1996)
Nevertheless, despite the union commitments to production focus, and the amalgamation and rationahsation strategies, businesses and employer associations continued to seek deregulation of labour markets and working conditions. Having gained control of the agenda however, meant that
^ There were at least 16 pieces of Federal And State industrial relations legislation in 1990 -96 including 1991, Q'ld and NSW Industrial Relations Acts; 1992 Victoria Employee Relations Act; Tas Industrial Relations Amendment (Enterprise Agreements and Workplace Freedom) Act ; 1993 Federal Industrial Relations Reform Act; WA Workplace Agreements Act,, Industrial Relations Amendment Act; Minimum Conditions of Employment Act; 1994 SA Industrial and Employee Relations Act; Q'ld Industrial Relations Reform Act; Vic Employee Relations (Amendment) Act; 1995 Federal Industrial Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act (enacted 15 January 1996); WA Industrial Legislation Amendment Act ; 1996 Federal Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act (titled Workplace Relations Act); NSW Industrial Relations Act; 1997
326 instead of the New Right 'crash and smash' strategies of the mid-1980s, employers took new paths toward achieving further control over aU aspects of work and employment. To this end, the Business CouncU of Austraha funded a number of studies into industrial relations (HUmer et al., 1989, 1991, 1993; Plowman and Rimmer, 1992). The push for international competitiveness legitimated the imperatives of business as perhaps never before in the twentieth century.
For the same reason, employers' initiatives of major workforce reductions and the aUied decline in employment security (Bray and Taylor, 1991; Burgess, 1991; Burgess and Campbell, 1993) were increasingly met with expressions of acceptance and approval, whereas the responses in the 1980s had been rather more questioning. (Schultz, 1986) Widespread changes in business practices and the reduction in industry protection accelerated the changing structure of production, with the concomitant continuing shde in manufacturing employment and segmentation of the labour market. These structural changes in labour markets reflected and reinforced the changing management methods, where managers strove to increase employee commitment to the enterprise in a variety of ways.
The changes in public policy, labour market structures, business agenda and management methods also became evident in the higher education sector, where business methods of administration became a requfrement in the 1990s - language such as customer-focus, measurable outcomes and key competencies entered university vocabularies, as did performance appraisals and point systems for pubhcations for academics. Whereas professional and vocational education had previously been just tolerated (aside from the prestige professions and vocations), the structure of university education had
327 by the 1990s become vocationally oriented, thus giving higher priority to employers' demands. (Karmel, 1990)
These new demands on academics also encouraged an element of short termism and fragmentation in research. The North American model of large teams of researchers and subdivided research labour met with considerable encouragement through the Australian Research CouncU (ARC), while the publication measurements systems encouraged quantity of output. (Falk, 1990) For industrial relations researchers, the new pressures reinforced the tendency toward object-oriented and short term research over theoretical and analytical development. But in the main these new problems were perhaps not so new for scholars in industrial relations. From the perspective of pioneer industrial relations academic, June Hearn
industrial relations did not find the new management demands so difficult because industrial relations has always had to fight for its survival, whereas other disciphnes now have to learn survival techniques (Hearn, Interview, January, 1998)
Nevertheless, industrial relations student numbers remained fairly static in the 1990s, as vocationally oriented students sought the new prestige occupations in areas such as finance and marketing, and business-focussed majors such as management. Moreover, descriptions of "the new industrial relations" and human resource management had been filtering through from UK and USA, so that providers of tertiary courses in Austraha began to take heed of these international shifts from the late 1980s. In light of aU these changes it is not surprising that 'human resource management' (HRM) was gathering popularity with Austraha business and academia.
328 Foreshadowing HRM
HRM first became notable in the late 1970s in the US but gained greatest impetus from publications such as Peters and Waterman (1982) and the Harvard study of Beer et al. (1984). These foundation authors sought to shift the focus of management practice, by incorporating employees into business practices and strategy. Thus the first HRM writers drew from the human relations school of Elton Mayo and associates, but were rather more sophisticated in their language and imagery. What was being attempted was to re-present the management of the employment relationship as a positive force for employees who, as social capital, became company assets to be nurtured and developed for maximum performance. (Keenoy, 1990)
As Keenoy and others have shown, many of the HRM prescriptions offer more in image than in substance. (Keenoy, 1990b, 1991, 1997; Keenoy and Anthony, 1992; Legge 1991, 1995) Nevertheless, HRM quickly gained popularity in the 1980s in the US and UK, where radical conservative governments bolstered notions of individualism and individual seff- maximisation.4 At the same time the sophistication of HRM as an ideology became evident in the way that its exponents took a moral high ground. The fundamental basis of HRM was projected as necessary to achieving national competitiveness - to reject HRM was to reject notions of being "globaUy competitive", which in turn was to reject national economic survival. What underpinned and strengthened the growth of HRM was its wide acceptance in the burgeoning business schools and departments. As universities became more market-oriented, they responded more readUy to the demand from students and business for business subjects. (Anthony, 1986)
•* What is perhaps surprising in this, is the ready acceptance of British businesses of such an overtly American notion. 329 The response of many industrial relations academics in the USA was to attempt to infiltrate the emergent HRM. In this respect thefr efforts were facilitated by the similar methods of analysis of management, economics and industrial relations in the USA, where econometric techniques had been the haUmark of rigour in the social and behavioural sciences for some decades. By contrast, in the UK the simplicity of the HRM assumptions was subjected to stringent and rigorous criticism from the late 1980s. Yet higher education courses in general and human resource management burgeoned in the UK in the 1980s, with increasing numbers of industrial relations academics re shaping their research as they moved to business or management schools. (Legge, 1995)
In Australia, business studies had also expanded rapidly throughout the 1980s in the higher education sector, and the two largest business schools at UNSW and the University of Melbourne, for example, had become important areas of business education and research.^ In the CAEs business studies had long been a core area of study, and these, too, expanded rapidly. ^ AUied to the corporatisation creep (Moses, 1990), the growth of business schools generated misgivings among academics for their potential for reduced academic freedom as influence of other stakeholders became apparent, just as Thomas (1983) had foreshadowed. In general, however, the debates over
^ The Austrahan Graduate School of Management (AGSM) and the Melbourne University Business School (MUBS) were separate entities under the auspices of their respective universities. Business Pohcy, schools and departments at other universities also grew rapidly through the 1980s. ^ From the late 1980s the former CAEs had become universities as the binary system if tertiary education was disbanded. (Karmel, 1990)
330 wage indexation, secondary boycotts and anti-discrimination, and then the mtUtifarious ramifications of the Accords, mdustrial relations academics appeared unperturbed by the rise of business studies and HRM.'^
Perhaps the very first notion of the impending imperiahsm of HRM and business studies for industrial relations is to be found in the Journal of Industrial Relations in December, 1980 when Stewart raised the question of whether Australian employers would follow the lead of employers in the USA in their de-unionising and new management tactics. However, beyond the occasional reference, (Frenkel, 1983) Stewart's findings met with little evident response. Stewart's investigation clearly identified much of what was to become the anti-union aspects of HRM, but at that time the notions of HRM had not been integrated or given the legitimating stamp of Harvard Business School.^
Rather, the Accords, the numerous inquiries into the formal industrial relations system, and other legislative and structural changes gave Austrahan scholars rich ground for research from the mid 1980s. Nevertheless, some scholars observed the patterns in the UK and USA and began to shift their focus of research toward business and management. For example. Palmer, (1988) Bamber (1989) and Plowman, (1989c) aU began research into management issues in the 1980s.
The newly-formed Centre for Industrial Relations Research University of Sydney, CIRRUS, together with the Departments of Industrial Relations at the University of Sydney and University of Melbourne, organised seminars
^ It seems possible that one reason for lack of concern over the incoming tide of HRM and business studies was that economics was also experiencing a rush of popxUarity in the mid-1980s. The proximity of industrial relations to economics (in academic terms) may have concealed the potential of the new studies for industrial relations. * Anna Stewart died in an accident in 1983, and a memorial project was set up in her name to assist women to take on a more active role in unions. 331 and developed bibhographies on workplace industrial relations in which the commonly expressed view that the workplace had been a neglected area of study in academic industrial relations in Australia was shown to be greatly overstated. (Zappala, 1988; see also Callus 1988).^ The outcomes of these activities was a recognition of the importance of extending close analysis to the workplace. As Callus, noted
despite this extensive literature, much remains to be done. Unfortunately the studies that have been undertaken cannot be simply aggregated ... because these studies have been interested in different issues, have been undertaken at different times and have used different non-comparable methodologies. (Callus, 1988, p.2)
In other words centrifugal forces on industrial relations scholarship abounded, and the wide literature was a fragmented literature. (See also Littler, Quinlan and Kitay, 1989)
Indeed, the attention given to the multiplicity of phenomena arising out of the Accords and initiatives such as enterprise bargaining had requfred a continued broadening of methods and techniques of research. Yet, in parallel with the centrifugal forces which enhanced fragmentation of research focus, many scholars also maintained an institutional focus, even when researching beyond the unidisciplinary attention to legislation, tribunal decisions and the major public parties and processes. For scholars such as Callus, this meant that broad approaches to analysis were hmited by what he saw as the centripetal force of the mainstream institutional
^ The bibhography developed by Zappala (1988) under the auspices of CIRRUS was achieved through funding from the Business CouncU of Austraha (BCA), which at the same time was commissioning reports and studies aimed at transforming the institutions of job regiUation and the nature of emplosrment in Austraha.
332 model. This was despite his own studies beyond the narrow mainstream, his awareness of the labour process derived research and such factors as the increasing use of the American strategic choice models in texts and teaching. (Callus, 1983, 1986) Thus, in highhghting the extensive hterature on workplace industrial relations identified by Zappala, Callus (1988, p.3) noted that.
Over 250 cited articles [on workplace industrial relations in Australia] indicate that, despite the dominance of the formal system that is characterised by the Federal and State tribunals, researchers have been active in investigating workplace industrial relations. ...
Yet also that
The "Arbitration" model of Australian industrial relations remains dominant because no alternative paradigm can be proposed on the basis of existing knowledge... (Callus, 1988, p.3)
The logic of this perspective (see also e.g. Gardner, 1989) rested on two assumptions - that the system of industrial relations was confined to the formal legislated structures and processes, and, as a coroUary, that academic industrial relations analysis was confined to studying these formal systems. In the face of the rich vein of changing industrial relations, it appears as ff scholars like Callus acceded primary legitimacy to the Arbitration model of the public industrial relations system and mainstream academic industrial relations, despite the evidence to the contrary.
At the UNSW there was another impetus for change. A review of the Faculty of Commerce in 1985 (the Ronayne Committee) offered an
333 opportunity for reconsideration of dfrections for industrial relations. The Department of Industrial Relations made a claim to the review committee to take over the smaU Organisational Behaviour Unit^o and to change the name of the expanded unit to the School of Human Resource Studies, because.
the emphasis in industrial relations has been shifting from a primary focus on trade unions and unionism in the context of work, to an equal balance for management strategy and the overall role of the personnel function. This entaUs greater integration between regulation and labour-management rule making on the one hand and on the other, issues such as the design of organizations, redundancy and workforce planning, personnel information systems and controls, workforce recruitment, promotion and deployment, performance appraisal, salary administration and the development of antidiscrimination devices. (UNSW School of Industrial Relations and Organizational Behaviour, (School of IR and OB), Annual Report 1988)
In its draft report the review committee recommended the incorporation of the Organizational Behaviour Unit into the School and renaming the school as recommended by the Department of Industrial Relations. However, foUowing expressions of 'some disquiet' from members of the Department the title, School of Human Resource Studies was removed from the recommendations in the final report and replaced by the more cautious title of Industrial Relations and Organizational Behaviour. (UNSW School of IR and OB, Annual Report 1988)
David Plowman, the Acting Head of the newly enlarged School of IR and OB at UNSW also promoted the notion of human resoin-ce studies in his
^^ The Organizational Behaviour Unit had been formed in 1970, but was reduced greatly in size in 1975 with the establishment ofthe Austrahan Graduate School of Management.
334 Presidential Address at the 1989 AIRAANZ Conference at the University of WoUongong. Expressing concern that industrial relations could maintain a "continuing presence". Plowman (1989b, pp.2-6) asserted that the focus on trade unions and rulemaking had limited the future of the disciphne to areas which of themselves were dechning. By broadening the core areas of study, industrial relations could 'pre-empt the advance of HRM' and stiU maintain its integrity as an academic disciphne which educated students, rather than trained future employees from a particular ideological bias of management. (Plowman, 1989b, p. 10) To underline his concerns Plowman offered graphic evidence of the disappearance of industrial relations as an academic discipline at Kansas University. At the same conference Haworth's paper, "HRM: A Unitarist Renaissance" noted the increasing recourse in management phUosophy to HRM labels. (Haworth, 1989) For Haworth, the great danger came from the de-legitimation of unions in the face of the unitarist appeal to individual gain in the new management ideology. ^^ All of these examples indicate that there were continuing contradictory centrifugal and centripetal forces on academic industrial relations, contradictions which had been unimportant in the 1980s as teaching programmes, student numbers, and research possibilities had been expanding.
11 Haworth's paper was given early on the morning after a very successfiU conference dinner. Because of the low levels of response to papers at such times, conference programmes were thereafter structured so that no papers were given after the Conference Dinner. Earher at the same conference GuiUe et al. (1989) also raised questions about the shifting sands for academic industrial relations in "Can Industrial Relations Survive without Uruons?" 335 The sharp shock of 1990
Despite the early warnings, and perhaps bolstered by the sustained acceptance of the Accord process, industrial relations academics appeared to have paid httle heed to the looming spectre of HRM. The first general recognition of the threat of HRM came at the AIRAANZ Conference in July 1990. Held 18 monthsi2 after the previous conference, the Melbotu-ne conference was attended by the largest number of participants up to that time. This conference was the first AIRAANZ Conference to provide scholarships to enable students to attend, evidence of the growing number of postgraduate research students and the maturing of the disciphne. That Griffin and his co-organisers were able to obtain funding from a major employer was also a result of the capacity of those at Melbourne to seek funding successfully, a skill which had developed over ten years, since the failure ofthe Labour Studies Programme. (See Chapter Seven)
The Melbourne Conference was also the first time it was necessary to run a mostly multi-streamed Conference because of a fifty per cent increase in papers. While common in most other disciplinary conferences, the shift to parallel sessions in 1990 meant that conference participants would not be able to attend and debate each paper. As AIRAANZ had grown in number, so too had the problems of providing the opportunity for paper presentation for all would-be paper-givers, while ensuring adequate discussion time and keeping the overall Conference within a reasonable time frame of three days. To limit opportunities for presentation was seen by Convenors, the Executive and AIRAANZ members generally, as contrary to the aims of a
12 Previously AIRAANZ Conferences had been biermial. The decision had been taken at WoUongong to consider a different time of year, and also explore the holding of conferences in a shorter time frame. After Melbovirne 1990, the next AIRAANZ Conference was held 18 months later on the Gold Coast in January 1992. (see Blackmur, 1992) Thereafter, conferences were held annuaUy.
336 non-hierarchical association where there was equal access to paper presentation. As a result in the 1990s there were virtuaUy no sessions where all participants attended. This led to some very hghtly attended sessions where the alternate sessions were controversial or of very immediate interest, such as the papers on HRM at the 1990 AIRAANZ Conference.
There were five papers given on aspects of employment management given by BoxaU and Dowhng (1990), Howard (1990), Bamber, HoweU and Shadur (1990), and Sutchffe and Sappey, (1990) as weU as Taylor's paper on management education (Taylor, 1990) and Palmer's Presidential Address which was given on the opening night of the Conference. (Palmer, 1990) While the Presidential Address was given at a social function which was attended by all the registrants, there was also standing room only at the other papers, despite multiple sessions.
Palmer's Presidential Address dealt mainly with the positive factors of HRM, and briefly with the role of women in management. Her argument was that industrial relations scholars felt uncomfortable with the "foreign territory". 13 Drawing on her experience with HRM-driven organisational change at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Palmer rejected criticisms of HRM noting that
it is clearly unrealistic to assume that the reahsts who use these sophisticated managerial techniques are unaware of the need to overcome resistance to organisational change (Palmer, 1990, p.4)
1^ The metaphor of foreign territory, noted by Palmer, has a simUar ring to that of Menger in the opening quote of this chapter, and indicates how far some scholars perceive disciphnes as territories, with the attendant notions of imperiahsm and colonising.
337 These were some of the aspects of HRM, Palmer asserted, with which industrial relations scholarship and practice were quite unfitted to deal. Moreover, the current Australian system and its assumptions of 'plurahsm' could not guarantee industrial peace, despite the early unfounded hopes that the system "would herald an era of peace and harmony". (Palmer, 1990, p.3)
On the other hand. Palmer insisted, there were also great similarities between industrial relations and HRM scholarship. Both drew on the notion of a contract or bargain and since the notion of the bargain was famihar to all industrial relations scholars
all we need to do to provide a famUiar intellectual basis to an analysis of HRM is to see the relevance of an understanding of the psychology of bargaining in modern management strategies (Palmer, 1990, p.5)
The difference between the two fields was that industrial relations mainly dealt with collective bargaining and contracts, whereas HRM appealed to "individual interests and egotistical concerns", implemented through "a psychological contract between the individual and the organisation". Indeed, HRM pohcies could be used to challenge the traditional notions of the 'common good'. Nevertheless, Palmer acknowledged that there were some hmits on the efficacy of HRM - it could "never provide the Utopia of a unitary and committed organisation". (Palmer, 1990, p.8)
The following day Boxall and Dowling (1990) offered the same argument based on a simUar dialectic between practice and scholarship. Like Palmer, they also foresaw problems for industrial relations as practice and study because industrial relations dealt primarily with unions, tribunals and collective bargaining. They began thefr paper with a survey of the core of
338 HRM, a now famUiar model drawing from the Harvard study of Beer et al, (1984) which BoxaU and Dowhng asserted was the seminal work in HRM. This American paradigm led to four fundamental attributes of HRM, which then produced a normative model for management in individual enterprises, although this stUl required substantive empfrical testing. These four attributes were
• the centrality of investing in human resources (human resource development) which contrasted with "an accountancy driven cost- control mentality
• a strategic approach where firms' business strategies and human resource strategies would be constantly interacting, according to notions of 'fit'
• integration of HRM with general management, so the notion that HRM is the property of specialists is also denounced
• an enterprise level of focus (Boxall and Dowling, 1990)
Like Palmer, Boxall and Dowling saw industrial relations as the study of the formal public system, and offered the view that HRM was not only an alternative in the practice of managing employment but also either a replacement or complementary area of study. Perhaps mindful of their audience and the controversy over the potential of HRM to become the new dominant paradigm in the studies of work and employment, Boxall and Dowling were generally cautious and polite about the study of industrial relations. However, toward the end of their paper they noted that the perceived weaknesses of academic industrial relations could be remedied by more enterprise driven knowledge-getting and more research on
339 management as the initiator of change, rather than simply focusing on trade unions and tribunals.
In a nutshell, the preoccupation of both IR theory and practice in Australasia with the institutional resolution of conflicting interests is no longer sufficient. (BoxaU and Dowhng, 1990, p.163)
At very least, they concluded, there should be a debate between academics and management lobbyists over the extent to which existing regulatory frameworks were an impediment to existing strategic management initiatives. (Boxall and Dowhng, 1990)
Howard's approach in "Industrial Relations and Human Resom-ce Management: Different or Differentiated Products?" took rather a different tack. Howard examined the 'transformation' argument of Kochan et al. (1986), and interpreted the shift to HRM to be a reassertion of managerial prerogative, noting in particular the capacity of unions in the USA to bargain over all aspects of the management of employment and production, in contrast with Australia where the tribunal tradition had for the most part held managerial prerogatives as sacrosanct, i* More importantly for the Australian industrial relations scholars at the conference Howard noted, in traditional Howard fashioni^, that the hmits on managerial prerogative had begun to be usurped by the tribunals in recent years, and that the problem facing managers was, unlike in the USA, the tribunals and not the unions.
1^ Just as de Vyver had noted in the 1950s (see Chapter Four). See also Higgins, 1922, p.13 for strong statement of the centrahty of managerial prerogatives in the arbitration system. 1^ In equaUy inimitable fashion, Howard hghtened what had become a black mood by responding to Plowman's criticism that his paper lacked a bibhography, with the response "I have said time and again -1 don't put in bibliographies, I GO in bibliographies!"
340 Thus the functions of personnel managers in Austraha and USA had been greatly different, so that the impetus for change was quite different. What was important was not so much that managers in Australia were re-labeUing themselves as human resource managers. Rather, the shift to HRM in Australia was a signal that erstwhile personnel managers would undertake quite different methods and approaches to workforce organisation and regulation.
Howard's paper was followed by Sutcliffe and Sappey's (1990) "Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations: Towards a Framework for Analysis". They questioned the perceptions that the study and processes of industrial relations were pro-labour, while HRM policies were seen as anti union, although there was no doubt for these authors that industrial relations and HRM had developed in isolation from each other with quite different history and ideology. They then attempted to map industrial relations and HRM and offer an analytical model which identified the sources of difference and similarity between the common perceptions of what each field of study offered for analysis of workplace policies. They concluded however that the two labels (IR and HRM) understated the extent of overlap between the two fields in practice and study. (Sutclfffe and Sappey, 1990 pp.218-9)
Of the two remaining papers on management, that of Bamber, HoweU and Shadur (1990, pp. 169-91) on the transferabUity of management styles was a less contentious and critical analysis of Japanese human resource management styles. Their work involved integrative discussion of macro and micro features, comparative investigation and analysis, and prehminary findings of a case study of a Japanese fiirm in Australia. Taylor's (1990 pp.526-41) was a more unusual paper, even though it too used comparative
341 analysis in investigating "Industrial Relations and Management Education". In order to identify possible strategies, Taylor sought to understand the processes by which industrial relations has been bypassed or marginahsed in MBA courses in Australia and at major business schools in the USA. His discovery that Business Schools become the capture of business, with resultant elimination of "inappropriate mindsets" generated gloomy findings, but Taylor proposed there was sufficient depth in industrial relations to broaden the subject once again to cover also phenomena which are deemed "appropriate issues". Taylor underlined his pohcy recommendations by noting that several industrial relations academics had recently pubhshed books with human resource management in the title and that much of the content of these covered industrial relations ideas, literature and names. (Taylor 1990, p.544)
In summary authors of at least two of the presentations (Palmer, 1990; Boxall and Dowling, 1990) considered HRM as a general advance in the control and administration of the employment relationship, as study and as a 'real world activity'. This raises the difficult question ofthe hnks between the rhetoric or idealism in personnel management / HRM, and the apparent industrial relations approach to the relationship between employers and employees which had tended toward 'realism'. For analysts such as Laffer and Niland, for example, the study of industrial relations rested on concerns over the regulation of work and the outcomes for employees and business. While the analysis of these latter authors rested on the 'labour problem', other principles such as equity and the moral order were not excluded from their research. By contrast for BoxaU and Dowling the fundamental driver was the needs of business as of paramount significance. This meant that factors which did not 'fit' the ideal were eliminated from consideration. It is
342 not that such an approach should be subject to judgment, per se, but rather that any analysis of such an approach needs to take account of the fact that HRM was founded, and remained thoroughly grounded, in manageriahst principles. For writers such as BoxaU and Dowhng (1990) therefore, the primary object of analysis was the employment relationship, just as it was in industrial relations, but the primary objective was to give top priority to the needs of enterprise, in which the employees were instrumental, rather than the focal point.
There was thus a strongly normative element in the writings of analysts such as Boxall and Dowling, for whom the imperative of HRM, as study or practice is to obtain best outcomes for business. The 'investment' in employees, the differential individual-choice pay structures, the integration of employees and employment matters into firms' strategies were the means to justify the ends ofthe enterprise. These imperatives stood in contrast to industrial relations scholarship, where, as has been shown in earher chapters, the object of analysis was the employment relationship but without the confining bounds of enterprise priorities. Indeed as BoxaU and Dowhng (p. 160) note the industrial relations paradigm, if the then prevaUing intellectual anarchy could be accorded such a descriptor, was founded in 'the labo(u)r problem' but as a multi-level interdisciphnary domain, not necessarily determined by commitment to capital, labour or the State, or any fractions thereof.
At the Melbourne AIRAANZ Conference of 1990, the response to the Presidential Address and the papers described above was one of dismay, disbelief, and deep concern. Scholars rejected the foundations of HRM, the suggestions to integrate with HRM, and even notions that the emergent field of study should even be taken seriously. Debate foUowed on debate, with
343 some scholars doubtful of the inteUectual elements, others at the ideologicaUy driven elements. Several scholars pointed to the frequent conflation of 'theory' and 'practice' in HRM, whUe many drew on notions of academic freedom and inteUectual integrity, which had also been raised by Taylor in his paper. Concerns were not so much with the 'practice' of HRM - the ways in which employers "manufactured consent", had been a common area of teaching, if not of research in Australia since the mid-1970s. Rather most indignation was reserved for the notion that the exponents of HRM were not simply claiming superiority of business practice, but superiority of HRM as intellectual craft.
The approach of the HRM scholars drew on a different epistemology. Palmer (1990, p.3) highlighted the superiority of HRM by reference to the "sophisticated techniques of organisational change at QUT" as an example of the superiority of HRM. SimUarly, Boxall and Dowling had appealed to the enterprise focus and advantages for competitiveness from HRM. For these analysts the logic of HRM as an academic discipline lay in its success with the business community and its legitimation from business. It is not surprising then, that Boxall and Dowling could assume the ascendancy of HRM as an area of study, which was at least equal to industrial relations, and probably superior. For Boxall and Dowling, the sound and fury in the debates was indeed clear proof of the claims of superiority by the HRM academics, and
HRM would hardly have aroused the interest and passion it has unless it did represent something of a discontinuity. (BoxaU and Dowling 1990)
344 For the industrial relations scholars such seff-assured claims of HRM scholars had a certain irony to them. Having achieved a fragile status as an academic disciphne, it appeared to the AIRAANZ members at that 1990 conference and beyond, that their disciphnary status was again under threat. Moreover the 'threat' came from an area of study which appeared to have a fundamental normative bias and to have attained the same academic status with extraordinarily rapid success.
Responses to HRM
In the face of what was perceived to be a major attack on thefr craft, most industrial relations scholars responded and reacted immediately and over the next few years in several definable ways. Such responses were mediated by the continuing research commitments, the shifting sands of pubhc pohcy and legislation, the increasing pressures on higher education to become 'customer-focused', and the redirection of research overseas. In this respect the continuing change in universities was an important filhp for HRM. With increasing importance given to professional and vocational education for domestic and international students, the higher education sector was increasingly driven by student demand. In the wider community a central element of this demand was for business focused education. And, in an environment where major workforce reductions had been occurring for nearly a decade, and flexible employment structures were burgeoning, new forms of management practice were an obvious start. Hence, there was increasing demand for business focused education which trained students in the new forms of business and management practice. Before examining the responses of the Australian scholars, those of thefr USA and UK counterparts offers some useful insights into the nature ofthe debates
345 US Responses to HRM
In the USA, the early responses to HRM attempted to integrate the two 'schools' of IR and HRM. Indeed 'labor relations' scholars had been involved in the seminal Harvard HRM model of Beer et al. (1984) Among the industrial relations specialists of the later 1980s, two responses became apparent. First, an integrative framework was proposed in which the two schools would develop in tandem, mirroring the structure of many academic units. This would have the advantage of improving organisational security for the professional association, IRRA,i6 in which membership was declining, reflecting the shrinking place of industrial relations in the USA.
Historically, American scholars perceived industrial relations as traditionally dealing "with employees organized by trade unions, whUe ... human resource specialists ... dealt with nonunionized personnel". (Meltz, 1992, p.255). The union focus of the American scholars had increased from the 1960s, which Kaufman claimed had derived from the ejection of personnel management scholars in the 1950s, (Kaufman, 1992, 1993) and became fixed from the time of Dunlop's (1958) Industrial Relations Systems. While Kaufman perhaps overstates his case, there is no doubt that much of the industrial relations scholarship attempted to shadow economics and also to focus more on the unionised sectors. Certainly by the early 1990s the US scholars felt a "palpable sense that the field is in danger of marginalization", (Kaufman, 1992, p.263) and were searching for any means to regain a place at the centre.
1® The IRRA is organised separately at Local Chapter and National levels, and is simUar to the Industrial Relations Society in Austraha, rather than AIRAANZ. At the Local Chapter level less than 10% of members were academics in 1990, although 30% of the National IRRA were academics. See also Stern, 1992
346 Given these perceptions and the rapid incursion of HRM in industrial relations 'territory', it is perhaps not surprising that scholars began demeaning industrial relations, particularly its purported tendency to promote adversarialism.i^ (McKersie, 1990, pp.4-5) Scholars began to de- emphasise the role of trade unions as promoting labour, and to re-emphasise collective bargaining as "cooperation of greater power-sharing". For Kaufman, the historical emphasis on unions and collective bargaining had been the major weakness of industrial relations analysis, and one that had been unjustified, given the improved quality of employment. This historian of industrial relations in the United States (Kaufman, 1993) argued in response to the decline of academic industrial relations, that a shift away from attention to trade unions was well overdue, not only for disciphnary security, but also because
Over the last half century ... most of the causes of labor's disadvantageous position have been significantly reduced ... fewer workers suffer from a disadvantage in bargaining power and the extent of this disadvantage is likewise smaller. As a result the playing field is more level, thereby reducing the demand for collective bargaining by organized workers. (Kaufman 1993, p. 172)
Moreover, asserted Kaufman, trade unions and coUective bargaining processes were potentially deleterious insofar as
... once a union is recognized, its exercise of bargaining power will lead over time to monopohstic wage premiums and attendant forms of misallocation. [furthermore] A particularly
1^ Curiously, in Austraha similar charges of adversariahsm were laid on the 'urdque' industrial relations system, and business ideologues promoted the American model of collective bargaining as a remedy!
347 sahent issue in judging the continued efficacy of coUective bargaining is whether the adversarial prmciple on which the [collective bargaining] system is buUt is stiU compatible with the attainment of world class standards in product quahty and productivity. The newest generation of best practice plants, for example, rely heavily on trust-buUding, employee involvement and flexible work rules, attributes that seem considerably more difficult to initiate and maintain successfully in unionized situations. (Kaufman 1993, p.l72-3)i8
For scholars like Kaufman therefore, the 'new' industrial relations, as modified by the transforming character of HRM and the international economic environment, was unproblematic, particularly given the imperative for improving the competitiveness of American firms. In this respect scholars like Kaufman could readily accept the language and objectives of HRM as a means to competitiveness, for competitiveness was central to business and national success.
The central claim of HRM, as practice and for its scholarly promoters, lay in its capacity to "achieve competitive advantage for the firm". The weaknesses and elisions in theory and practice were admitted but only as challenges. As Lewin, Mitchell and Sherer (1992) noted
WhUe scholars may discount [HRM] writings for thefr lack of scientific underpinnings, they nevertheless reflected the influence of new competitive forces, stemming largely from international sources and deregulation .... on utihzation, assessment and motivation of employees ... Hence the short-term quick fix orientation to personnel management appeared ... to give way to longer-term strategically driven human resource management policies and practices (Lewin Mitchell and Sherer, 1992, p.606)
1^ Kaufman's assertions bear a curious resemblance to the BCA (1991, 1993) pubhcations and to the assertions of Austrahan radical 'dry' economist, Judith Sloan. (Sloan, 1994)
348 In accepting the language and logic of the HRM analysts, scholars in the USA therefore altered thefr emphases toward the employment relationship, but the shift was not so much transformational for some as a turn in direction. Even scholars who acknowledged inequality in the employment relationship, and saw the concomitant need for trade unions, were sanguine about seguing into a manageriahst conception of employment. (McKersie et al., 1994)
Others attempted to develop upon managerialism by inserting unionism into the model, such as the MIT IR/HRM Study (Kitay and Lansbury, 1998) or Kochan and Osterman's (1994) Mutual Gains Enterprise. The plans to integrate or reintegrate industrial relations was not simply for organisational security of a learned and professional association. Scholars such as Kochan, Osterman and Capelli (see e.g. Kochan and Osterman, 1994) were seeking ways of maintaining or introducing a union-positive perspective in employment relations. This was as much an altruistic view, as a determination not to waste their human capital. For example, in Kochan, Katz and McKersie (1986) and Kochan and Osterman (1994) it was possible to demonstrate the positive affects of union-management cooperation on the competitiveness of businesses.
The difficulty with this approach as became evident in the IRRA literature was that instead of civUising HRM, industrial relations would absorb the language and the objectives of HRM. The objective of Kochan and Osterman's Mutual Gains Enterprise was to purvey a pro-union business- oriented perspective on management at the enterprise, but to do this, they necessarily resorted to the terminology and imperatives common to HRM prescriptions. By the 1990s scholars had embraced HRM, albeit with
349 concerns over the deunionising objective of many American HRM initiatives. (Kochan et al., 1986, Chehus and Dworkin, 1990)
Responses to HRM in the UK
Responses to HRM by many UK scholars were rather less accommodating, although there were serious attempts to investigate, describe, and categorise varieties of HRM (Storey 1991; Blyton and Turner, 1992; Keenoy 1990). Some scholars undertook to promote HRM as a positive phenomenon, and journals like the International Journal of Human Resource Management appeared from 1990. (see also Hendry and Pettigrew) From an Australian perspective one of the most notable proponents of HRM was David Guest (Guest, 1987, 1991) who, like his counterparts in the USA, drew on the implicit jingoism in which HRM was portrayed as essential for the national economy.
British industry stUl lags far behind its main competitors. For further catching up to occur, it seems likely that a fuUer use of human resources will be necessary. This is hkely to requfre a shift in emphasis away from industrial relations systems toward HRM policies as the main path to improved performance. (Guest, 1991, p.58)
Guest's careful scholarship was not uncritical. Indeed, like many of the British scholars, Guest took an interpretative approach to HRM. In examining the reasons for its success in the US, for example, he noted the parallels between the language and normative values of HRM and the resurgence of the 'American dream' foUowing the election of Ronald Reagan. (Guest, 1990) HRM, appealed to the frontier mentahty said to be deep in the
350 national American psyche. The message of HRM enhanced the ideals of individual self improvement, human growth and opportunities for progress. It was important for managers too, asserted Guest, because they were portrayed as purveyors of progress and self actuahsation, Moreover, HRM appealed to the 'American Dream' because it requfred strong men and great leaders in the traditions of great American leaders. (Guest, 1990, see also Guest, 1987, 1991) What is important about Guest's interpretative approach is that he was not critical of notions of HRM per se, and indeed is generally cited as one of the phenomenon's chief promoters in the UK. Rather, Guest's approach reflects the response of many British scholars to HRM. This was the evolution of a whole new subfield of critical management, (see e.g. du Gay and Salaman, 1992, Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992, Keenoy and Anthony, 1992). Legge, (1995) for example, has argued with only slight frony, that academics became primary stakeholders in the transactions of HRM, not only marketing their intellectual legitimacy and expertise to business, but also
Nostalgia for discipline origins, not to mention the labour process heyday of the 1970s and early 1980s, made some academics more prone to see HRM ... as a mediator of the contradictions of capitalism, rather than the key to competitive advantage, Additionally academic careers can be forwarded by a critical dissection ... of new orthodoxies. Hence a large critical hterature has emerged that has focused on deconstructing the contradictions and rhetoric of HRM [E]ven the most passing acquaintanceship with actor network theory would suggest, successful academics have to develop an entrepreneur's sensitivity to consumer taste and market niches. (Legge, 1995b, pp.49-50 See also Anthony, 1985)
351 In other words, Legge argues that the critical management academics, including herself, gained the paradoxical opportunity for critical scholarship, while at the same time ensuring job satisfaction and security. It is unportant to note, however, that there was a lag. WhUe the critical management school of thought has continued to bloom, and indeed developed further subfields such as organisational discom-se, (see e.g. Keenoy et al., 1997) the mass of publications only became apparent in the 1990s, over a decade after Margaret Thatcher came to power. We wiU return to this lag later. For now, it is worth noting that for various reasons, one outcome of the arrival of HRM for industrial relations scholarship was the emergence of a counter-field of critical management. i9
Not all scholars took up HRM from a positive or critical perspective. The British Journal of Industrial Relations remained what is arguably the most prestigious Enghsh language journal in the discipline, and contmued to publish an eclectic array of material under the general label of industrial relations.2o This was in large part because of the tradition of workplace analysis in British industrial relations which had foUowed the business and government concerns over the workplace in Britain. As the Donovan Commission in the 1960s had emphasised, there had always been an enterprise focus in UK industrial relations practice and scholarship. Moreover, the higher education system in Britain, together with the traditions of case study research, had meant that the commitment to holistic industrial relations scholarship had been long apparent in the UK. In this
1^ In this respect it is noteworthy that many of the critical management scholars had been industrial relations scholars who had received some higher education in sociology and who had previously pubhshed in "old" industrial relations. The greater of role of sociology for British scholarship has been noted previously. ^ For example, US surveys of prestigious journals in labour economics and industrial relations almost always hsted BJIR as an "A" journal, or a "top 5" joinmal. see e.g. IRRA Proceedings, 1987; See also Gardner and O'Leary, 1993 for an Australian assessment. 352 respect it is not surprising that the academic debates included methodological debates, (Marginson, 1987), aspects of epistemology (Keenoy, 1991; Dunn, 1991) and research into personnel and human resource management (Guest, 1991) The continuing role of BUIRA and publication of new editions of basic texts aU attest to the continuing role for industrial relations research and teaching, particularly at the large schools which had developed at Cardiff and Warwick.21 While the focus of research was on 'traditional' issues of job regulation, the role of managers as the business activists had re-entered as central players, (e.g. Hyman and Ferner, 1994; Bljdion and TurnbuU, 1992) In summary the responses of British industrial relations academics to the emergent and ascendant HRM were strategic, with rather less breast-beating than in the USA.
Responses to HRM in Australia
Given the links between scholars in Austraha, the USA and the UK, the 1990 AIRAANZ Congress is perhaps an artfficial date for HRM to burst on the scene. This is particularly so if the forewarnings above are taken into account. Moreover, as has been shown, despite the much earher decline in unionism in the northern Anglophone countries, together with the strident anti-union, and pro-business rhetoric and regulation of the Thatcher and Reagan governments, academic publications which indicated respondent shifts in research direction took several years in those countries. Nevertheless, and perhaps as a consequence ofthe events and imperatives in the UK and USA, Australian scholars in IR responded quite quickly to the
^1 In part, the increasing importance of Europe, together with changes in the natiire and regulation of work and employment, have aided the continuing role for industrial relations research and teaching, as was evident in the anthologies such as Hyman and Ferner, 1994, and the appearance of the European Journal of Industrial Relations in 1995. See e.g. Hyman 1995 353 claims of the 'foreign conquerors'. The responses in Austraha reflected elements of both the USA and UK responses.
Some scholars' research was seemingly unaffected by the claims of HRM, (Dabscheck, 1995)22but {^ general industrial relations academics appeared to take heed ofthe challenge to their discipline. Two specific responses are apparent. The first was a broadening of the industrial relations mainstream, as Vic Taylor (1990) had proposed at the 1990 Melbourne AIRAANZ Conference, whUe the second was an initiative to integrate 1980s type mainstream IR and HRM. These can be designated Broad IR and HRM+IR respectively. While there were some similarities in both responses, there are also significant differences, for example in the definitions each of these two strands ascribes to industrial relations and the trajectories that each could take through to the mid-1990s, which is the end of this study.
Broad IR was characterised by a continued expansion of the objects of study, and by sustained acknowledgment of the complexity of factors which influenced those objects of study. What differentiated it from the arbitration-focused approach of the 1980s mainstream was that the formal public system shifted from the centre of study to that of an (occasionaUy) intervening variable. In its place, the centre of study became the nature and determinants of work and employment relationships at a macro or micro level. The organisation of employment relationships globaUy, nationaUy or at the enterprise was assumed to influence and in turn be influenced by production and market outcomes.
Within this enhanced expanded approach were a variety of analj^ical frameworks, drawing on scholarship not only from the USA and UK, but also
22 Dabscheck's (1995) The Struggle for Industrial Relations deals oiUy with the pubhc industrial relations system; and the strategies from the late 1980s to change the system. It is thus a notable example ofthe unidisciplinary mainstream. 354 from Europe and Japan. Much of the international research took management practices as a primary influence on work and production, just as some scholars had been propounding for some years (Taylor, 1989; Lansbury, 1988, Lansbury et al. 1982; 1992 Plowman, 1989). Some scholars, for example, foUowed the British critical management analyses, and examined management initiatives such as Total Quahty Management or Best Practice with a scholarly rather than policy intent. (KeUy, 1993; Bafrd, 1994, Rosser, 1992; Rosser, Todd and Fells, 1995) The work of Kochan et al. (1986; Kochan and Piore, 1990) in developing an international framework for comparative analysis brought American models of Broad IR frito consideration. These not only extended the older areas of study weU beyond formal rulemaking process, but also attempted to go beyond the constraints of labour problem. (Lansbury and Bamber, 1995; Kelly and UnderhUl, 1995; Kitay and Lansbury, 1998) The influences on Australian scholarship broadened considerably to include Japanese management styles and strategies, German production methods and enterprise organisation, and notions of shifts in relations of production arising from changing methods and imperatives of production.23 Terms such as lean production, flexible specialisation and post-Fordism had all entered the vocabulary of academic industrial relations research and teaching.
By contrast, other scholars focused on the changes in public pohcy from award restructuring to enterprise bargaining which had firmly placed the needs of industry and enterprise as a top priority. (Junor, Barlow and Paterson; 1992; Gahan, 1993) Yet in investigatmg even these traditional issues, the attention had shifted toward the hnks between employment, production and market factors. The processes of regulation of employment
23 See e.g. Belanger et al. 1994; Appelbaum et al., 1998; Hyman and Ferner, 1994; Streeck et al., 1995 and in Australia, Miu-akami, 1995, Lansbury and MacDonald, 1993 355 were stUl of central significance, but more tightly bound to the context. The importance of all of these scholarly initiatives for industrial relations scholarship in the Broad IR model, was that in many respects it offered a re- emphasis on the need for integrating complex factors which involved work and employment. At issue was not the labour problem but a multffactorial production problem, and as the expanding array of forms of organising production and work became apparent, the multiple determinants were analysed in light of the effects that regulation and organisation of work and employees may have on production.
Because the complexity was taken as a given, scholars tended to pay closer attention to analytical rigour, as the increased breadth of methods attest. In one way, the scholars taking a Broad IR approach had moved away from a disciplinary cringe to a renewed awareness that multidisciphnary research for complex phenomena like industrial relations is good research practice. At AIRAANZ conferences in the early 1990s scholars used econometric and statistical techniques, case studies, and hermeneutics, whUe often employing at the same time a range of theoretical management and political science models or critical legal studies, (see e.g. Nyland and Svensen, 1995; Fox and Teicher, 1995)
The HRM+IR response
By contrast the HRM+IR response to the incursions of human resource management tended to be much more focused. At the 1992 AIRAANZ Conference, Gardner and Palmer proposed the formation of a new field of study which integrated HRM and Industrial Relations. Their model ffrst encapsulated Industrial Relations as mainly covering collective institutional
356 forms of conflict resolution, since "industrial relations assumes diverse and conflicting interests between management and worker, and is concerned with mechanisms to give voice to those differences" (Gardner and Palmer, 1992a, pp.109-13, 119) Drawing on the often conflicting interpretations of the proponents of HRM (Torrington and Guest, 1990) and the British critical management theorists, (Legge, 1991), Gardner and Palmer were less specffic about human resource management. However, recognising the diffuse nature of HRM, they argued that "human resource management is more concerned with the enterprise and the effective enhancement and deployment of the skUls of individuals within it". (Gardner and Palmer, 1992a, pp.113-9) Taking the two concepts. Industrial Relations and HRM, as objects found within organisations, Gardner and Palmer then developed a means by which the two areas could be linked. Given the complexities of modern organisations, argued Gardner and Palmer, (1992a, pp. 109-30) the link between industrial relations and HRM was to be found in the implicit or purposive strategy available to each of the parties within an organisation. Thus strategy, they argues built on the commonalities between industrial relations and human resource management, because in those strategies - ff not in the academic discourse - [organisations] find some way to meld industrial relations and human resource management. Not all succeed, but where they do they point to a viable integration of employment relations.(Gardner and Palmer, 1992a, p. 128) ^
24 In the same year Gardner and Palmer pubhshed a widely used textbook which developed extensively on these ideas. (Gardner and Pahner, 1992b) See below 357 The bridge between these two vastly differing disciphnes is strategic choice theory which had been popularised by Kochan et al. and was also a basis some ofthe Broad IR approaches in the 1990s.25
The need to promulgate the HRM+IR perspective was in large part the basis of the formation of the International Employment Relations Association (lERA) in 1993, in which year a major new joiu-nal. The International Journal of Employment Studies also commenced. Both initiatives occurred under the aegis of the Department of Employment Relations at the University of Western Sydney, whose senior academics had been propounding an HRM+IR perspective in thefr research and teaching since the late 1980s. (Hayward and Mortimer, 1988)
A primary objective of lERA was to develop employment relations,
both in terms of theory and in terms of practice and a desire to see the field as a living one not just as academic discourse but also to encourage debate with practitioners as to the relevance of this concept [employment relations] in practice. (Mortimer and Leece, 1994, p.3)
Thus, membership of lERA was rather more broadly based than AIRAANZ, (See Chapter Seven), with membership open to practitioners and academics ahke. Like AIRAANZ, the focal point for lERA was its annual conferences, at which practitioners were invited to present papers. Between ten and twenty per cent of papers were presented by HRM managers or consultants. The great majority of papers however, were presented by academics.
25 There have been continuing doubts about the capacity of strategic choice theory to explain actors' decisions, (Littler, 1988; Gahan, 1995) It is perhaps better designated an hjrpothesis. 358 (Mortimer and Leece, 1995; PuUin and Fastenau, 1995; Dundas and Woldring, 1998)
For the lERA scholars, the significance of the HRM+IR conceptuahsation of employment relations26 was that it signffied both a basis for study and also for practice beyond the scholars' interpretations of industrial relations. While this led to a degree of reification, the research at lERA Conferences generaUy sought test and reahse advantages of HRM+IR approach. As Fastenau and PuUin argued,
WhUe IR is concerned with collective efforts and responses HRM is concerned with individuals - individual employees and individual organizations. While the IR perspective focuses on workers' efforts to control the employment relationship and employer response, HRM focuses on management efforts to direct and control the employment relationship ... The fundamental difference between Employment Relations and its contributing concepts of IR and HRM is that Employment Relations recognizes the conceptual and practical insights which result from studying employment relationships exphcitly addressing the dynamic exchange between the internal environment of organizations and the external context in which they operate. (Fastenau and Pullin, 1995, p.208)
For these scholars then, employment relations drew on an HRM+IR blend which rested on the perception that industrial relations was characterised by 'worker focus' adversariahsm and collectivities, (see e.g. Leece, 1995). In seeking to dfrect the scholarship of their strand or school toward a combined but different paradigm, the leaders of the employment relations followed
2^ As wUl be discussed below, the term employment relations is itself a hnguistic catacombs with miUtiple identities. By the mid-1990s it was used by both scholars who looked to the HRM+IR focus as weU as those on the Broad IR trajectory. The term has a long history, but it has been a label reflecting many perspectives. Thus in general I have used added descriptors to identify which "employment relations' is meant. See e.g. Foenander, 1954 and Heneman, 1969. 359 from the earher prescriptions of Boxall and Dowhng at the 1990 AIRAANZ Conference. The HRM+IR employment relations proponents first distiUed the concepts of both HRM and industrial relations, and then sought recombination which would absorb aspects of both disciphnes, as defined. They also sought a strong practical and prescriptive intent in scholarship, which would realise the academic concept in the 'real world'.
There was clear evidence of the success of the HRM+IR conceptuahsation of employment relations in the early and mid 1990s. Gardner and Palmer (1992, 1997) provided a comprehensive text which covered aspects of both industrial relations and HRM as described above. Chapters on trade unions, employer associations and tribunals were balanced with chapters on staffing policies, management history and training. Together with other texts (see e.g., Mortimer and Leece 1995) the HRM+IR approach proved useful in teaching programmes, particularly in areas of business studies. (Griffith University, 1995)
Certainly there was pressure from universities and employers for a more focussed business oriented approach. By the mid-1990s, declining unionism and an increasingly self-assured business lobby were demanding business graduates well-versed in the business discourse. Industrial relations, had been portrayed by business lobbies such as the Business CouncU of Australia as being an essentially adversarial concept, inappropriate to modern business practice. It was a portrayal which business schools and programmes appeared to accept. (HUmer et al. 1989, 1991, 1993) Moreover, as was noted in earlier chapters, universities were under increasing pressure to provide professional education and employment skUls above all else, whUe the rising importance was given to measuring teaching success by a simple measure of student numbers. In hght of these pressures it was not
360 surprising that many universities were reducing or repackaging thefr industrial relations programmes in order attract students and appear to convey famUiarity with business discourse. In this respect, the HRM+IR employment relations approach proved a marketing success.
The picture was however, more complicated. Many industrial relations academics who come under the rubric of Broad IR, were also beginning to use the term 'employment relations', as a means of relabelhng but not repackaging their discipline, (see footnote 27) Such an approach was not new. Even in the 1980s scholars such as Kitay and Sutchffe, had used the term interchangeably with industrial relations. By the mid 1990s for many scholars the term 'employment relations' did not reflect a particular paradigmatic approach, but rather an substitutable term for industrial relations, with less of the negative baggage purveyed by the business lobbyists.
Moreover, despite the directed attempts of the HRM+IR employment relations scholars to define their school as a sharp break from tradition, there were clear simUarities between Broad IR and HRM+IR approaches. As Fastenau and Pulhn (1995) had noted (see above), analysis could cover a great range of material, at macro and micro levels, in which macro and micro contexts were integrated. Thus in many respects the differentiation between the two approaches was more designated than real by the mid 1990s. The perception of similarities was also apparent in the overlap papers which were presented at lERA and AIRAANZ between 1993 and 1995).2? From the perspective of the leaders of the HRM+IR school, the difference lay in the perceptions of what constituted the study and practice of industrial
27 See e.g. Baird, 1994; McGrath Champ, 1995; Leece, 1995 for papers presented at both AIRAANZ and lERA conferences 361 relations, the tendency to conflate the inteUectual domain with the activities of practitioners, and the high regard given to human resom-ce management. This differentiation may be increasingly difficult to impose as trade unionism continues to decline and the formal pubhc industrial relations is shifted to the 'private sphere' of individual contracts.
Was HRM a 'Hayekian Shock' for industrial relations?28
There is no doubt that HRM constituted a major challenge to industrial relations and that industrial relations academics were shocked for a year or two from 1990. The HRM model had been slow to influence academics in Austraha prior to the 1990s because so much of the 1980s had been taken up with consensual aspects of the Accords, and the frequent pohcy shifts. In part, HRM represented a structural change since the new field of study was incorporated into business education. The latter was the area of greatest growth in higher education just at the time that manageriahsm and performance indicators, simUar to those in business, became important
Many of those changes had been in evidence for some time. Moreover as the brief studies of UK and USA scholarship above revealed, there is a lag in academic responses. The 'transformation literature' (Kochan et al 1986) only began towards the end of Reagan era, and Kochan and Osterman's (1994) Mutual Gains was published fifteen years after Reagan commenced serious State de-legitimation of unions. The slowness of US responses was particularly notable insofar as more than UK or Austraha, academic analysis in US had focused most heavUy on labour markets, trade unions
28 It is worth noting that Hayek reserved some of his most viriUent prose for those who promoted national economic gain as the basis for directing economic and social pohcies. (Hayek, 1944, pp. 130-2) 362 and coUective bargaining. For the North American academics, the assault on collectivism appeared to cut at the heart of thefr disciphne. Yet, despite some rumblings, (Kochan and Barocci, 1985) the American academics were slow to respond to their 'Hayekian shock'. On the other hand given thefr long acceptance of the more classical aspects of institutional economics and of neoclassical economics (Kerr, 1994), the acceptance of HRM-as-practice was not difficult for many. (Kaufman, 1993; Stern, 1992). Social democrat scholars like Kochan, however, expressed clearly articulated concerns at the ideological implications of HRM, and in response, attempted to integrate notions of industrial relations within the HRM paradigm.
By contrast, the British scholars remained either avowedly 'pluralist' or attacked the heart of HRM, by making use of the broader academic training received in the UK, and drawing upon clever analysis and multiple disciplinary weapons to question HRM through critical analysis. For many industrial relations researchers, the way of dealing with the 'foreign conquerors' of HRM was to attack the logic and underpinnings of HRM.
And to the industrial relations academics they were 'foreign conquerors', insofar as the proponents of HRM sought to diminish the role of industrial relations and replace it with a new and more certain mode of practising and researching the employment relationship. Where the academic study of industrial relations had promoted, albeit mostly implicitly, notions of civilising capitalism through underlying concerns with stabUity, fairness, and consistency, the proponents of HRM appeared to the scholars in industrial relations as 'foreign conquerors' with different notions of legitimacy, intellectual adequacy, and relevance.
Whether it has constituted a Hayeldan shock in Austraha has not yet been played out. Given the weakness of counterfactual analysis, it is difficult to
363 speculate on other alternatives. The arrival of HRM fuUy formed, certain and intent on marginahsing alternative modes of analysis appeared to shock the academics at AIRAANZ 1990. But, not siuT)risingly for an object- oriented discipline, changes in scholars' methods and analysis had afready begun with award restructuring, second tier bargaining and the production focus of the ACTU in the 1980s. In much of this analysis, researchers familiar with the case study method, or the older scholars drawing on the analytical framework of the Oxford school or the labour process hterature, had little difficulty in the downward shift in focus.
There is also no doubt that the attempts to achieve legitimacy with the academic economists, the need to be relevant to pohcy makers and practitioners, or to deal with current issues, together with the economic policy focus of senior scholars like Isaac and Niland, had all led to considerable attention being given from the late 1970s to the late 1980s to the macro and institutionaln aspects. As well the changing government economic policies in the same era, the increasing focus on the problems of inflation and unemployment, (with both of the latter seen as problems from a range of ideological perspectives) had reduced the attention to micro issues for a time in the early 1980s. However, the attacks of the New Right on what had appeared to be core elements of social democratic ideology, and the faUure of macroeconomic pohcies to increase labour productivity inter alia, led to closer focus on the workplace and enterprise. Such a downward shift necessarily redirected industrial relations scholars' attention to the roles and styles of management, particularly given their traditional tendency to foUow public policy. National surveys such as AWIRS-1, and later the long- planned national committee of inqufry in to management (Karpin Report,
364 1995) attest to the increasing attention to workplace issues which occurred alongside the rise and rise of HRM
Thus, change had begun to occur separately from the incursion of HRM. The shock came from the overtly managerialist claims of HRM and concomitant derogation of industrial relations. The response to the HRM incursions have varied between UK, USA and Austraha, because of different mteUectual and public policy environments and the differing attributes of industrial relations at the time HRM became most evident in each country. However these responses are stUl short term responses. Barring one or two epochs, forty years in economics or law or sociology represents a brief era indeed, and in philosophy, no time at aU. Any claims that HRM was a Hayekian shock need to be seen in the longer term. If they were a genuine 'shock', then the nature of scholarship about the regulation, control and administration of work, employment and labour markets would alter to such a degree that 'HRM', however defined, would hold an hegemonic place. The analysis and the nature of academic industrial relations would be significantly changed and on a long term trajectory away from its original or earher courses. Probably, at core, this would mean rejecting the capacity for macro and micro, rejecting the ideological underpinnings which accept fafrness as important criterion, and eliminating the capacity for scholars to take an industrial relations approach regardless of thefr views. By the mid- 1990s this was not the case.
365 Academic Industrial Relations in Australia: Problems and Prospects
This study of the history of academic industrial relations has covered around forty years. Over most of that time academic industrial relations has borne a raft of doubters' misconceptions - concerns over rigoiu- in multidisciplinary research, the problems of proving relevant and practical, the rehance on providing professional education, and the seff-doubts which were dfrected at the absence of grand theory. Yet these are weak problems indeed compared with the relentless push for research and education which accepts the managerial discourse. Indeed, like two of its erstwhUe parent disciplines of economics and sociology, industrial relations is under threat, not for its lack of grand theory but rather for the attention its scholars pay to analysis and thorough investigation. Industrial relations academics, unlike economists, have in the main eschewed claims of objectivity. Yet amidst the activities of educating professionals and undertaking consultant research for business, unions, and governments, industrial relations academics have attempted to advance thefr field of study in a way in which purposive promotion of business ideals would not be acceptable.
By the mid-1990s there were at least a dozen former industrial relations academics who were senior academics in management departments, some of them driving a shift away from industrial relations. 29 Yet, as business schools and commerce departments became ever more competitive with each other, in an environment where universities were being drawn into intense competition, with each other and with private providers of vocational and professional education, the choices taken by academics were not surprising. Moreover, academic tenure had lost its particular inviolabihty and academic
29 As well, programmes and departments such as the former Labour Studies Programme added Management as a defensive measure to limit incursions by other business sections of the University.
366 careers were less secure. In that envfronment it is not surprising that many of the former Young Turks^o of the first AIRAANZ in 1983 had become management or business academics.
Yet as the membership of AIRAANZ and lERA have attested, industrial relations maintained its place throughout the 1990s as a field of research. The modern university, however, places a high value placed on student enrolments, and in the first half of the 1990s these were static or declining in industrial relations, as students sought vocational and professional education for the rapidly growing business industries.
As well, employers were demanding that education should uphold a pro- business perspective. At the same time business lobbies' interpretations of the public system of industrial relations as undesirably 'adversarial' and rigid were being transferred, by association, to academic industrial relations. This was despite the fact that the adversariahsm of the pubhc system depended on a particular logic and despite the long-time concerns of the scholars with the 'labour problem'. By the 1990s, however, employers even wanted to marginalise or eliminate notions of competing goals, inherent in the conceptualisation of the labour problem. (BCA, 1993) In this respect business efforts to eliminate even 'labour problem' orientations to industrial relations were legitimated by the scholarly interests in HRM and the absorption of business discourse into academic analyses and teaching over aspects of work and employment. The experience in both the USA and UK under pro-business anti-union governments suggest that such legitimation is
^ WhUe most of the participants of AIRAANZ 1983 continued to research and pubhsh in industrial relations, scholars about a quarter were senior scholars in business or management schools, including Bamber, Brosnan, Dowling, Griffin, Kramar, and Plowman. Others such as Blain assisted in drafting of WA anti-vmion laws. Other high profile industrial relations scholars became management researchers, including Davis, Littler, and Palmer.
367 unlUtely to be reversed. Given the election of such a government in Austraha in 1996, the continuing marginahsation of academic industrial relations appears likely.
What may strengthen the case of the discipline in Austraha are the broadening of the areas of study and the apparent flexibUity of scholars to shape their research within a variety of discourses. Augmented by a much more self-assured public image and an expressed behef in their discipline, industrial relations academics could present the particular strengths of thefr multidisciplinary approach more forcefully. This would be reinforced by closer links with scholars at the borderlands of industrial relations. It is a curious fact that industrial relations scholars rarely present their ideas at conferences on human geography, or politics or sociology despite the multidisciplinary claims of industrial relations.
On the other hand the multidisciplinarity may be a problem. The centrifugal forces on the study of industrial relations since the 1980s have led to multiple objects of study well beyond the former mainstream notions of the formal public industrial relations system, while retaining the core focus on the nature, administration and effects of employment and work. Yet the one outcome of powerful of centrifugal forces is that they could lead to such fragmentation of the discipline, that academic industrial relations Could dissipate altogether.
Conclusion
At about the time that Australian industrial relations academics were beginning to feel some confidence in their scholarship and place in higher education, at least two major changes occiu-red. Ffrst Austrahan higher
368 education institutions became much more attuned to the needs and interests of business than they had previously, and secondly, human resource management (HRM) rapidly gained signfficance as a popular practice in business and a field of study in universities. The rapid escalation to importance of this approach to the study of work and employment had occurred a decade or so earlier in the UK and USA which provided models for the responses of Australian academics. In the UK, a combined widening of the discipline, together with the growth of strong sub-fields such as critical management, perhaps mitigated the incursions of HRM and the management discourse generaUy into the field of industrial relations. In the USA the approach tended to be an acceptance of the discourse and an attempt to insert aspects of the traditional North American industrial relations scholarship into the business and management oriented hteratiure.
Despite the fact that the northern hemisphere literature had long played a leading role in Australia, the rapid incursion of HRM into the domain of academic industrial relations came as a shock. What surprised many academics was the way in which the HRM scholars, many of whose careers had formerly been in industrial relations, supported the devaluing of the study and practice of industrial relations led by the business lobbies. Those scholars who remained in industrial relations tended to one of two paths. Some scholars took the Broad IR approach in which they continued to support the broadening of industrial relations scholarship to aU aspects of employment, which included not only incorporating critical and empfrical studies of management, but also wider issues at the macro level. Others sought a more focused approach of purposively combining core aspects of HRM and industrial relations to obtain a new discipline or field of study. Scholars of both approaches have tended to adopt the term 'employment
369 relations' in order to separate their research from the debased concept of industrial relations which had been subject to loud criticism by employers and their lobbyists. Thus the short term consequences of the HRM incursion, underpinned and bolstered by the increasing priorities ascribed to business values throughout the community combined to alter, perhaps irrevocably the nature and direction of Austrahan academic industrial relations. The longer term outcomes ofthe 'shock' of HRM are not yet played out, but despite the continuing changes, the prospects for academic industrial relations, (or employment relations) are problematic. The ubiquitous long-felt disciplinary uncertainty appears to have some basis.
370 CONCLUSION
Total abUity to grasp a predecessor's intentions may be a chimera. But inabUity to recapitulate past understanding in its entirety should not obscure the possibihty of coming much closer to past authors' intentions (Schachter, 1989, p.8)
A disciplinary history is the history of ideas and knowledge-getting from a shared intellectual terrain. Disciplines or fields of study emerge from the perceived gaps in research, or the inabUity of extant disciphnary research to explain particular material or abstract phenomena. In such emergent disciphnes a growing community of scholars will develop their own intellectual domain, their methods, questions and assumptions. And if that intellectual domain rests in the social sciences, a continuing concern wUl be the theoretical grounding which underpins the emergent discipline and sharpens its separateness from other disciplines.
Industrial relations, like most fields of study which have emerged in the twentieth century crosses several boundaries of traditional disciplines. Its definition is diffuse. The dozens of definitions have included the institutions of job regulation, the processes and outcomes of rulemaking in employment, and the processes of control of work. The reason for the dfffuseness relates in large part to dffferences in the focal points of study at different times and in different countries. At core, these and other definitions have rested on the nature of work and employment, the seemingly self-evident competuig goals of employers and employees and the means by which employers, workers and the state attempt to resolve or accommodate the competitive relationships. Industrial relations analysts have insisted on taking
371 cognisance of the links between macro and micro factors. Macro factors have included national and global product markets and firm structures, the state of national economy, and the ideological and pohtical imperatives of governments. Consideration of micro factors have included relations and imperatives of production and governance at the enterprise and workplace. An abiding attribute of academic industrial relations has therefore included an insistence on acknowledging the complexities of work and the employment relationship, taking account of macro and micro influences, economic, legal, social and political constraints and structures.
It was precisely because scholars in focussed disciphnes such as economics or law felt their disciphnes could not adequately analyse or explain complex industrial relations phenomena that they shifted their research and teaching into industrial relations. In this respect, the emergence and estabhshment of academic industrial relations in Australia has taken a simUar pattern to other new disciplines in the social sciences.
The objective of this thesis has been to trace the evolution of academic industrial relations in Austraha, taking particular account of the influences on research and teaching. Yet as was shown in Chapter One disciplinary histories can take many forms, depending on the perceptions and objectives ofthe investigator.
By holding the same name as a contested area of pubhc pohcy and political concerns, and the fact that a fafr part of the study of academic relations has focussed on that contested area, the disciphne itseff has always reflected the shifts and twists in the formal pubhc system to a greater or lesser degree. Moreover, academic industrial relations with its multiple boundaries and multiple methods, has been influenced strongly not only by neighbouring disciphnes, but also by Anglophone industrial relations scholarship, despite differing emphases. As a smaU, 'rural' disciphne where the areas of study have always exceeded the number of researchers, the external influences have been considerable. In other words the brief history of Austrahan academic industrial relations demanded an approach which took cognisance of all the factors which influenced the direction of development of the field of study.
In Chapter Two various approaches to knowledge-getting were considered, partly in order to identify the best means of investigating this particular history. Special consideration was given to the only other extensive disciplinary history in this field, that of Bruce Kaufman's (1993) survey of the field in the USA over the twentieth century. Kaufman however, drew on a deductivist and mainly internahst approach, although he gave some weight to the disciphnary associations. Kaufman's objective was to test an hypothesis that industrial relations had once comprised two schools of thought (personnel management and institutional labour economics) and two aims (problem solving and science -buUding), and that the disciphne dechned when the schools and aims separated. Despite its thorough-going scholarship, Kaufman's history was shown to be not appropriate to a history of Australian academic industrial relations because of the importance of context. Moreover, a history demands at least some employment of the historical method. This demands investigation for all the preconditions and determinants of a phenomenon, rather than the focussed or blinkered approaches of h3T)othesis testing.
There were thus potentially greater gains to be made from a broad question which shapes the investigation but does not predetermine aspects of the answers. The broad question for this thesis was "What have been the determinants of the direction and impact of academic industrial relations
373 thought in Austraha?". Such a question clearly drew on the sociology of knowledge, the sub-branch of sociology where the patterns and assumptions of research and teaching are explored within the wider context in which they have been produced and proposed. This approach was contrasted with internahst investigations which explore the development of disciplines and disciphnary thought from within the disciphne, as was extremely common in the history of science fields untU recent years. Even beyond the general epistemological doubts about the internalist approach which ignores the contexts and social imperatives of scientists, the internahst approach is singularly inappropriate for an evolving discipline with extraordinarUy open boundaries such as Australian industrial relations.
Rather, Austrahan academic industrial relations has been beset from the first by its external environment, in a way quite different from its parent disciplines of economics, law, sociology and industrial psychology. In Chapter Three an examination of the precursors revealed that the disparate progenitors investigating aspects of work and employment before the 1960s frequently stepped on each others' territories as industrial psychologists found themselves considering economic and legal factors, while economists and lawyers found that social and organisational attributes could not be ignored. This was to become an abiding contradiction within industrial relations research and teaching. The complexity of work and employment was a strength of the industrial relations scholars, for they would take account of multiple factors drawing on multidisciplinary analytical frameworks, giving their research a completeness not found in unidisciplinary research. On the other hand, such insistence on multiple factors gave academic industrial relations a diffuseness which hmited analytical rigour, not least because the capacity to develop strong theoretical frameworks was constrained by insistence on complexity. 374 Yet disciphnes do not only develop through strong theory, as the emergence of industrial relations reveals. Rather it is the awareness of inadequate analysis over a particular terrain which leads scholars to first take heed of other disciplinary insights. In this respect, the flow of ideas from overseas have always been important for Australian intellectual pm-suits.
It was evident, even in Chapter Three, that international influences would be important, for the 'greats' in Austrahan academic industrial relations, whether justified or not, were aU British or American scholars. From the first, intellectuals like the Webbs, Commons, and Selig Perlman were seen as providing superior insights into industrial relations analysis. In a disciplinary history, where the flow of ideas is at issue, the centrahty of overseas scholarly analysis for Australian scholarship was likely to have major impacts on the direction of disciplinary development.
This is because at base a disciplinary history is a history of the transmission of ideas, of the ways in which ideas, including methods, techniques and frames of reference, are accepted, incorporated or rejected within a particular intellectual terrain. If ideas from particular sources obtain greater legitimacy simply because of their point of origin, then they may receive less rigorous testing and would be retained for longer. The notion of the 'cultural cringe' is a common one in Australia - as a former British colony with aspfrations to emulate American successes, many Austrahans had long viewed the intellectual output from these countries as intrinsicaUy superior. The impact on disciplines such as industrial relations was that from the first, northern Anglophone scholarship was given much higher credence than local analyses.
For example, in Chapter Four, which dealt with the first academic industrial relations programmes, virtuaUy aU of the texts came from the USA or UK,
375 not only because of the absence of local sources. A further signfficant influence was also apparent when academic industrial relations first emerged in the 1950s and throughout the 1960s. Most industrial relations subjects, and then groupings of subjects began within economics schools or departments. In this respect there were two major elements ofthe influence on industrial relations. The first was a structural element, where the placement of industrial relations in that most strongly scientffic of the social sciences meant that industrial relations scholars were limited precisely because the economists held the purse-strings. Secondly and as a coroUary, the economists were shown in Chapter Four to find the multidisciphnarity of industrial relations difficult to accept. The strong reputational systems of economics which set clearly defined criteria for excellence, were not appropriate for this emergent upstart, which meant for some it was not appropriate for academic study at all. This was also demonstrated in Chapter Six when the development of an industrial relations programme at University of Melbourne met with the same resistance from the economists as had been the case at Sydney from the late 1950s.
Two important aspects in the development at University of Sydney from the 1950s to the early 1970s were important in tracing the history of Austrahan academic industrial relations. The first was the teaching programme untU the 1970s, which covered a far more extensive area than any other time untU perhaps the mid-1990s. The programme was developed and later reshaped by Kingsley Laffer, who though not the first industrial relations scholar, was instrumental in the formation of the practitioner oriented Industrial Relations Society, and was the founding editor of the Journal of Industrial Relations. These two institutions were important for the development of academic industrial relations since they signffied, not only the presence of a discrete publications, itseff evidence of the beginnings of a reputational 376 system, but also the importance of a single individual for a field of study. The "great Man' theory of history is notably flawed, and in examining disciphnes the 'normal science' practised by the bulk of 'average' scholars is much more telling of a disciphne. However, every so often, one scholar makes a significant and lasting contribution, and whose role should not be played down. This was the case with Laffer. Laffer's papers attest to his tireless and eventually successful efforts in developing an industrial relations programme. Implicit and occasionally explicit in these papers is evidence of the depth of resistance from the Faculty, including lack of support for teaching and support staff. At base, disciplinary development can be hastened or retarded by access to support mechanisms and so must be considered as a contributory factor, albeit small, in understanding the nature and direction of development. While Laffer's role in the establishment of a teaching programme, a journal and a professional society in the disciphne should not be under-estimated, there is a second important aspect about Laffer's role for the historian of the discipline. This was the fact that he ensured a large collection of papers, handouts and correspondence were retained at the University of Sydney. Access to such papers is clearly highly beneficial to the historian, who, however, must be mindful that the documents represent the development of industrial relations at only one university. Other sources become avaUable to the historian from other institutions of higher education, but thefr rarity and lack of completeness tends to highlight the particular role of the individuals who keep records.
In Chapter Four, Laffer's contribution to the teaching programme revealed what later seemed a most unusual approach. Laffer insisted that the complexity of industrial relations required study not only of macro social, economic, legal and institutional factors, but also the micro aspects of 377 industrial psychology, organisational psychology, and personnel management. However, this expansive array of topics was to be short-hved, and by the 1970s, teaching at University of Sydney was rather more narrowly confined to public institutions and processes of industrial relations. Such a narrowing of the objects of analysis are not surprising, given the demands of presenting and integrating the complexities of the macro and micro at a time when there were high levels of industrial action. Moreover, institutionalism and the focus on the outcomes of conflict had also become the norm in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK.
Laffer's own views had developed during his time teaching industrial relations from 1955 to 1975. In particular, Laffer absorbed and gave great credence to the work of John Dunlop (1958). In an effort to achieve unidisciplinarity and greater rigour for industrial relations, Dunlop devised an analytical framework for investigating academic industrial relations. Dunlop's framework demonstrated some of the elements of good theory - it was simple enough to be presented diagrammaticaUy and it was generalisable across numerous levels of employment and culturaUy different contexts. Dunlop's critics noted it was an heuristic rather than an analytical framework, and that it was a static model not appropriate to the dynamics of industrial relations.
On the other hand, many Austrahan scholars from most areas of the social sciences stiU looked to Britain in the 1960s and 1970s. There, the Oxford School of industrial relations led research activities around the time of the Donovan Commission, drawing on a rather more vague, but nevertheless discrete set of research methods, hence the alternate terms given in Chapters Five ofthe 'Donovan model', or Oxford-Donovan model.
378 The differing impact of the Dunlopian framework and the Oxford-Donovan model on Australian academic industrial relations are the basis of Chapter Five. Much Austrahan scholarship of the 1970s and early 1980s avowedly drew on one or the other of these two traditions, although in the process of incorporating them into the Austrahan context, scholars reshaped the foundation assumptions to fit the different institutional contexts and the trajectory ofthe discipline. For example, it was shown in Chapter Five that Dunlop, from a North American perspective gave weight to the role of managers in devising the 'web of rules', but they were quite excluded from Australian analysis. Similarly, the complexities of the Oxford School's framework for investigating the institutions of job regulation proved too difficult for teaching, and perhaps too overtly British. Moreover, there was a reformist element to the British scholarship which Austrahan academics, in thefr concern to appear objective, attempted to ehminate. This was particularly the case in teaching where concerns not to appear ideological, almost a pejorative term in Australia. However, this did not stop academics from drawing on notable left texts where they provide insights unavaUable elsewhere. In general however, great effort was made in the Austrahan texts to be above ideology. Certainly, it was not that the Dunlopian framework was without ideology - like most positivist frameworks, the ideology was inbuUt, but it could appear 'scientific', and was moreover rather easier to convey to students, a fact which scholars conveyed in debates over the two frameworks. In other words, by the late 1970s and early 1980s industrial relations scholars were making choices about analytical approaches and objects of analysis based on thefr knowledge of what worked or did not work. The 'cultural cringe' remained a shaping influence on research and teaching, but the choices were informed rather than anticipatory.
379 The signfficance of teaching demands in contributing to the shape of a newly established discipline was shown to be important, not only in the wide credence given to the Dunlopian framework but also m the textbooks. Like teaching, textbooks are a good indicator of disciphnary development because they constitute what the scholars see to be the core elements of the disciphne. Indeed as Chapter Six also showed, the texts and teaching shaped the disciphne and the development of what was to become mainstream industrial relations in three clear ways. The first, as had been discussed in Chapter Five, the methods and content of teaching and texts present to the next generation of scholars and to the novice practitioners, what is seen by the students as legitimate forms of research and analysis. Secondly, as was shown in Chapter Six, the texts offer a means to understand the vocabulary and issues of the discipline to incoming scholars from overseas and from other disciplines. Thus those who entered industrial relations academia during its years of most rapid growth in the 1980s took cognisance of the issues and research methods conveyed by the major texts, as a means to understand and convey the discrete elements of industrial relations to students at all levels. Not only did the texts shape the perceptions of academic industrial relations of students and incoming scholars, but they also placed particular requfrements on the textbook writers. Unhke in other disciplines, and despite the journals and a wealth of new books, the inteUectual stock of industrial relations was stUl small by the 1980s. In order to convey the core aspects of the disciphne textbook writers would have to research and write material to a degree uncommon in older established disciplines.
As Chapter Six demonstrates, however, what was more important in the decade or so from the mid or late 1970s was the formation and reinforcement of a mainstream, a set of agreed and embedded principles, methods and 380 content which represented what most scholars accepted and practised. By the mid-1980s drawing in part on the Dunlopian framework, mainstream academic industrial relations had evolved into an object oriented study of formal pubhc industrial relations systems in which the 'laboiu- problem' was an organising principle. The most important factors m strengthening the mainstream were the texts and the Journal Of Industrial Relations, the primary journal in Austrahan academic industrial relations. From the 1970s, the journal had been edited by John NUand, who had obtained his masters degree at the University of New South wales (UNSW) and a PhD at the University of Illinois. At the time of his appointment a the first professor of industrial relations, Niland had been teaching economics at the Austrahan national University (ANU). Niland's appreciation of the reputational systems in American economics, together with his deep commitment to the strengthening of industrial relations as an academic discipline and to the reform of Australian industrial relations system to mfrror the system in the USA, led him to promote the discipline with business, government, and unions and within the research sector. In so doing Niland worked to promote elements of the mainstream, whUe at the same time seeking to narrow the study and practice of industrial relations to American models. While not whoUy successful in his efforts to shfft the discipline to the American models which focussed on unions, economism, and collective bargaining, Niland was nevertheless a leading figure in the public image of academic industrial relations from the mid-1970s. In this way he not only strengthened the mainstream, but also concretised the ways in which scholars in neighbouring disciphnes and pohcy-makers saw mainstream academic industrial relations. The overaU pattern of development of industrial relations until the middle or later 1980s was thus mainly towards a narrowing of the issues accepted as legitimate within the
381 disciphne, or what marked the field of study off from its neighboiuing older disciplines. The combination of the efforts of the senior scholars and textbook writers, were braced by selective use of Anglophone scholarship. But the very objects of analysis being promoted by the mainstream scholars in this object oriented disciphne were under question from an increasingly strident business lobby, which in its turn was influencing an increasingly compliant government.
It was fortunate for the discipline therefore that anchored in the apparent safety of the mainstream, scholars were offering alternative approaches which broadened industrial relations research and teaching beyond the mainstream. This is the theme of Chapter Seven which draws partly on a Lakatosian idea that there are centripetal and centrffugal forces on disciphnes. Thus while the mainstream scholars work to protect a strong core, the competing ideas and analytical frameworks act as centrifugal forces, which may disperse of move the core ofthe mainstream.
As the history of academic industrial relations has revealed, scholars from the first had been attracted to industrial relations for its capacity to acknowledge the complexity of the objects of analysis. Scholars had thus been open to influences from all sides - the inteUectual opportunities available from the neighbouring, older disciphnes, the pubhc policy events and issues and the competing ideas of scholars within the disciphne who insisted on acknowledging the manffold interests of and impacts on thefr field of study. It was precisely because of their acknowledgment of complexity that industrial relations scholars have been able to draw on the methods and insights of nearby disciplines. Given this openness to multiple influences, it is not surprising, even as the mainstream appeared to tighten its hold, some academics evinced countervaUing attributes.
382 In Chapter Seven, three aspects of the broadening impiUsion are explored in order to identify and evaluate their effects on the disciphne as a whole. Ffrstly, as became increasingly clear in the textbooks, most scholars were aware of, and even had sympathy with alternative analjrtical frameworks. Secondly, there was always an undercurrent of left or Marxist scholarship but barring a few exceptions, the research outcomes, whUe often scholarship of a high standard, only dinted the mainstream slightly, because as ever industrial relations academics were always mindful of maintaining a safe haven the future practitioners. In a discipline where the laboiu- problem constituted an organising principle in a fundamentaUy conservative culture, the left and radical plurahst scholarship could only constitute a hidden current. But, thirdly, the formation of an academic society, the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ) by a group of self-ascribed Young Turks in 1983 acted as a reinforcing agent for the assuring the breadth and complexity of the discipline, certainly during the 1980s papers presented at AIRAANZ emphasised the breadth of scholarship, even as scholars were drawn to investigate and explain the labyrinthine shifts in government pohcy on the formal pubhc industrial relations system, the core objects of the mainstream. Moreover, Australian academic industrial relations was distinctly Australian. The borrowings from the admired scholars from the UK and USA stiU took place, but the 'transformation' hterature from Kochan et al., while extraordinarily popular was reshaped and integrated with other methods, such as the Swedish reformist models. Such adaptations were augmented by the extension of the traditional fascination Australian scholars had for comparative industrial relations where, by the 1980s, attention was turning to Asian organisation and production systems. By the end of the 1980s, with two new joiu-nals
383 and a rapidly expanding scholarly society, there was an unusual afr of seff- assuredness in a field of study which seemed to be widening its boundaries.
As Chapter Eight demonstrates, such seff assurance was prematiu-e, as the tide of business values began to dominate the aU aspects of public pohcy, including the higher education sector. WTiile the broadening of industrial relations in the 1980s had included a shift towards increased attention to management and the relations of production at the workplace and enterprise, scholars were greatly surprised when human resource management (HRM) appeared fully formed and ready to replace industrial relations at the 1990 conference. The Australian scholars were famihar with similar rapid encroachments in the UK and the USA, and had responded to the stridency of the New Right in Australia. Yet, as Chapter Eight reveals HRM influenced Australian industrial relations scholarship unhke any other set of ideas. This was because the HRM approach appeared to take on aU of the objects of analysis of industrial relations, but to alter radicaUy the imperatives, principles and priorities. Where industrial relations scholars had sought to explain and understand work and employment from a variety of perspectives, and drawing on social, legal, and economic issues, it seemed as if the HRM model depended on changing the images of employment and work by use of prescriptive ideals. In this context, a few industrial relations scholars ignored the new 'foreign conqueror, but most sought either to expand industrial relations to take account of the HRM phenomenon, or to narrow industrial relations, combine it with HRM and form a new integrated discipline. In both cases scholars began to refer to thefr field of study as employment relations, an excellent example of the importance of labels and image in the last decade of the twentieth centiuy.
384 From the first, industrial relations scholars set out to provide an inteUectual base for scholars and potential practitioners in industrial relations. The strengths of the discipline were first its capacity to provide both complex objects for intellectual analysis and professional training. Secondly, the mainstream developed to focus disciphnary scholarship and strengthen the disciphne through conffrming analysis to a few objects of study within the formal pubhc industrial relations system. But the commitment to training practitioners was under severe threat by the 1990s and the objects of analysis promulgated by the scholars concerned to narrow the mainstream, were fast disappearing.
But this thesis set out to identify the influences on the nature and direction of industrial relations scholarship and teaching. As has been shown in the foregoing pages, the influences have been as many and complex as the discipline itself. The openness to ideas has indeed been evidence of the strength and at the same time the vulnerability of the disciphne of industrial relations. The history of academic industrial relations is not yet played out.
385 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, R and Markey, R. (1996) "The Role of the State in Trade Union Growth: The cases of North America and Austraha", in R. FeUs, and T. Todd, (eds.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ Perth, pp.6-16
Adams, R, (1993) "AU Aspects of People at Work: Unity and Division in the Study of Labor and Labor Management", in R. Adams and N. M. Meltz, (eds.) Industrial Relations Theory: Its Nature, Scope and Pedagogy, IMLR Press/Rutgers University and Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N. J. pp. 119-60
Adams, R. and Meltz, N. M. (eds.) (1993) Industrial Relations Theory: Its Nature, Scope and Pedagogy, IMLR Press/Rutgers University and Scarecrow Press, Metuchen N. J.
Addison, J. T. (1983) "The evolving debate on unions and productivity". Journal of Industrial Relations, 25, 3, September, pp.286-300
Aldred, J. (ed.) (1984) Industrial Confrontation, George AUen and Unwin, Sydney
AM, see Australasian Manufacturer
Anderson, G. (1929) Fixation of Wages in Australia, Macmillan, Melbourne
Anderson, G. (1931a) "Trade Unions", in D. B. Copland, (ed.) An Economic Survey of Australia, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 150, September, 1931, pp. 148-55
Anderson, G. (1931b) "Wage Rates and the Standard of Living" in D. B. Copland, (ed.) An Economic Survey of Australia, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 150, September, 1931, pp. 166-75
Anderson, G. (1931c) "Unemployment and Its Amehoration" in D. B. Copland, (ed.) An Economic Survey of Australia, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 150, September, 1931, pp. 176-82
Anderson, G. (193Id) "Regulation of Industrial Relations", in D. B. Copland, (ed.) An Economic Survey of Australia, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 150, September, 1931, pp. 156-65
Anderson, G. and Mauldon, F. (1931) An Economic Survey of Austraha: Part IV: Labour and Industrial Relations, American Academy of Political and and Social Science Annals, Vol 158, Nov. 1931, pp. 148-92
386 Anderson, Geoff (1977) "The South Austrahan Initiative", in R. L. Pritchard, (ed.) Industrial Democracy in Australia, CCH, Sydney, pp.155-78
Anderson, GU (1984) "Rank and FUe Apathy: the Black Mountain Tower dispute". Journal of Industrial Relations, 26, 3, September, pp. 335-44
Anderson, Gordon (1983) "Industrial Relations, Judicial Ideology and Employment Security", in J. Benson, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, Gippsland, pp. 115-140
Anderson, Gordon, (1987) "A Summary of Industrial Law Research in New Zealand, 1970-86", in K. Hince, and A. Wilhams, (eds.) Contemporary Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand: Literature Surveys, AIRAANZ, WeUington, Vol 1, pp. 101-14,
Anonymous (1956) "Arbitration or CoUective Bargaining", Employers' Review, August, pp.20-2
Anonymous (1965) "The Vernon Report", Current Affairs Bulletin, 27, 5, December, pp. 19-31
Anonymous (1972) "Editorial", The Australian University, 10, 8, November, pp.211-13
Anonymous (1973) "American Reahty" The Austrahan Management Dream, Australian Stock Exchange Journal, 2, September, pp. 14-15
Anthony, P. D. (1986) The Foundation of Management, Tavistock, London
Appelbaum, E. and Batt, R. (1994) The new American workplace: transforming work systems in the United States, ILR Press, Ithaca, N.Y.
Ash, M. G. (1983) "The Self-Presentation of a Disciphne: History of Psychology in the United States between Pedagogy and Scholarship", in L. Graham, W. Lepenies, and P. Weingart, (eds.) Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 143-90
Atkinson, C. (1924) "The Melbourne Pohce Strike", Labour Monthly (London) vol 6, May, Auchmuty, J. (1975) "The Pursuit of ExeUence", The Australian University, 13, 1, May, pp.3-7
Australian Manufacturer, various issues
Austrahan Society of Accountants, (n.d. 1963?) History of Australian Society of Accountants and Its Antecedent Bodies, 1887 to 1962, Austrahan Society of Accountants, Melbourne
387 Bain, G. (1973) "University of Warwick", Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 27, 1, pp.670-75
Bain, G. and Woolvern, G. (1979) A bibligraphy of British industrial relations, CUP, Cambridge, UK
Bamber, G. (1983) "Industrial relations and Technological Change in Britain", in J. Benson, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, Gippsland 1983, pp. 163-94
Bamber, G. and Lansbury R. (eds.) (1987) International and comparative industrial relations: a study of developed market economies, AUen and Unwin, Sydney
Bamber, G., HoweU, F. and Shadur, M. (1990) "To What Extent are Japanese Management Styles Transferable in Austraha?", pp. 169-91 in G. Griffin, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ Melbourne, pp. 189-91
Barbash, J. (1964a) "A New Approach to Teaching Labor Courses", Industrial Relations, 4, 1, October, pp. 18-22
Barbash, J. (1964b) "The Elements of Industrial Relations", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 2, 1, pp.66-78
Barbash, J. (1991) "Industrial Relations Concepts in the U. S. A.", Relations Industrielles, 46, 1, pp.91-118)
Barber, W. J. (1989) "The spread of economic ideas between academia and government: a two-way street", in Colander, D.C. and Coats, A.W. (eds.). The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 119- 126
Barrett, B., Rhodes, E. and Beishon, J. (eds.) (1975) Industrial Relations and the Wider Society: Aspects of Interaction, CoUier MacmUlan / Open University Press, London
Barry, B. M. (1970) Sociologists, Economists and Democracy, CoUier MacmiUan, London
Batstone, E., Boraston, I and Frenkel, S. (1977) Shop Stewards in Action: The Organization of Workplace Conflict and Accommodation, BasU BlackweU, Oxford
Bauman, Z. (1978) Hermeneutics and Social Sciences, Hutchinson, London
BCA, 1989, see HUmet et al.
BCA, 1991, see HUmer et al.
BCA. 1993, see HUmer et al.
388 Beattie, A. C. (1979) "Access of pubhc servants to Austraha industrial tribunals: attitudes of governments and government employers", Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 2, June, pp.229-42
Beaumont, P. B. (1974) 'Non-metropohtan unemployment position of women in Austraha', Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 2, June, pp.137-51
Beaumont, P. B. (1975) "Conffict in coal: the New South Wales experience," Journal of Industrial Relations, 17, 1, March, pp.44-59
Beaumont, P. B. (1990) Change in Industrial Relations: The Organization and Environment, Routledge, London
Becher, T. (1987) "The Disciphnary Shaping of a Profession", in B. R. Clark,(ed.) The Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary and Institutional Settings, University of Cahfornia Press, Berkeley
Becher, T. (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines, The SRHE & Open University Press, MUton Keynes
Becher, T. (1989) Academic tribes and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Society for Research into Higher Education /Open University Press, MUton Keynes / Bristol
Becker, H. S. (1992) "Cases, Causes, Conjectures, Stories and Imagery", in C. S. Ragin and H. S. Becker, What is a Case: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, CUP Cambridge, Mass. pp.205-16
Beer, M. et al (1984) Managing Human Assets, Free Press New York
Beggs, J. and Chapman, B. (1987) "Austrahan strike activity in an international context, 1964-85", Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 2, June, pp. 137-49
Behrend, H. (1963) "The Field of Industrial Relations", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1, 3, pp.383-94
BeUharz, P. (1998) "Fabianism" in P. BeUharz and C. Nyland, (eds.) The Webbs, Fabianism and Feminism, Avebury, Aldershot, pp.9-53
BeUharz, P. and Nyland, C. (eds.) (1998) The Webbs, Fabianism and Feminism, Avebury, Aldershot
Belanger, J. Edwards, P. K. and Haiven, L. (eds.) (1994) Workplace Industrial Relations and The Global Challenge, ILR Press, Ithaca, N.Y.
Benson, J and Griffin, G. (1987) "Factors Related to Membership Participation in Trade Unions", in K. Hince, and A. WiUiams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ WeUington, Vol 2, pp.285-300
389 Benson, J. (1982) "Worker Involvement: An Analysis of SECV Working Parties", Journal of Industrial Relations, 24, 4, December, pp.583-8
Benson, J. (1983b) "Introduction", in Benson, J. (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, Gippsland, pp.iv-viu
Benson, J. (1991) Unions at the Workplace: Shop Steward Leadership and Ideology, OUP, Melbourne
Benson, J. (ed.) (1983a) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, Gippsland, 1983
Benson, J. and Dow, G. (1979) "The 1977 Latrobe VaUey Maintenance Workers' Strike", Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 2, June, pp. 217-28
Benson, J., Hince, K. and Griffin, G. (1983) "Industrial Relations pohcy: A Case Study of Organisation Change", Paper Presented to 53 ANZAAS Congress, Perth
Bentley, M. (1997b) "Reflecting on the Modern Age; Introduction: Approaches to Modernity: Western Historiography since the Enhghtenment", in M. Bentley, (ed.) Companion to Historiography, Routledge, London/NY, pp. 393- 508
Bentley, M. (ed.) (1997a) Companion to Historiography, Routledge, London/NY
Bentley, P. (1974) 'Austrahan Trade Unionism in 1973-74", Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 4, December, pp.374-87"
Bentley, P. and Hughes, B. (1971) 'Austrahan cychcal strike patterns". Journal of Industrial Relations, 13, 4, December, pp.352-67
Berkson, W. (1974) "Some Practical issues in the Recent Controversey on the Nature of Scientffic Revolutions", in R.S. Cohen, and M. W. Wartofsky, (eds.) Methodological and Historical Essays in the Natural and Social Sciences, D. Reidel, Dordrecht-HoUand, pp. 197-210
Berridge, J. and Goodman, J. (1988) "The British Universities Industrial Relations Association: The Ffrst 35 Years", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 26, 2, July, pp. 156-77
Beswick, D. (1980) "Colleges of Advanced Education and the Next Twenty-Five Years", in G. Harman et al. (eds.) Academia Becalmed: Australian Tertiary Education in the Aftermath of Expansion, ANU Press, Canberra, pp.195-216
Black, R. D. C. (1983) "The Present Position and Prospects of Pohtical Economy" in A. W. Coats (ed.) Methodological Controversy in Economics: Historical Essays in Honor of T. W. Hutchison, Jai Press, Greenwich, Conn. pp.55-70
390 Blackmur, D. (1993) Strikes: Causes Conduct and Consequences, Federation Press, Sydney
Blackmur, D. (ed.) Contemporary Australasian Industrial Relations Research, AIRAANZ Brisbane,
Blaikie, N. (1993) Approaches to Social Inquiry, Pohty, Cambridge, Mass.
Blain, N and Plowman, D. (1987b) "The Austrahan Industrial Relations Literature, 1970-86', in K. Hince, and A. Wilhams, (eds.) Contemporary Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand: Literature Surveys, AIRAANZ, WeUington, Vol 1, pp. 17-56,
Blain, N. and Plowman, D. (1987a) "The Austrahan Industrial Relations Literature, 1970-86", Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 3, pp.295-320
Bland, H. A. (1961) "Apprenticeship - can we expect it to supply the Need for Skilled Workers?", Journal of Industrial Relations, 3, pp. 1-16
Bland, H. A. (1962) "Recent Developments in Labour Relations - Government", in ChUd, J. (ed.) Recent Developments in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 4th Convention ofthe Industrial Relations Society of NSW, pp.25-9
Blandy R., and NUand, J. (eds.) (1986) Alternatives to Arbitration, AUen and Unwin, Sydney
Blandy, R. (1963) "Equal Pay in Austraha?" Journal of Industrial Relations, 5, 1, pp. 13-28
Blandy, R. and Richardson, S. (1982) How Labour Markets Work: Case Studies in the Adjustment Process, Longman Cheshfre Melbourne
Blyton, P. and TurnbuU, P. (1994) The Dynamics of Employee Relations, MacmUlan, London
Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (eds.) (1992) Reassessing Human Resource Management, Sage, London
Bogue, A. G. (1983) Clio and the Bitch Goddess: Quantification in American Political Thought, Sage, Beverley HUls
Bok, D. and Dunlop, J. T. (1970) Labor and the American Community, Simon and Schuster, New York
Boraston, I., Clegg, H. and Rimmer, M. (1975) Workplace and Union: A Study of Fourteen Unions, Heinemann, London
Boreham, P. and Dow, G. (eds.) (1980a) Work and Inequality: Vol 1, Workers, economic crisis and the state, MacmiUan, South Melbourne
391 Boreham, P. and Dow, G. (eds.) (1980b) Work and Inequality: Vol 2, Ideology and control in the capitalist labour process, MacmUlan, South Melbourne
Boreham, P., Pemberton, A. and WUson, P. (1976) The Professions in Australia: a critical appraisal. University of Queensland Press, St Lucia
Boucher, C. (1995) "Close Friends or Strangers: SimUarities and Differences in Human Resource Management / Industrial Relations Research Paradigms", in L. Sonder, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Melbourne, pp.52-60
BoxaU, P. and Dowhng, P. (1990) "Human Resource Management, Employee Relations and the Industrial Relations Tradition in Austraha and New Zealand", in G. Griffin (ed.) (1990) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Melbourne pp. 152-68
Boyd, R. (1972) The Great Australian Dream, Pergamon Press, Sydney
Bramble, T. (1988) "The Flexibihty Debate: Industrial Relations and New Management Practices", Labour and Industry, 1, 2, June, pp. 187-209
Braverman, H. (1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, New York
Bray M. and WaUes, N. (1997); "Institutionahsm and Industrial Relations Theory", in T. Bramble et al. (eds.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Brisbane, pp.55-66
Bray, M and KeUy, D. (1989) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong
Bray, M. (1980) "Government regulation of union elections: usage of section 170 of the Concihation and Arbitration Act, Journal of Industrial Relations, 22, 1, March, pp. 104-110
Bray, M. (1987) "Unions and Contract Labour: The threat of the 80's", in K. Hince, and A. WUhams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ WeUington, Vol 2, pp.233-52
Bray, M. (1992) "Teaching Industrial Relations Theory", AIRAANZ Review, 1, pp.2-12 Bray, M. and Haworth, N. (eds.) (1993) Economic Restructuring & Industrial Relations in Australia & New Zealand: A Comparative Analysis, ACIRRT Monograph No. 8, University of Sydney
Bray, M. and Littler, C. (1988) "The Labour Process and Industrial Relations: A Review ofthe Literature", Labour and Industry, 1, 3, October, pp.516-55
392 Bray, M. and Rimmer, M. (1986) "Management, the labour process and contract labour in New South Wales road transport, 1960-70", Journal of Industrial Relations, 28, 3, September, pp.436-53
Bray, M. and Taylor, V. (eds.) (1991) The Other Side of Flexibility: Unions and Marginal Workers in Australia, ACCIRT, Monograph No 3, University of Sydney
Bray, M., and Taylor V. (eds) (1986) Managing Labour: Essays in the Political Economy of Australian Industrial Relations, McGraw-HUl, Sydney
Brecher, J. (1972) Strike!, Straight Arrow Press, San Francisco
Brecher, J. (1978a) The Problems of Work in the Steel Industry: An Historical Perspective, The Institute, NY
Brecher, J. (1978b) The Problems of Work in the Electrical Products Industry: An Historical Perspective, The Institute, NY
Brecher, J. (1986) History from below: How to uncover and tell the story of your community, association or union, Advocate Press, New Haven, Conn.
Briskham, K. G. (1956) Jam Today, Sydney
Brown, J. Douglas (1952) "University Research in Industrial Relations", in L. R. Tripp, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting, IRRA, Chicago, December, pp.2-7
Brown, W and Wright, M. (1994) "The Empirical Tradition in Workplace Bargaining Research", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 32, 2, June, pp. 153-64
Brown, W. (1978a) "Transforming the Miraculous into the Natural: Current Trends in Industrial Relations Research in Britain", in D. Turkington, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research: Proceedings, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of WeUington, Wellington (NZ), pp. 1-23
Brown, W. (1978b) Social Determinants of Pay, NILS Fhnders University Working Paper, No 24, March
Brown, W. (ed.) (1981) The Changing Contours of British Industrial Relations, BasU BlackweU, Oxford
Brown, W. et al. (1978c) "How Far does Arbitration Constrain Austraha's Market?", Australian Bulletin of Labour, September, pp.31-9
Brown, W. J. and Rowe, L. (1983) "Industrial Relations in Austraha: The need for Change", Australian Bulletin of Labour, September, pp.247-87
Brown, W. Jethro, (1922) "Law, Industry, and Postwar Adjustment" Harvard Law Review, 35, pp.223-44
393 Brue, S. L. (1994) The Evolution of Economic Thought, Dryden Press, Fort Worth, 5th edition
Bryman, A. (1989) Research Methods and Organisation Studies, Unwin Hyman, London
Buchanan, J. M. (1966) "Economics and Its Scientffic Neighbours", in Krupp, S.R. (ed) The Structure of Economic Science, Prentice -HaU, Englewood Chffs, NJ
Buckley, K. (1971) "Arbitration: its history and process", Journal of Industrial Relations, 13, 1, March, pp.96-103
Buckley, V. (1962) "InteUectuals" in P. Coleman (ed.) Australian Civilization, Cheshire Melbourne, pp.89-104
Bucklow, M. (1964) "Psychology and sociology in the teaching of industrial relations". Journal of Industrial Relations, 6, 3, 1964, pp.203-35
Bucklow, M. (1966) "A New Role for the Work Group", Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, 1, October, pp. 14-8
Burgess, J and Campbell, I. (1993) "Moving Towards a Deregulated Labour Market: Part Time Employment and the Recession in Austraha", in Haworth et al. (eds) Divergent Paths? Industrial Relations in Australia, New Zealand and the Asia Pacific Region, AIRAANZ, Auckland, pp. 119-34
Burgess, J. (1991 "Wages, credibihty, equity and sohdarity". Economic Papers, 10, 3, pp.20-29
Burgmann, M. (1985) 'Austrahan Trade Unionism in 1984", Journal of Industrial Relations, 27, 1, March, pp.81-8
Burns, R. (1990) Introduction to Research Methods in Education, Longman Cheshfre, Melbourne (see esp. Part 3, pp.223-70)
BurreU, G. (1994) "Modernism, Post-modernism and Organizational Analysis, 4: The Contribution of Jurgen Habermas", Organizational Studies, 15, 1, pp.l- 20
Business CouncU of Austraha, see HUmer, F. et al.
Byrt, W. and Masters, P. (1976) The Australian Manager, Sun Books, Melbourne CaUinicos, A. (1987) Making History: Agency, Structure, and Change in Social Theory, Pohty Press, Cambridge, UK
CaUinicos, A. (1993) Theories and Narratives: Reflections on the Philosophy of History, Pohty Press, Cambridge
394 CaUus, R. (1983) "Working for the Union: The Problems and PossibUities of Sponsored Research in Industrial Relations", in J. Benson, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ Gippsland pp.229-42
CaUus, R. (1986) "Employment characteristics of fuU-time union officials in New South Wales, Journal of Industrial Relations, 28, 3, September, pp.410-27
CaUus, R. (ed.) (1988) Research into Industrial Relations at the Workplace: Centre for Industrial Relations Research, University of Sydney (CIRRUS) / Labour Studies Programme, University of Melbourne, Working Paper No. 1, May
CaUus, R. and Schumacher, M. (eds.) (1994) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Sydney
CaUus, R., Morehead, A., Cvdly, M. and Buchanan, J. (1991) Industrial Relations at Work: the Australian workplace industrial relations survey, AGPS, Canberra. (AWIRS 1)
Campbell, D. T. (1988) Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Campion, E. (1982) Rockchoppers: growing up Catholic in Australia, Pengtiin, Ringwood
Carey, A Concepts of Power in the History of Industrial Psychology, University of NSW unpubhshed manuscript
Carey, A. (1980) "Social Science, Propaganda and Democracy", in P. Boreham and G. Dow (eds.). Work and Inequality, Vol 2, MacmiUan, Melbourne
Carey, A. (1987), "Managing Pubhc Opinion: The Corporate Offensive", in S. Frenkel, (ed.) Union Strategy and Industrial Change, NSW University Press, Kensington, NSW, pp. 12-54
Carr, B. (1979) "Austrahan Trade Unionism in 1978", Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 1, March, pp.97-101
Carr, E. H. (1964) What is History'?, Penguin, Harmondsworth
Castle, R., Markey, R. and Bourne, D. (1989) "Worker Attitudes to Technological and Organizational Change", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.307-20
Catley, B. and McFarlane, B. "Labor and Economic Crisis: Counter Strategies and Pohtical Reahties", in Essays in the Political Economy of Australian Capitalism, Volume Four, ANZ Book Company, Sydney, pp. 267-310
395 Chamberlain, N. W. (1964) "Emphasizing the Labor Factor", Industrial Relations, 4, 1, October, pp.33-6
Chambers, E. A. (1970) "Problems of communication in industrial relations: communication between the tribunals and thefr parties". Journal of Industrial Relations, 12, 1, March, pp. 1-8
Chapman, B. J., Isaac, J. E., and NUand, J. (eds.) (1984) Australian Labour Economics: Readings, MacmUlan, South Melbourne (thfrd edition)
Chehus, J. and Dworkin, J. (eds.) (1990) Reflections on the Transformation of Industrial Relations, IMLR Press/Rutgers / Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ
Chester, A and KUov, K. (n.d. 1979?) Aspects of Australian Industrial Relations: The ACTU, employer associations, public service arbitration, the Depression Years in Australia, white collar unionism, A select bibhography compiled in the South Austrahan Institute of Technology Library
ChUd J. (ed.) (1961) Rights and Responsibilities in Industry Industrial Relations Society Proceedings, 3rd Annual Convention, May
ChUd, J. (ed.) (1962) Recent Developments in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 4th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW, Sydney?
ChUd, J. (ed.) (1963) Recent Problems in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 5th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW (Sydney?)
ChUd, J. (ed.) (1973) Man and Organization: the search for explanation and social relevance, AUen and Unwin, London
Clark, B. R. (ed.) (1987) The Academic Profession: National, Disciplinary and Institutional Settings, University of Cahfornia Press, Berkeley
Clark, O. (1989) "The Development of Industrial Relations in European Market Economies", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.49-60
Clarke, T. and Clements, L. (eds.) (1977) Trade Unions Under Capitalism, Fontana, Glasgow
Clegg, H. (1970) The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain, BasU BlackweU, Oxford
Clegg, H. (1972) Tlie System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain, BasU BlackweU, Oxford (Revised ed.)
Clegg, H. (1975) "Plurahsm in industrial relations" British Journal of Industrial Relations, 13, 3, pp.309-16
Clegg, H. (1976) Trade Unionism under Collective Bargaining: A Theory based on Comparisons of Six Countries, BasU BlackweU, Oxford
396 Clegg, H. (1979) The Changing System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain, BasU BlackweU, Oxford
Clegg, H. (1990) The Oxford School of Industrial Relations, Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, No. 31, January, School of IR and Business Studies / IRRU, Warwick University (UK)
Clower, R.W. (1989) "The state of economics: hopeless but not serious", in Colander, D.C. and Coats, AW. (eds.), The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.23-30
Coats, A. W. (1983a) "Half a Century of Methodological Controversy in Economics: As Reflected in the Writings of T. W. Hutchison", in A. W. Coats (ed.) Methodological Controversy in Economics: Historical Essays in Honor of T. W. Hutchison, Jai Press, Greenwich Conn. pp. 1-42
Coats, A. W. (1983b) "John R. Commons as a Historian of Economics: The Quest for the Antecedents of CoUective Action", History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 1, pp. 147-61
Coats, A. W.(1993a) The Sociology and Professionalization of Economics: British and American Economic Essays, Routledge, London
Coats, A.W. (1960) "The First Two Decades of the American Economic Association", American Economic Review, 50, September, pp. 1697-1727
Coats, AW. (1989) "Economic ideas and economists in government: accomphshments and frustrations", in D. C. Colander, and A. W. Coats (eds.), The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 109-118
Coats, A.W. and Colander, D.C. (1989) "An introduction to the spread of economic ideas", in D. C. Colander, and A. W. Coats, (eds.), The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-21
Cockle, J. R. (1963) "Industrial Relations, 1962/3" in J. ChUd, (ed.) Recent Problems in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 5th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW (Sydney?), pp.29-33
Coghlan, T. A. (1918) Labour and Industry in Australia: From the First settlement in 1788 to the Establishment of the Commonwealth in 1901, OUP, London (four volumes)
Cohen, R.S. and Wartofsky, M.W. (eds,) (1974) Methodological and Historical Essays in the Natural and Social Sciences, Boston Studies in the PhUosophy of Science, Vol 14, D. Reidel, Dordrecht-HoUand
Cohen, S. (1986) Historical Culture: On the Recoding of an Academic Discipline, University of Cahfornia Press, Berkeley, Cal.
397 Colander, D.C. (1989) "The mvisible hand of truth", in D. C. Colander, and A W. Coats (eds.), The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.31-6
Colander, D.C. and Coats, A.W. (eds.) (1989) The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cole, K. (ed.) (1982) Power, Conflict and Control in Australian Trade Unions, Pehcan Books, Ringwood, Vic.
CoUingwood, R. G. (1946) The Idea of History, Clarendon Press, Oxford
CoUini, S. (1988) "What is inteUectual history ...?" in J. Gardiner (ed.) What is History Today...? MacmiUan, Basingstoke, pp.105-9
Commons, J. R. (1921) History of Labor in the United States, MacmiUan, New York
Commons, J. R. (1931) "Institutional Economics", American Economic Review, 21, pp.648-57
Commons, J. R. et al. (1921) Industrial Government, MacmUlan New York, (reprint Arno press, 1969)
Commons, J.R. (1919) Industrial Goodwill, McGraw-HUl, New York
Conrad, S. (1999) "What Time is Japan? Problems of comparative (intercultural) historiography". History and Theory, 38, February, pp.67-80
Cook, P. H. (1955) "The Study of Industrial Relations: Psychological Aspects", Australian Quarterly, 27 December 1955, pp.57-67
Cook, P. H., "The work of psychologists in Austrahan industry", Occupational Psychology, vol 23 June 1949, pp.38-46
Cook, P.H. (1947) "Problems of Research in Industrial Psychology", 19, Occupational Psychology, March, pp.353-9
Copeman, A. C. (1987) "The Robe River Affair", Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 4, December, pp.539-43
Cowen, Z. (1972) "The Role and Purpose of the University" in G. S. Harman and C. Selby-Smith (eds) Australian Higher Education: Problems of a Developing System, Angus and Robertson., Sydney, pp. 15-28
Creigh, S. and Wooden, M. (1985) "Strikes in post-war Austraha: a review". Journal of Industrial Relations, 27, 2, June, pp.131-57
Crist, R (1969) "Human Geography and Neighbouring Disciphnes", in M. Sherif and C.W Sherif, (eds.) Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, Aldine Chicago, pp.240-60
398 Cseti, D. (1985) "The AMWU Approach", in P. Sutchffe, and D. Ralston, (eds) Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Brisbane, 1985 pp. 125-36 (on-hne databases)
Cupper, L. (1975) "Aspects of Trade Union Enterprises - The Meat Employees Health Scheme", Paper Presented to Section 28, Industrial Relations, 46th ANZAAS Conference, Canberra
Cupper, L. (1976a) "Worker Participation in the Dynavac Organization", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 2, June, pp. 124-41
Cupper, L. (1976b) "Legahsm in the Austrahan Concihation and Arbitration Commission: the gradual transition", Journal of Industrial Relations 18, 4, December, pp.337-64
Cupper, L. (1977) "Legahsm in the Austrahan ConcUiation and Arbitration Commission: a reply". Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 2, June, pp. 198-200
Cupper, L. (1979) "Dynavac Revisited: self-management in transition", Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 1, March, pp.51-62
Dabscheck, B. (1980) "The Austrahan System of Industrial Relations: An Analytical Model", Journal of Industrial Relations, 22, 3, June, pp. 196-218
Dabscheck, B. (1983a) "Of Mountains and Routes Over Them: A Survey of Theories of Industrial Relations", in J. Benson, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, Gippsland, pp. 17-50
Dabscheck, B. (1983b) Arbitrator at Work: Sir William Raymond Kelly and the Regulation of Australian Industrial Relations, George AUen and Unwin. Sydney
Dabscheck, B. (1989) Australian Industrial Relations in the 1980s, OUP Melbourne
Dabscheck, B. (1995) "Industrial Relations" in P. BeU and R. BeU, Americanization and Australia, UNSW Press, Kensington Sydney, pp. 149-65
Dabscheck, B. (1995) The Struggle for Industrial Relations, OUP Melbourne
Dabscheck, B. and NUand, J. (1981) Industrial Relations in Australia, George AUen and Unwin, Sydney
Daly, M. (1987) "The Evolution of an Industrial Relations System in Papua New Guinea", Vol 2 in K. Hince, and A. WiUiams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ WeUington, 1987 Vol 2, pp.49-120,
Datar, B. N. (1968) The Austrahan and Indian Industrial Relations System: A Comparison", Indian J. of Industrial Relations, JiUy, vol 4 no 1, pp. 105-18
399 Davies, P. and Freedland, M. (1983) Kahn-Freund's Labour and the Law, Stevens and Son, London (3rd ed.)
Davies, S. (1989) The Martin Committee and The Binary Policy of Higher Education in Australia, Ashwood House, Melbourne
Davis, E. M. (1977) "Decision-making in the Amalgamated Metalworkers and Shipwrights' Union" Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 4, December, pp.348- 65
Davis, E. M. (1978) "A profile of decision-makers in the AMWSU's Victorian Branch", Journal of Industrial Relations, 20, 2, June, pp. 179-90
Davis, E. M. (1979) "Community attitudes towards trade unions". Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 3, September, pp.203-19
Davis, E. M. (1981) "Participation in six Austrahan trade unions". Journal of Industrial Relations, 23, 2, June, pp. 190-205
Davis, E. M. and Lansbury, R. D. (1988) "Consultative councUs in Qantas and Telecom: a comparative study", Journal of Industrial Relations, 30, 4, pp.546- 65
Davis, E. M. and Lansbury, R. D. (eds.) (1986) Democracy and Control in the Workplace, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne
Day, C. (1989) "Journals, university presses and the spread of ideas" in D. Colander, and A. W. Coats, (eds.). The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.61-74
De Vyver, F. T. (1958) 'The Austrahan Way to Industrial Peace", South Atlantic Quarterly, vol 57, no 4 Autumn, pp.443-51
De Vyver, F. T. (1959a) "The Weakening of Managerial Rights", Business Horizon, vol 2, no 1, Spring 1959, pp.38-48
De Vyver, F. T. (1959b) "The Melbourne BuUding Industry Agreement", Journal of Industrial Relations, 1,1, pp. 7-19
De Vyver, F. T. (1961) "Settlement of Union-Labor Disputes in Austraha", Labor Law Journal, Vol 12, pp. 154-63
De Vyver, F. T. (1970) "The Melbourne buUding industry agreement: A re examination", Journal of Industrial Relations, 12, 2, JiUy, pp.166-81
De V5^er, F. T. (1972) "Employers' associations developments", Journal of Industrial Relations, 14, 4, December, pp.447-54
De Vyver, F. T. (1975) "The use of the Austrahan machinery for supervising union elections". Journal of Industrial Relations, 17, 2, June, pp.135-47
400 Deer, S. (1986) New Technology, union rights and management prerogatives: the Austrahan experience". Labour and Society, 11, 1, January, pp.67-81
Deery, S. (1982) "Trade unions, technological change and redundancy protection in Austraha", Journal of Industrial Relations, 24, 2, June, pp. 155-75
Deery, S. and MitcheU, R. (1986) "Industrial Relations; The New Management offensive: Union Struggles today", Arena, No 77, pp. 128-41
Deery, S., Plowman, D., and Walsh, J. (1997) Industrial Relations: A Contemporary Analysis, McGraw-HiU, Sydney
Deery, S.J. and Plowman, D.H. (1991) Australian Industrial Relations, 3rd edition. McGraw-HiU, Sydney
Delbridge, R., TurnbuU, p. and WUkinson, B. (1992) "Pushing Back the Frontiers: Management Control and Work Intensffication under JIT/TQM Factory Regimes". New Technology, Work and Employment 7, 2 pp.97-106.
Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, (1983) Industrial Relations Courses and Subjects: 1984 Inventory, AGPS Canberra
Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, (1984) Industrial Relations Courses and Subjects: 1985 Inventory, AGPS Canberra
Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, (1986) Industrial Relations Courses and Subjects: 1987-7 Inventory, AGPS Canberra
Derber, M. (1969) "Industrial democracy as an organising concept for a theory of industrial relations, in G. Somers (ed.), pp. 177-90 *
Derber, M. (1970a) "Cross Currents in Workers' Participation", Industrial Relations, 9, 2, pp.9-22
Derber, M. (1970b) The American Idea of Industrial Democracy: 1865 - 1965, University of Ilhnois Press, Urbana
Derber, M. (1971) "Labour -managment relations in the metalworking industries of three countries", Journal of Industrial Relations, 13, 1 March, pp. 1-29
Derber, M. (1977a) "State-Government Management-Union Relations in Victoria and New South Wales", Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 4, December, pp.366-87
Derber, M. (1977b) "Changing union-management relations at the plant level in Austrahan metalworking", Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 1, March, pp. 1-23
401 Derham, D. P. (1975) "Universities, Governments and the Assumption of Federal Responsibihty for Higher Education in Austraha", The Australian University, 13, 3, pp.201-13
Des Roches, J. (1992) 1980-1980: A Decade of Profound Change in Employment Relations, Working Paper No 16, UWS Nepean, FaciUty of Commerce Working Paper, No 16, March
Dogan, M., and Pahre, R. (1990) Creative Marginality: Innovation at the Intersection of Social Sciences, Westview Press, Boulder, Col
Donn, C. (1983) The ACTU: History and Economic Policy, University Press of America, Lanham
Donn, C. B. (1975) "The economic pohcy of the ACTU", Journal of Industrial Relations, 17, 4, December, pp.396-403
Donn, C. B. (1976) 'Austrahan compulsory arbitration: some proposed modffications", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 4, December, pp. 326-36
Donn, C. B. (1980) "Industrial relations under a conservative government: a comment". Journal of Industrial Relations, 22, 3, September, pp. 342-47
Douglas, M. (1987) How Institutions Think, Routledge &Kegan Paul, London
Drago, R and Wooden, M. (1989) "Trade Unions and Workplace Efficiciency in Austraha: Some Prehminary Results", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.321-50
Dray, W. (1997) "Philosophy and History", in M. Bentley (ed.). Companion to Historiography, Routledge, London/NY, pp.763-82
Dubin, R. (1958) The World of Work: Industrial Society and Human Relations, Englewood-Wood Chffs, NJ
Ducker, J. (1962) "Recent Developments in Labour Relations- The Employee", in ChUd, J. (ed.) Recent Developments in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 4th Convention ofthe Industrial Relations Society of NSW pp. 11-14
Dufty, N. F. (1959) Workers' Opinions of Compulsory Arbitration", Economic Record, Vol. 25, August, pp.263-4
Dufty, N. F. (1972) Industrial Relations in the Australian Metal Industry, West Publishing, Sydney Dufty, N. F. (1975) Changes in labour-management relations at the enterprise, OECD, Paris Dufty, N. F. (1976a) "Trade Unions and Their Operations", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 3, September, pp.203-19
402 Dufty, N. F. (1976b) "Kingsley Middleton Laffer", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 4, December, pp.413-4
Dtifty, N. F. (1979) Industrial Relations in the Public Sector: The Firemen, UQP, St Lucia
Dufty, N. F. (1980) "Employer Associations in Austraha", Australian Bulletin of Labour, 6, 4, September, pp.209-44
Dufty, N. F. (1981) "Influences on pubhc opinion of unions and industrial relations". Journal of Industrial Relations, 23, 4, December, pp. 417-29
Dufty, N. F., Savery, L. and Soutar, G. (1986) Banking Industry Employees and Technological Change, Discussion paper. No 16, Murdoch University, Perth
Dufty, N.F. and FeUs, R.E. (1989) Dynamics of Industrial Relations in Australia, Prentice-HaU, Sydney
Dundas, K. and Woldring, K. (eds.) (1998) Towards Real Reforms in Employment Relations: Can the Adversarial Culture Be Replaced?, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference of the International Employment Relations Association, 10-13 July 1996, Southern Cross University / lERA, Lismore
Dunlop, J. Harbison, F., Kerr, C. and Myers, C. (1975) Industrialism and Industrial Man Reconsidered, Princeton, NJ.
Dunlop, J. T. (1958) Industrial Relations System, Henry Holt, New York
Dunlop, J. T. (1993) Industrial Relations System, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, Mass. (Revised edition with Commentary)
Dunlop, J. T., and Whyte, W. F. (1950) Discussions: Framework for the Analysis of Industrial Relations: Two Views, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, III, AprU, pp.383-401
Durkheim, E. (1933) The Division of Labour in Society, Free Press, Chicago
Ebbels, N. (1960) The Australian Labor Movement, 1850-1907, Austrahan Book Society, Sydney Edwards, P. K. (1979) "The social determination of strike activity: an exphcation and critique". Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 2, June, pp. 198- 216 Edwards, P.K. (1995b) "The Employment Relationship", in P. K. Edwards, (ed) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in Britain, BlackweU Business, Oxford, pp.3-26 Edwards, P.K. (ed.) (1995a) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in Britain, BlackweU Business, Oxford
403 Egerton, J., Howard, W. A, and Techritz, V. (1974) "Practical training for Industrial Relations", Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 4, pp.398-401
Ehrenburg, R. et al. (1977) "Comment", Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol 51, 1, October, pp.10-13
Eisenstadts, N. with Curelaru, M. (1976) The Form of Sociology - Paradigms and Crises, WUey, New York
Elderton, S. (1984) "Job reform and the concept of worker participation", in J.Aldred, (ed.) Industrial Confrontation, George AUen and Unwdn, Sydney, pp.83-92
Eldridge, J. E. T. (1975) "Systems Analysis and Industrial Behaviour", in B. Barrett, E. Rhodes, and J. Beishon, (eds.) Industrial Relations and the Wider Society: Aspects of Interaction, CoUier MacmUlan / Open University Press, London, pp.248-60
Ehas, N. (1982) "Scientffic Estabhshments" in N. Ehas, H. Martins and R. Whitley, (eds.) Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, D. Riedel, Dordrecht, pp.3-70
Ehas, N., Martins, H. and Whitley, R. (eds.) (1982) Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, D. Riedel, Dordrecht
EUem, B. (1999) "The Literature Search and Review", in D. KeUy, (ed.) Researching Industrial Relations, Federation Press, Sydney, pp.64-72
Elton, G. R. (1967) The Practice of History, Sydney University Press, Sydney
Elton, G. R. (1991) Return to essentials: some reflections on the present state of historical study, CUP, Cambridge, UK
Evatt, H. V. (1939) "Control of Labor relations in the Commonwealth of Austraha, University of Chicago Law Review, 6, pp.529-50
Ewer, P. et al. (1991) Politics and the Accord, Pluto Press, Sydney
Ewer, P., Higgins, W. and Stevens, A. (1987) Unions and Future of Australian Manufacturing, AUen and Unwin, Sydney
Fairbrother, P. (1986) "Union democracy in Austraha: accommodation and resistance". Journal of Industrial Relations, 28, 2, June, pp.171-90
Falk, B. (1990) "Notes on the Language of the Discourse of Higher Education", in I. Moses, (ed.) Higher Education in the Late Twentieth Century : Reflections on a Changing System, HERDSA, Kensington, pp.48-56
Falk, J., and CamiUeri, (1992) The End Of Sovereignty: The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmented World, Edward Elgar, Aldershot
404 FaU£, J., and CamiUeri, (1992) The End Of Sovereignty: The Politics of a Shrinking and Fragmented World, Edward Elgar, Aldershot
Fastenau, M. and PuUin, L. (1995) "Employment Relations: An Inclusive Paradigm", in L. PuUin, and M. Fastenau, (eds.) Employment Relations Theory and Practice: Current Research, Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the International Employment Relations Association, 1994, Gippsland School of Business, / lERA, ChurchUl, Vic. pp.203-14
Fay, B. (1987) Critical Social Science: Liberation and its Limits, CorneU U. P. Ithaca, NY
FeUer, I, (1981) "Three Coigns on Knowledge Diffiision", in R. Rich, (ed.) (1981) The Knowledge Cycle, Sage Beverly HiUs, pp.81-98
FeUs, R. and Weaver, J. (1987) "Development and Evaluation of Computer Assisted Instruction in Industrial Relations Teaching", in K. Hince, and A. WiUiams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ WeUington, Vol 2, pp.367-99
Ferner, A. and Hyman, R. (eds.) (1994) Industrial Relations in New Europe, BlackweU, Oxford
Fisher, C. H. (1983) Innovation and Industrial Relations, Croom Helm, Canberra
Fisher, N. (ed.) (1981) Change and Public Sector Industrial Relations, Proceedings of AIPS Seminar, AprU, Canberra CAE / AIPS, Canberra
Fisher, W. K. (1972) "Plant level relationships: The role of the tribunal", Journal of Industrial Relations, 13, 3, September, pp.264-71
Fitzpatrick, B. (1941) The British Empire in Australia: An Economic History, 1834-1939, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne
Fitzpatrick, B. (1944) A Short History of the Australian Labor Movement, Rawson Books, Melbourne
Fitzpatrick, B. (1946) The Australian People 1788-1945, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne
Flanders, A. (1966) "The Internal Social Responsibihties of Industry" British Journal of Industrial Relations, 4, 1, pp.1-21
Flanders', A. (1968a) Management and Unions: The Theory and Reform of Industrial Relations, Faber London
Flanders, A. (1968a) Trade Unions, Hutchinson, London
Flanders, A. (1968b) "CoUective Bargaining: A Theoretical Analysis", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 4, 1, pp.1-26
405 Flanders, A. (1969b) "The Nature of CoUective Bargaining", in A. Flanders, (ed.) Collective Bargaining: Selected Readings, Penguin, Harmondsworth pp.11-41
Flanders, A. (1972) "What are Trade Unions For?" in W. E. J. McCarthy, Trade Unions, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp. 17-27
Flanders, A. (ed.) (1967) Collective Bargaining: Prescriptions for Change, Faber, London
Flanders, A. (ed.) (1969a) Collective Bargaining: Selected Readings, Pengmn, Harmondsworth
Foenander, O de R. (1928) "The Forty-Four Hours Case in Austraha, 1926-27", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 23, pp.307-27
Foenander, O de R. (1937) Towards Industrial Peace in Australia, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne
Foenander, O de R. (1941) Solving Labour Problems in Australia, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne
Foenander, O de R. (1943) Wartime Labour Developments in Australia - with suggestions for reform in the post-war regulation of industrial relations, Melbourne University press, Melbourne
Foenander, O. de R. (1954) Better Employment Relations and Other Essays in Labour, The Law Book Co.. Sydney
Foenander, O. de R. (1971) "Book Review: Australian Industrial Relations Systems By Kenneth F. Walker", Industrial and Labor relations Review, 25, 1, October, pp. 141-2
Ford, B. and Plowman, D. (eds.) (1983) Australian Unions: An Industrial Relations Perspective, MacmiUan, South Melbourne
Ford, G. W. (1976a) "Change and the Need for New Learning for TAPE Teachers", Australian Journal of Adult Education, 16, 1, AprU, pp.12-17
Ford, G. W. (1976b) "A Study of Human Resources and Industrial Relations at Plant level in Seven Selected Industries", in Policies for Development of the Manufacturing Industry in Australia, (Jackson Report) Vol 4, AGPS, Canberra
Ford, G. W. (1980) "Industrial Relations Research in Austraha: The Question of Responsibffity and the Importance of the Theory of Ignorance", in G. W. Ford, J. M. Hearn, and R. D. Lansbury, (eds.), Australian Labour Relations: Readings, MacmiUan, South Melbourne, pp.572-7
406 Ford, G W. (1991) "Technology Transfer, Technocultures and SkUl Formation: Learning from Austrahan Experience", Asia Pacific Human Resource Management, Summer, 1991, pp.67-73
Ford, G. W. (n.d. 1992?) "Integrating people, process and place - the workplace of the future", Paper presented to AQC 8th Quahty Management Conference, (mimeo)
Ford, G. W. and Hearn, J. M. (1980) "Industrial Conffict: An Overview", in G. W. Ford, J. M. Hearn, and R. D. Lansbury, (eds.) Australian Labour Relations: Readings, MacmiUan, South Melbourne, pp. pp.2-20
Ford, G. W., Coffey, M. and Dunphy, D. (1981) Technology and the Workforce: An Annotated Bibliography, Technology Research Unit, NSW Government and Department of Organisational Behaviour, UNSW Sydney
Ford, G. W., Hearn, J. M. and Lansbury, R. D. (eds.) (1980) Australian Labour Relations: Readings, MacmiUan, South Melbourne Third edition
Ford, G. W., Hearn, J. M. and Lansbury, R. D. (eds.) (1987) Australian Labour Relations: Readings, MacmUlan, South Melbourne Fourth edition
Ford, G.W. (ed.) Redundancy, ANZAAS, 1973
Forester, T. (ed.) (1990) The Microelectronics Revolution, BasU BlackweU, Oxford
Foucault, M. (1988) Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and other writings ofMichele Foucault, 1977-1984, Routledge, London (edited by L. Krotzman)
Fox, A. (1966) "Managerial Ideology and Labour Relations", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 4, 3, pp.366-78
Fox, A. (1966) Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations, Donovan Commission research Paper, No 3, HMSO London
Fox, A. (1971) A Sociology of Work in Industry, CoUier, MacmUlan
Fox, A. (1973) "Is Equahty A Necessity?" Socialist Commentary, June, pp.i-vui
Fox, A. (1974) Beyond Contract: Power and Trust Relations, Faber, London
Fox, A. (1985) Man Mismanagement, Hutchinson, London (2nd ed.)
Fox, A. and Flanders, A. (1969) "The Reform of CoUective Bargaining: From Donovan to Durkheim", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 7, 1, pp. 151-80
Fox, C. and Teicher, J. (1994) "Victoria's Employee Relations Act: The Way of the Future?" in R. CaUus and M. Schumacher, (eds.) (1994) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Sydney, pp.508-36
407 Frenkel, S. (1983) "Industrial relations in Austraha: Is There a Need for more Sociology?" in J. Benson, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, Gippsland 1983, pp.105-114
Frenkel, S. and Peetz, D. (1990a) "Enterprise bargaining: the BCA's report on industrial relations reform". Journal of Industrial Relations,"^2, 1, March, pp.69-99
Frenkel, S. and Peetz, D. (1990b) "The BCA report: a rejoinder", Journal of Industrial Relations,^2, 3, September, pp.419-30
Frenkel, S. J. (1977) Managerial and Industrial Conflict: Is There a Need for A Managerial Revolution?, UNSW Department of Industrial Relations, Working Paper, 6/1977
Frenkel, S. J. (1978a) "Industrial conflict, workplace characteristics and accommodation structure in the PUbara fron ore industry. Journal of Industrial Relations, 20, 4, December, pp.386-406
Frenkel, S. J. (1980b) "Theory and Research Strategy", in S. Frenkel, (ed.) Industrial Action: Patterns of Labour Conflict, George AUen and Unwin, Sydney, pp. 12-23
Frenkel, S. J. (1988) "Researching Workplace Industrial Relations: A Comment" in R. CaUus, (ed.) Research into Industrial Relations at the Workplace: Centre for Industrial Relations Research, University of Sydney (CIRRUS) / Labour Studies Programme, University of Melbourne, Working Paper No. 1. May, pp.24-33
Frenkel, S. J. (ed.) (1980a) Industrial Action: Patterns of Labour Conflict, George AUen and Unwin, Sydney
Frenkel, S. J. (ed.) (1987) Union Strategy and Industrial Change, NSW University Press, Kensington, NSW
Fristacky, J. (1976) "CoUective bargaining, concffiation and arbitration in Victorian wages boards", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 4, December, pp.309-25
Fristacky, J. (1977) "The future of Victoria's industrial relations system: wages board review committee report", Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 4, December, pp.333-47
Fry, E. C. (1986) "The Writing of Labour History in Austraha", in E. C. Fry (ed.) Common Cause: Essays in Australian and New Zealand Labour History, AUen and Unwin, Sydney, pp. 139-55
Fuchs, S. (1992) The Professional Quest for Truth: A Social Theory of Science and Knowledge, SUNY Press, Albany NY
408 Furstenberg, F. (1983) "Social partnership and incomes pohcy in Austria", Journal of Industrial Relations, 25, 2, June, pp.220-8
Gahan, P. (1991) Forward to the Past? The Case of 'New Production Concepts'", Journal of Industrial Relations, 33, 2, pp.155-78
Galbraith, J. K. (1956) American Capitalism : The Concept of Countervailing Power, Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Gardiner, J.(ed.) (1988) What is history Tbc^ay...? MacmiUan, Basingstoke
Gardner, M (1989) "Austrahan unionism and strategic choice", in B. Ford and D. Plowman, (eds.) Australian Unions: An Industrial Relations Perspective, Macmffian, South Melbourne
Gardner, M. (1986) "Austrahan Trade Unionism in 1985", Journal of Industrial Relations, 28, 1, March, pp. 133-41
Gardner, M. (1987) 'Austrahan Trade Unionism in 1986", Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 1, March, pp. 102-110
Gardner, M. (1990) 'Wage Pohcy', in C. Jennett, and R. Stewart, (eds.) (1990) Hawke and Australian Public Policy, MacmiUan, Melbourne pp.79-104
Gardner, M. (1992) "Austrahan Doctoral Dissertations in Industrial Relations and Related Areas: 1969-1989", AIRAANZ Review, Volume I, 1992, pp.40-43
Gardner, M. (ed.) (1993) Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations in the Public Sector, MacmiUan, Melbourne
Gardner, M. and O'Leary, J. (1993) "The Reputation of Journals in Industrial Relations in Austraha and New Zealand", AIRAANZ Review, Volume 2, pp. 100-112
Gardner, M. and Palmer, G. (1992a) "Employment Relations and the Notion of Strategy", in D. Blackmur, (ed.) Contemporary Australasian Industrial Relations Research, AIRAANZ Brisbane, pp. 109-35
Gardner, M. and Palmer, G. (1992b) Employment Relations: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management in Australia^ MacMiUan South Melbourne
Gardner, M. and Palmer, G. (1997) Employment Relations: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management in Australia, MacmiUan South Melbourne (2nd edition)
Geare, A. (1974) "The Use of Two Dimensions to Achieve a Practical Measure of Factors Determining Job Satisfaction", Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 4, pp.351-62
409 Geare, A. (1977) "The Field of Study of Industrial Relations", Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 3 pp.274-85
Geare, A. J. (1978) "Doctrine, Theory and Teaching in Industrial Relations: A Comment", in D. Turkington (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research- Proceedings, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of WeUington WeUington (NZ), pp.49-53
Giddens, A. (1984) The Construction of Society, Pohty Press, Oxford
Giddens, A. (1996) In Defence of Sociology, Pohty Press, Cambridge, UK
GUbert, F. and S Graubard, (eds.) (1972) Historical Studies Today, Norton, New York
GUbert, J et al. (1985) Introduction to Management in New Zealand, Harcourt Brace, Sydney
GUI, D. (1979) "Industrial Unions: Pohcy or Pipe-dreams?", Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 2, June, 184-97
GUI, H. (1983) "Researching Industrial Relations", in J. Benson, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, ChurchiU, Vic. pp.51-70
GUI, H. and Griffin, V. (1981) 'The Fetish of Order: Reform in Austrahan Union Structure", Journal of Industrial Relations, 23, 3, September, pp.362-82
GiU, H. see also GuiUe, H.
GiUespie, R. (1993) Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments, CUP, Cambridge
GUmour, P. and Lansbury, R. (1977) "The changing role of the supervisor: imphcations for industrial relations". Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 3, pp.225-40
GUmour, P. and Lansbury, R. (1979) "Training First Line Managers for New Organisational Careers: An Austrahan Case Study", Australian Journal of Management, 4, 1, pp.55-68
GUmour, P. and Lansbury, R. (1984) Marginal Managers, UQP, St Lucia
Godard, J. (1993a) Industrial Relations, the Economy and Society, McGraw- HUl, Ryerson, Toronto
Godard, J. (1993b) "Theory and Method in Industrial Relations: Modernist and Postmodernist Alternatives", in R. Adams and N. Meltz, (eds.) Industrial Relations Theory: Its Nature Scope and Pedagogy, IMLR Press / Rutgers / Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, N.J. pp.283-306
410 Goodman, J. and Whittmgham, T. (1963) Shop Stewards in British Industry, McGraw-HiU, London
Goodwin, CD. (1966) Economic Enquiry in Australia, Duke University Press, Durham, NJ
Goodwin, CD. (1989) "Doing good and spreading the gospel (economics)", in D. C Colander, and A. W. Coats, (eds.). The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 157-74
Goodwin, C.D.W. and HoUey, LB. (1968) "Towards and Theory of the InterciUtural Transfer of Ideas", in Goodwin, C.D.W. and HoUey, LB. (eds.). The Transfer of Ideas: Historical Essays, Duke University Press, Durham, Nc' pp. 170-9
Goodwm, C.D.W. and HoUey, LB. (eds.) (1968) The Transfer of Ideas: Historical Essays, Duke University Press, Durham, NC
Gordijew, I. (1974) "Recent developments in Soviet wage pohcy", Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 4, December, pp.363-73
Gordon, S. (1991) The History and Philosophy of Social Science, Routledge, London/NY
Graham, L., Lepenies, W. and Weingart, P. (eds.) (1983) Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories, D. Reidel, Dordrecht
Grant, D., Keenoy, T and Oswick, C (1997) "Discourse and Organization", International Journal of HRM, 10, 3, pp. 542-56
Grattan, C Hartley, (1947) Australia, University of Cahfornai Press, Berkeley
Grattan, C Hartley, (ed.) (1947) Introducing Australia, John Day NY
Gregory, P. and Stuart, R. C (1992) Comparative Economic Systems, Houghton Mifflin, Boston (4th edition)
Griffin G, and Teicher, J. (1983) "Teaching Industrial Relations: A University Perspective", in J. Benson, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, Gippsland, pp.319-352
Griffin, G. (1982) "Managing technological change: industrial relations in the banking and insurance industries". Journal of Industrial Relations, 24, 1, March, pp.53-68
Griffin, G. (1983) "White coUar unionism, 1969 to 1981,: some determinants of growth", Journal of Industrial Relations, 25, 1, March, pp.26-37
Griffin, G. (1985) White Collar Militancy: The Australian Banking and Insurance Unions, Croom Helm, Sydney
411 Griffin, G. (ed.) (1990) Current research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ Melbourne
Groenewegen, P. and McFarlane, B. (1990) A History of Australian Economic Thought, Routledge, London
Guest, D.E. (1987) "Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations", Journal of Management Studies, 24,5, pp.503-21
Guest, D.E. (1990) "Human Resource Management and The American Dream", Journal of Management Studies, 27, 4, pp.377-97
Guest, D.E. (1991) "Personnel Management: The End of Orthodoxy", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 2, pp.149-75
GuUhaus, F. (1980) "An empirical study of industrial power and conffict: Austrahan petroleum retaffing", Journal of Industrial Relations, 22, 4, December, pp.400-19
Guffie, H. (1989) "A Tale of Two States: The NUand and Hanger Reports", Labour and Industry, 2,3, October, pp.453-69
Guffie, H., Sappey, D and Winter, M. (1989) "Can 'Industrial Relations' Survive Without Unions?", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.31-48
Gurdon, M. A. (1978) "Patterns of Industrial Relations Research in Austraha", Journal of Industrial Relations, 20, 1, March, pp.447-62
Haddad, L. (1975) "Efficiency and industrial democracy; the Yugoslav system". Journal of Industrial Relations, 17, 4, December, pp. 345-55
Hagan, J. S. (1981) The History of the ACTU, Longman Cheshfre, Melbourne
Hagan, J.(1989) "The Austrahan Trade Union Movement: Context and Perspective, 1850-1987", in W. A. Ford and D. Plowman, (eds.) Australian Unions, MacmiUan, Melbourne
HaU, C R. (1971) Australian Manufacturing Achievements to 1960, Angus and Robertson, Sydney
Ham, D. (1975) "Duahty in Higher Education: Are there two systems?". The Australian University, 13, 1, May, pp. 19-38
Hameed, S. M. A. (1967) "Theory and Research in the Field of Industrial Relation", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 5, 2, pp.222-236
Hamermesh, D. and Rees, A. (1984) The Economics of Work and Pay, Harper and Row, New York
412 Hammond, J. L. and B. (1919) The Skilled Labourer, 1760-1832, Longmans, London
Hancock K. et al. (1985) Report of the Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, AGPS, Canberra (Hancock Report)
Hancock, K. (1963) "Summing Up" in J. ChUd, (ed.) Recent Problems in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 5th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW (Sydney?), pp.62-6
Hancock, K. (1966) "Compulsory arbitration versus coUective bargaining: three recent assessments", in in J. Isaac and G. W. Ford, (eds) Australian Labour Relations.-Readings, Sun Books Melbourne, pp.442-54 (first pubhshed in Journal of Industrial Relations, 1962)
Hancock, K. (1985) "Industrial Relations Reform in Austraha: Keynote Address", in P. Sutchffe, and D. Ralston, (eds) Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Brisbane, 1985, pp. 1-10
Hanger Report, (1988) Report of the Committee of Enquiry, Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1961-1987 of Queensland, Government Printer, Brisbane
Hantrais, L. and Jobert, S. (eds.) (1996) Cross-National Research Methods in the Social Sciences, Pinter, London
Harman, G. S., MiUer, A. H., Bennett, D. J. and Anderson, B. L. (eds.) (1980) Academia Becalmed: Australian Tertiary education in Aftermath of Expansion, A. N. U Press, Canberra
Harman, G.S. (1980) "Introduction" in G. S. Harman et al., (eds.) Academia Becalmed: Australian Tertiary education in Aftermath of Expansion, A. N. U Press, Canberra, pp. 1-23
Harvey, L. (1990) Critical Social Research, Unwin Hyman London
Hande, C, Nyland, C and Svensen, S. (1993) "The Effects of Protective Labour Legislation on Employment Opportunities for Women in United States and Austraha", in N. Haworth, M. Hffi, and N. WaUes, N. Divergent Paths? Industrial Relations in Australia, New Zealand and the Asia Pacific Region, AIRAANZ, Auckland, pp.226-40
Haworth, N. (1989) "HRM: A Unitarist Renaissance", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.407-24
Haworth, N., Hffi, M., and WaUes, N. (eds.) (1993) Divergent Paths? Industrial Relations in Australia, New Zealand and the Asia Pacific Region, AIRAANZ, Auckland
413 Hawthorn, G. (1976) Enlightenment and Despair: A History of Sociology, CUP, Cambridge, UK
Hayek, F. von (1944) The Road to Serfdom, Dymock's Book Arcade, Sydney
Hayek, F. von (1945) "The Use of Knowledge in Society", American Economic Review, 35, pp.519-30
Hayward, H. and Mortimer, D. (1988) Towards an integrated perspective of employee relations. Working Paper 1/88 Centre for Employment Relations, University of Western Sydney, Nepean
Head, B. (1988) "The Labor government and economic rationahsm'" Australian Quarterly, 60, 4, pp.466-77
Healey, B. (1972) Federal Arbitration in Australia: an historical outline, Georgian House, Melbourne
Hearn, J. M. (1976) "Migrant participation in Trade Union Leadership", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 2, June, pp. 112-23
Heaton, H. (1921) Modern Economic History with Special Reference to Australia, WEA of South Australia, Adelaide
Henderson K. T. (1959) "Industrial Relations" Australian Quarterly, 31, March, pp.78-87
Henderson, K. (1954) "Employer-Employee relations: The frrational factors", Australian Quarterly, 26 June, pp.52-8
Heneman, H. G. (1969) "Towards a General Theory of Industrial Relations" in Somers, G. (ed.) (1969) Essays in Industrial Relations Theory Iowa State, Ames, Iowa, pp.2-25
Herman, E.S. (1982) "The Institutionalisation of Bias in Economics", Media, Culture and Society, July, pp. 175-90
Herzberg, F. (1966) Work and the Nature of Man, World Pubhshing, Cleveland
Hess, M. (1987) "Union Development in Papua New Guinea", in K Hince, and A. WUhams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ Weffington, 1987 Vol 2, pp.35-48
Higgins, H. B. (1915) "A new province for law and order: Industrial peace through minimum wage and arbitration, Part 1", Harvard Law Review, 29, November, pp. 13-39
Higgins, H. B. (1919) "A new province for law and order: Industrial peace through minimum wage and arbitration. Part 11", Harvard Law Review, 32, January, pp. 189-217
414 Higgins, H. B. (1920) "A new province for law and order: Industrial peace through minimum wage and arbitration, Part III", Harvard Law Review, 34, December, pp. 105-36
Higgins, H. B. (1922) A New Province for Law and Order, WEA Press, Sydney
Higgins, W. (1988) "Lessons for Austraha from the Swedish Research", in R. CaUus, (ed.) Research into Industrial Relations at the Workplace: Centre for Industrial Relations Research, University of Sydney (CIRRUS) / Labour Studies Programme, University of Melbourne, Working Paper No. 1. May, pp. 19-23
Hffi, J. D., Howard, W. A. and Lansbury, R. D. (1982) Industrial Relations: An Australian Introduction, Longman Cheshfre, Melbourne
HUmer, F. (1993) Reforming Employment Laws, 15th Sir Richard Kfrby Lecture, University of WoUongong, WoUongong, NSW
HUmer, F., Rayner, M., and TapereU, G. (1993) National Competition Policy, Report of the Independent Committee of Inquiry, AGPS, Canberra
HUmer, E.G., Angwin, M., Layt, J., Dudley, G., Barrett, P. and McLaughlin, P. (1993) Working relations: A fresh start for Australian enterprises, BCA and The Business Library, Melbourne
HUmer, F.G., McLaughhn, P., MacFarlane, D. and Rose, J. (1989) Enterprise based bargaining Units: A better way of working, BCA, Melbourne
HUmer, F.G., McLaughhn, P., Macfarlane, D. and Rose, J. (1991) Avoiding Industrial Action: A better way of working, BCA and AUen & Unwin, Sydney
Hince, K., and WUhams, A. (eds.) (1987a) Contemporary Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand: Literature Surveys, AIRAANZ, Weffington, 1987, Vol 1
Hince, K., and WUhams, A. (eds.) (1987b) Industrial Relations Reseach Themes, AIRAANZ Weffington, 1987 Vol 2
Hince, K.W. (1965) "Wages boards in Victoria", Journal of Industrial Relations, 7, 2, July, pp. 164-81
Hince, K.W. (1967) "Unions on the shop floor". Journal of Industrial Relations, 9, 3, November, pp.214-23
Hince, K.W. (1974) "Recent developments in the Victorian wages board system", Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 2, pp.175-82
Hince, K.W. (1980) "Utah and the mming unions: a case study of coUective negotiation at the company level". Journal of Industrial Relations, 22, 2, June, pp.149-67
415 History of the Australian Society of Accountants and Its Antecedent Bodies, 1887 to 1962, (n.d. 1962?) Austrahan Society of Accountants, Melbourne
Hobsbawm, E. (1968) Labouring Men: Studies in the History of Labour, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London
Hobsbawm, E. (1972) "From Social history to History of Society", in F. GUbert and S. Graubard, (eds.) Historical Studies Today, W. W. Norton. New York, pp. 1-26
Hobsbawm, E. (1975), "Economic and social history", in Barker, P. (ed.) The Social Sciences Today, Edward Arnold, London, pp.76-83
Hobsbawm, E. (1994) The Age of Extremes: A History ofthe World, 1914-1991, Panthoen, NY
Holdsworth, B, (1985) Teaching Practical Industrial Relations Skffis: Some Reflections, in P. Sutcliffe, and D. Ralston, (eds) Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Brisbane, 1985, pp..292-296
Holhnger, R (1994) PostModernism and the Social Sciences: A Thematic Approach, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Cahf
Home, D. (1965) The Lucky Country: Australia in the Sixties, Penguin, Ringwood, Vic. (Revised ed.)
Hosie, R. A. (1999) The Classffication, Learning and Detection of Events from SurveiUance Data, unpubhshed PhD Thesis, Curtin University, Western Austraha
Hotchkiss, W. E. (1972) "Problems of Industrial Relations", Economics, 7, 2, pp.60-66
Howard, W. A. (1974) "Industrial Relations Training in Austrahan Universities", Australian Association of Adult Education: Education for Industrial Relations, 1, February, pp.24-35
Howard, W. A. (1977) "Austrahan trade unions in the context of union theory". Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 3, September, pp.255-73
Howard, W. A. (1978) "Doctrine, Theory and Teaching in Industrial Relations", In D. Turkington, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research- Proceedings, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Weffington, Weffington (NZ), pp.25-48
Howard, W. A. (1980) "Austrahan Trade Unions in the Context of Union Theory", in G. W. Ford, J. M. Hearn, and R. D. Lansbury, R. D. (eds.), Australian Labour Relations: Readings, Macmffian, South Melbourne, pp.78-99
416 Howard, W. A. (1984b) "The Comparative Method in Industrial Relations", in W. A. Howard, (ed.). Perspectives on Australian Industrial Relations: Essays in Honour of Kingsley Laffer, Longman Cheshfre, Melbourne pp. 39-51
Howard, W. A. (1990) "Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management: Different or Dffierentiated Products?", in G. Griffin, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ Melbourne, pp. 192-200
Howard, W. A. (ed.) (1984a), Perspectives on Australian Industrial Relations: Essays in Honour of Kingsley Laffer, Longman Cheshfre, Melbourne
Hoxie, R. "The Economic Programme of Trade Unions", in W. E. J. McCarthy, Trade Unions, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp.34-46 (first pubhshed 1917)
Hughes, B. (1979) "The Economy", in A. Patience and B. Head, (eds.) From Whitlam to Fraser: Reform and Reaction in Australian Politics, OUP Melbourne, pp.9-49
Hunt, I. and Provis, C. (eds.) The New Industrial Relations in Australia, Federation Press, Sydney
Hunt, L. (1989) "Introduction: History Culture and Text" in L. Hunt (ed.) New Cultural History, University of Cahfornia Press, Berkeley, pp. 1-22
Hunt, L. (ed.) (1989) The New Cultural History, University of Cahfornia Press, Berkeley
Hutson, J. (1966) Penal Colony to Penal Powers, AEU. Surrey Hffis, Sydney
Hutson, J. (1971) Six Wage Concepts, AEU, Sydney
Hyman, R. (1971) Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unions, Pluto Press, London
Hyman, R. (1975) Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction, Macmffian London
Hyman, R. (1980) "Theory in Industrial Relations: Towards a Materiahst Analysis", in P. Boreham and G. Dow, (eds.) Work and Ideology, Vol 2 Ideology and Control in the Capitalists Labour Process, Macmffian, South Melbourne, pp.38-59
Hyman, R. (1981) Strikes, Fontana, Glasgow, 3rd edition
Hyman, R. (1989) The Political Economy of Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in a Cold Climate, MacmUlan, Basingstoke
Hyman, R. (1994) "Theory and Industrial Relations", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 32, 2, pp. 164-75
417 Hyman, R. (1995a) "The Historical Evolution of British Industrial Relations", in P. K. Edwards, (ed.) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in Britain, BlackweU Business, Oxford, pp.27-49
Hyman, R. (1995b) "Editorial", European Journal of Industrial Relations, 1, 1 pp.9-16
Hyman, R. and Brough, I, (1975); Social Values in Industrial Relations: A Study of Fairness and Equality, BasU BlackweU, Oxford
Hyman, R. and Ferner, A. (eds.) (1994) New Frontiers in European Industrial Relations, BlackweU, Oxford
Hyman, R. and Price, R. (1983) The New Working Class?: white collar workers and their organizations, MacmiUan, Basingstoke
Hyman, R. and Streeck, W. (eds.) (1988) New Technology and Industrial Relations, BasU BlackweU, Oxford
Irving, J. (1978); P. W. S. Andrews and the unsuccessful revolution, unpubhshed PhD Thesis, University of WoUongong
Irving, T. (1972) ""Industrial Democracy" and labour history", Journal of Industrial Relations, 14, 1, March, pp.71-5
Isaac, J. E. (1949) Economic Analysis of Wage regulation in Austraha, 1920 - 1947, unpubhshed, PhD thesis, London University
Isaac, J. E. (1951) "A Wages Pohcy for Austraha", Economic Record, Vol XXVI, N0 50, pp.1-19
Isaac, J. E. (1952) "Wages Pohcy: Recent Swedish Discussions", Economic Record, Vol. XXVII, pp.283-90
Isaac, J. E. (1958) "The Prospects for CoUective Bargaining in Austraha", Economic Record, 34, December, pp.347-61
Isaac, J. E. (1960) "Wage Fixing Practices", Economic Papers No 14, pp.5-20
Isaac, J. E. (1962) "Dr Hancock on CoUective Bargaining", Journal of Industrial Relations, 4, October, pp. 141-5,
Isaac, J. E. (1985) "Dfrections for Research", m P. Sutchffe, and D. Ralston, (eds) Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Brisbane, 1985, pp.326-331
Isaac, J. E. (1987) "Industrial Cooperation and Industrial Conffict" Paper Presented to the Options for Humanity: Sfr Douglas Wright Symposium, University of Melbourne (mimeo)
418 Isaac, J. E. (1995) Henry Phelps Brown on Industrial Relations, Department of Management and Industrial Relations Working Papers, No 93, University of Melbourne
Isaac, J. E. and Ford, G. W. (eds.) (1966) Australian Labour Relations: Readings, Sun Books, Melbourne (1st edition)
Isaac, J. E. and Ford, G. W. (eds.) (1967) Australian Labour Economics: Readings, Sun Books, Melbourne (1st edition)
Isaac, J. E. and Ford, G. W. (eds.) (1971) Australian Labour Relations: Readings, Sun Books, Melbourne (2nd edition)
Isaac, J.E. (1963) "Industrial Relations 1962-3", in J. ChUd, (ed.) Recent Problems in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 5th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW (Sydney?), pp. 1-23
Isaac, J.E. (1974) "Compulsory arbitration and coUective bargaining reconsidered", Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 1 March, pp. 1-12
James, M. (ed.) (1987) Restraining Leviathan: Small Government in Practice, Proceedings of a Conference organised by C I. S. Sydney, 17-18 November, 1986, Centre For Independent Studies, Sydney
Jensen, R. (1969) "History and the Political Sciences", in S. M. Lipset, (ed.) Politics and the Social Sciences, OUP New York, pp. 1-28
Johnson, G. (1986) Research Methodology for Economists: Philosophy and Practice, Coffier Macmffian, London
Johnston, R. J. (1986) On Human Geography, BasU BlackweU, Oxford
Jones, K. N. (1980) "Planning in the Context of the Roffing Triennium", in G. Harman, et al. (eds.) Academia Becalmed: Australian Tertiary Education in Aftermath of Expansion, A. N. U Press, Canberra, pp. 115-24
Jones, R.A. (1983) "On Merton's "History" and "Systematics" of Sociological Theory", in L. Graham, W. Lepenies, and P. Weingart, (eds.), Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 121-42
Junor, A and Barlow, K., (1992) "Part-time Fmance Sector Workers - Core or Periphery?", in D. Blackmur, (ed.) (1992) Contemporary Australasian Industrial Relations Research, AIRAANZ Brisbane, pp.229-61
Kaburise, J. (1987) "Trade Unions and the Law in Papua New Guinea", in K. Hince, and A. Wiffiams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ Weffington, 1987 Vol 2, pp.3-34
Kahn-Freund, O. (1969) "Industrial relations and the law - retrospect and prospect" British Journal of Industrial Relations, 7, 3, November, pp,301-16
419 Kalwa, R. W. (1992) "The Emerging Critical Paradigm in Industrial Relations" IRRA, Winter
Karmel, P. (1980) "Tertiary Education in a Steady State", in G. Harman et al. (eds.) Academia Becalmed: Australian Tertiary Education in Aftermath of Expansion, A. N. U Press, Canberra, pp.25-44
Karmel, P. (1990) "Reflections on a Revolution: Austrahan Higher Education in 1989", in I. Moses, (ed.) Higher Education in the Late Twentieth Century : Reflections on a Changing System, HERDSA, Kensington, pp.24-47
Karpin Report - Industry Taskforce on Leadership and Managerial Skffis (1995) Enterprising Nation: Renewing Australia's Managers to Meet the Challenges of the Asia Pacific Century, Research Report, Volumes 1 and 2, AGPS, Canberra
Katz, H. (ed.) (1991) The Future of Industrial Relations, CorneU University, Ithaca NY
Kaufman, B. (1992) "Strategic Choices Facing IR and IRRA", Proceedings of Forty Fourth Annual Meeting, Industrial Relations Research Association, January, New Orleans, pp.263-72
Kaufman, B. E. (1993) The Origins and Evolution of the Field of Industrial Relations in the United States, ILR Press, Ithaca
Kaufman, B. E. (ed.) (1988) How Labor Markets work: Reflections on Theory and Practices by John Dunlop, Clark Kerr, Richard Lester, and Lloyd Reynolds, Lexington, Lexington Mass.
Keenoy, T and Anthony, P. (1992) "HRM: Meaning Metaphor and Morahty" in P. Blyton and P. TurnbuU, (eds.) Reassessing Human Resource Management, Sage, London, pp.233-55 Keenoy, T, and KeUy, D. (1998) The Employment Relationship in Australia, Harcourt Brace, Sydney, (2nd edition)
Keenoy, T. (1984) Invitation to Industrial Relations, BasU BlackweU, Oxford (reprint) Keenoy, T. (1990a) "HRM: A Case of the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?", Personnel Review, 19,2, pp.3-9 Keenoy, T. (1990b) "HRM: Rhetoric, Reahty and Contradiction", International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1, 3, pp.363-84
Keenoy, T. (1991) "The Roots of Metaphor in the Old and the New Industrial Relations", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 2, June, pp.313-38
420 Keenoy, T. (1997) "HRMism and the Language of Re-Presentation: Review Article", Journal of Management, 34, 5 pp.825-44
Keenoy, T. (1999) "HRM as a Hologram: A Polemic", International Journal of Management Studies, 36, 1, January, pp. 1-36
Keenoy, T. and KeUy, D. (1996) The Employment Relationship in Australia, Harcourt Brace, Sydney (1st edition)
Keenoy, T., Oswick, C and Grant, D. (1997) "Organization Discourses: Text and Context", Organization, 4, 2, May, pp. 147-57
KeUy (ed.) (1999a) Researching Industrial Relations, Federation Press, Sydney, (2nd edition)
KeUy, D and Underhffi, E. (1995) "Austrahan Steel: A Corporatist Transformation?" in Sonder, L. (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Melbourne, pp.238-52
KeUy, D. (1989) "Technology, Work and Management at The Point of Production: Basic Oxygen Steelmaking at the Port Kembla Steelworks, 1972- 1987", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.273-307
KeUy, D. (1997) "A History of Industrial Relations Thought in Austraha: Prehminary Analysis", Paper Presented to Eleventh AIRAANZ Conference, Brisbane
KeUy, D. (1999b) "Methods and Methodology: The Problem of Industrial Relations", in D. Kelly (ed.) Researching Industrial Relations, Federation Press, Sydney, pp. 1-12 ((2nd edition)
KeUy, J. (1982) Scientific Management, Job Redesign, and Work Performance, Academic Press, London
KeUy, R. (1995) "Total Quahty Management: Industrial Democracy or Another Form of Managerial Control", Labour and Industry, 6, 2, March, pp. 119-40
KelsaU, E. P. (1959) "Industrial Conffict in Austraha", Economic Record, Vol 21, August, pp.255-62
KelsaU, E.P. (1974) "The Way to Industrial Peace", Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 2, June, pp. 105-113
Kenwood, A. G. and Lougheed, A. L. (1997) Economics at the University of Queensland, 1912 - 1997, Written on the Occasion ofthe Fiftieth Anniversary of the department of Economics, 1947 - 1997, The University of Queensland, St Lucia
421 Kerr, C (1948) "Economic Analysis and the Study of Industrial Relations" in Proceedings of the third Annual Conference on Research and Training in Industrial Relations, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapohs, pp. 12-16
Kerr, C (1978) "Industrial Relations Research: A Personal Retrospective", Industrial Relations (Berkeley) 17, 2, pp.131-42
Kerr, C. (1988) "The Neoclassical Revisionists in Labor Economics (1940-1960) R.I.P.", in B. E .Kaufman, (ed.) How Labor Markets work: Reflections on Theory and Practices by John Dunlop, Clark Kerr, Richard Lester, and Lloyd Reynolds, Lexington, Lexington Mass., pp. 1-46
Kerr, C (1994) "Hicks, Douglas, and Other Predecessors", in C Kerr and L. Staudohar, (eds.) Labor Economics and Industrial Relations: Markets and Institutions, Wertheim Pubhcations in Industrial Relations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. pp.66-108
Kerr, C and Staudohar, L. (eds.) 1994) Labor Economics and Industrial Relations: Markets and Institutions, Wertheim Pubhcations in Industrial Relations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kerr, C, Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. and Myers, C T. (1960) Industrialism and Industrial Man: The Problems of Labour and Management in Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kerr, J. (1962) "Introduction", ChUd (ed.) Recent Developments in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 4th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW, pp. 1-4
Kidder, L. H and Judd, C M. (1986) Research Methods in Social Relations, Holt, Rmehart and Winston, (Fifth edition)
Kindleberger, CP. (1989) "How ideas spread among economists: examples from international economics", in D. C Colander, and A. W. Coats, (eds.). The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.43-60
King, J. (1990) Labour Economics: An Australian Perspective, Macmffian, South Melbourne
Kfrby, M. (1977) "New ChaUenges for industrial relations: can we muddle through?". Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 2, June, pp.204-14
Kfrby, R. (1962) "Recent Developments in Labour Relations - The Judge", in ChUd, J. (ed.) Recent Developments in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 4th Convention ofthe Industrial Relations Society of NSW pp.30-4
Kirby, R. C (1965) "Some Comparisons between Compulsory Arbitration and CoUective Bargaining", Journal of Industrial Relations, 7, March, pp. 1-17
422 Kitay, J and Sutchffe, P. (1989) "Employers and Employment Relations in SmaU Business in Austraha", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.375-406
Kitay, J. and Powe, R. (1987) "Exploitation at a $1000 per week: The Mudginberri dispute". Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 3 September pp.365-400
Klein, J. T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory and practice, Wayne State University Press
Knott, J. and WUdavsky, A, (1981) "If Dissemination is the Solution, What is the problem?" in R. Rich (ed.) (1981) The Knowledge Cycle, Sage Beverly Hffis, pp.99-136
Kochan, T. A. (1980) Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations, Irwin, Homewood, lU.
Kochan, T. and Piore, M. (1990) Proposal for Comparative Research on Industrial Relations and Human Resource Pohcy and Practice, mimeo
Kochan, T. and Useem, M. (eds.) (1992) Transforming Organizations, OUP, NY
Kochan, T. et al. (1986) The Transformation of American Industrial Relations, Basic Books, NY
Kochan, T. et al. (1991) "Strategic Choice and Industrial Relations Theory: An Elaboration", in H. Katz, (ed.) The Future of Industrial Relations, CorneU University, Ithaca NY
Kochan, T., and Osterman, P. (1994) The Mutual Gains Enterprise, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
Kochan, T., McKersie, R and Cappeffi, P. (1984) "Strategic Choice and Industrial Relations Theory", Industrial Relations, 23, pp. 16-38
Kramar, R. (1985) "Affirmative Action: A Comment", in P. Sutchffe, and D. Ralston, (eds) Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Brisbane, pp. 159-75
Kramer, L. S. (1989) "Literature, Criticism, and Historical Imagination: The Literary ChaUenge of Haydon White and Dominick LaCapra", in L. Hunt (ed.) The New Cultural History, University of Cahforma Press, Berkeley, pp.97-128
Kriegler, R. (1980) Working for the Company, OUP, Melbourne
Krupp, S.R. (ed.) (1966) The Structure of Economic Science, Prentice-HaU, Englewood Chffs, NJ
Kuhn, J. W. (1955) "A Note on Communists and Strikes in Austraha", Pol. Sci. Quarterly, 70, March, pp. 103-6
423 Kuhn, T. (1972); "The Relations Between History and History of Science", m F. GUbert and S. Graubard, (eds.) Historical Studies Today, Norton, New York pp. 159-92
Kuhn, T. (1977); The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kuhn. J. W. (1952) "Why Pressure Group Actions by Austrahan Trade Unions?", Australian Quarterly, 24, September, pp.61-8
Kuhn., J. W. (1956) "Strikes and Austraha's Industriahzation", Australian Quarterly 28, September, pp.58-68
Laffer, K. (1952a) (Book Review) "Industrial Democracy and Nationalization By Hugh Clegg," Economic Record, 25, November, pp.293-4
Laffer, K. (1952b) "Marginal Analysis and FuU-cost Price Theory", Paper Presented to the 29th A.N.Z.AA.S. Meeting, Sydney
Laffer, K. (1958) "Problems of Austrahan Compulsory Arbitration", International Labour Review, 77, May, pp.417-33
Laffer, K. (1962) "Compulsory arbitration and coUective bargaining". Journal of Industrial Relations, 4, October, pp. 146-51
Laffer, K. (1968) "Industrial Relations: Its Teaching and Scope: An Austrahan Perspective" IILS Bulletin, 5, November
Laffer, K. (1971) "Does compulsory arbitration prevent strikes? - The Austrahan Experience", Paper read at Industrial Research Unit., Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, PhUadelphia, 18 November (mimeo)
Laffer, K. (1972) "Dr Walker on Austrahan Industrial Relations" Journal of Industrial Relations, 14, 1, pp.67-70
Laffer, K. (1974) "Is Industrial relations an Academic Disciphne?", Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, March, pp.62-73
Laffer, K. (1977) "Austrahan maritime Workers and the international trade union federation", Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 2, June, pp. 113-32
Laffer, K. M. (1965) "The Mount Isa Dispute", Economic Papers, No 19, June, pp.44-59
Laffer, K. M. (1969) "Whither Arbitration? Problems of Incomes Pohcies in Austraha and Overseas", Economic Papers, No 31, June/Dec, pp.1-17
Laffer, KM. (1981) The Development of the Industrial Relations School in the University of Sydney, 1953 - 1975, Occasional Papers in Industrial Relations No 1. Department of Industrial Relations, University of Sydney
424 Lakatos, I. (1970) "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientffic Research Programmes", ui I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, CUP Cambridge, pp.91-196
Lamm, D.S. (1989) "Economics and the common reader", in D. C Colander, and A. W. Coats, (eds.). The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.95-108
Landreth, H. and Colander, D. (1989) History of Economic Theory, Houghton Mifflin Boston
Landsberger, H. A. (1967) "The Behavioral Sciences in Industry", Industrial Relations, 7, 1, October, pp.1-19
Lane, G. C (1985) "Employer Matters in 1984", Journal of Industrial Relations, 27, 1, March, pp.96-102
Lang, H. (1986) "The stockpUe thesis and industrial relations at Kambalda", Journal of Industrial Relations, 28, 3, September, pp. 353-66
Lansbury, R. (1976) "Career orientations and unionization among non technical speciahsts", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 1, pp. 1-16
Lansbury, R. (1977) "The growth and unionization of white coUar workers in Austraha: some recent trends", Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 1, March, pp.34-49
Lansbury, R. (1978b) "Industrial democracy under Liberal capitahsm: a comparison of trends in Austraha, France, and the USA", Journal of Industrial Relations, 20, 4, pp.431-45
Lansbury, R. (1978d) "Industrial Relations in the Post-Dunlop Era: An Austrahan View of Teaching and Research in the United States", in D. Turkington (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research: Proceedings, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Weffington, Weffington (NZ), pp.66-75
Lansbury, R. and Davis, E. (eds.) (1984) Technology, Work and Industrial Relations, Longman, Melbourne
Lansbury, R. and Kitay, J. (eds.) (1997) Changing Employment Relations in Australia, OUP Melbourne
Lansbury, R. and MacDonald, D. (eds.) (1992) Workplace Industrial Relations: Australian Case Studies, OUP, Melbourne
Lansbury, R. and Prideaux, G. (1978) Improving the Quality of Work Life, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne
425 Lansbury, R. and Quince, A. (1988) "Performance Appraisal: A Critical review of its Role in Human Resource Management", in G. Palmer (ed.) Australian Personnel Management, Macmffian, Melbourne
Lansbury, R. and Spffiane R. (1983) Organizational Behaviour: The Australian Context, Longman Cheshfre, Melbourne
Lansbury, R. and Westcott, M. (1992) "Researcffing Industrial Relations: Dawn or Twffight of a Golden Age", Journal of Industrial Relations, 34, 3, pp.396-419
Lansbury, R. D. (1978a) Professionals and Management: A Study of Behaviour in Organisations, UQP, St Lucia
Lansbury, R. D. (1978c) "Industrial Democracy through Worker Participation in Management: The Austrahan Experience", Industrial Relations Journal, 9, 2, pp.71-9
Lansbury, R. D. (1980) "Industrial Democracy in Austraha: Past performance and Future Prospects", in G. W. Ford, J. M. Hearn, and R. D. Lansbury, (eds.) Australian Labour Relations: Readings, Macmffian, South Melbourne, pp.356- 71
Lansbury, R. D. and GUmour, P. (1977) Organisations: An Australian Perspective, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne
Lansbury, R., and Bamber, G. (1995) "Making Cars in Austraha: New Models of Work Production?", in L. Sonder, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Melbourne, pp.253-261
Larsen, J. (1981) "Knowledge Utffization: Current issues" in R. Rich, (ed.) The Knowledge Cycle, Sage Beverly Hffis, pp. 149-68
Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1987) The End of Organized Capitalism, Fontana, London Laudan, R. (1983) "Redefinitions of a Disciphne: Histories of Geology and Geological History", in L. Graham, W. Lepenies, and P. Weingart, (eds.) Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 79-104
Le Grand, H. L. (1986) "Steady as a Rock": Methodology and Moving Continents" in J. A. Schuster, and R. R. Yeo, (eds.) The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp.97-138
Leckie, J. (1987) "ChaUenging the State From Within; Industrial Conffict and the Fiji Pubhc Service Association during the 1970's", in K. Hince, and A. WUhams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ Weffington, Vol 2, pp. 121-56 Leece, P. (1995) "Employment Relations: Imphcations for Teaching of Performance Appraisal", in L. Puffin, and M. Fastenau, (eds.) (1995)
426 Employment Relations Theory and Practice: Current Research, Proceedmgs of the Second Annual Conference of the International Employment Relations Association, 1994, Gippsland School of Busmess, / lERA, Chvirchffi, Vic, pp.291-306
Legge, K. (1991) "HRM: A Critical Analysis", in J. Storey (ed.) New Perspectives on Human Resource Management, Routledge, London, pp. 19-40
Legge, K. (1995) Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Macmffian Basingstoke
Lepenies, W. and Weingart, P. (1983) "Introduction", in L. Graham, W. Lepemes and P. Weingart, (eds.), Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp.ix-xx
Lever-Tracy, C (1987) "Trade Union Strategies on Part-Time Work: a Two edged Sword", in K. Hince, and A. WUhams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ Weffington, Vol 2, pp.253-84
Levine, S. "Doctrine, Theory and Teaching in Industrial Relations: A Comment", in D. Turkington, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research: Proceedings, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Weffington, Weffington (NZ), pp.54-7
Levine, S. (1978b) "Industrial Relations Research and Teaching in America: A comment", in D. Turkington, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research- Proceedings, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Weffington, Weffington (NZ), pp.76-80
Lewin, D. (1987) "Industrial Relations as a Strategic Variable" in M. KLemer et al. (eds.) Human Resources and the Performance of the Firm, IRRA Madison Wisconsin
Lewin, D., and Strauss, G. (1988) "Behavioral research in Industrial Relations", Industrial Relations (Berkeley), 27, 1, Winter, pp. 1-6
Lewin, D., MitcheU, O. and Sherer, P. (1992) "Research Frontiers in Industrial Relations and Human Resources: A Preview of the 1992 IRRA Research Volume", in Proceedings of the Forty Fourth Annual Meeting Industrial Relations Research Association, New Orleans, January, pp.601-20
Lipset, S. M. (ed.) (1969) Politics and the Social Sciences, OUP New York
Littler, C (1987) "Labour Process Literature - A Review, 1974-1986", in K Hince, and A. WUhams, (eds.) Contemporary Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand: Literature Surveys, AIRAANZ, WeUington, Vol 1, pp.57-100
Littler, C, Quinlan, M. and Kitay, J. (1989a) Australian Workplace Industrial Relations: Towards a Conceptual Framework, CIRRUS / LSP (University of Melbourne, Workplace Industrial Relations Project, Working Paper No 8
427 Littler, C, Quinlan, M. and Kitay, J. (1989b) "Austrahan Workplace Industrial Relations: Towards a Conceptual Framework", Journal of Industrial Relations, 32,2, July, pp.269-80
Lukes, S. (ed.) (1986) Power, BlackweU, Oxford
MacDonald, R. (1979) "Press Coverage of Industrial Relations", Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 4, December, pp.497-502
Machlup, F. (1978) Methodology of Economics and Other Social Sciences, Academic Press, NY
Macintyre, S. and MitcheU, R. (eds.) (1989) Foundations of Arbitration, OUP Melbourne.
Macken, J. (1989) Award Restructuring, Federation Press, Sydney
Maclaurin, W. R. (1938) "Compulsory Arbitration in Austraha", American Economic Review, Vol xxvffi, pp.65-81
MacMffian, D. (1968) Australian Universities: A Descriptive Sketch, Sydney University Press for the AVCC, Sydney
Mainzer, L. C (1994) "Pubhc administration in search of a theory: the interdisciphnary delusion". Administration and Society, 26, 3, November, pp.359-91
Maloney, J. J. (1962) "Recent Developments in Labour Relations - The Pohtician", in ChUd, J. (ed.) Recent Developments in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 4th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW pp. 19-24
Mangum, G. and Phiffips, P. (eds.) (1988) Three Worlds of Labor Economics, M. E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY
Manicas, P.T. (1987) A History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences, BasU BlackweU, Oxford
Margerison, J. (1969) "What Do We Mean by Industrial Relations?" British Journal of Industrial Relations, July, pp. 116-24
Markey, R. (1987) "Labour History and Industrial Relations", in K. Hince, and A. Wiffiams, (eds.) Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand: Literature Surveys, AIRAANZ, Weffington, Vol 1, pp. 169-98
Markey, R. (1988) Employee Responses to Technological Change in State Employment: A Case study of the NSW Public Service, Riverina Murray Institute Press, Wagga
Marsden, R. (1982) 'Industrial Relations: a critique of empiricism'. Sociology, 16, 2, pp.232-50
428 Marsh, A. and Evans, E. (1973) The Dictionary of Industrial Relations, Hutcffinson, London
MarshaU, A. (1928) Economics of Industry: being the First Volume of Elements of Economics, Macmffian, London
MarshaU, J. and Trahafr, R. (1981) Industrial Psychology in Australia to 1950: An Annotated Bibliography, University of La Trobe Library, 1981
Martin, R. (1989) Trade Unions: Purposes and Form, Clarendon Press, Oxford
Martm, R. M. (1975) Trade Unions in Australia, Pengimi Ringwood
Marx, K. (1852) The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon,
Mathews, J. (1990) The Fifth Global Technoeconomic Paradigm, University of NSW School of IR and OB, Working Papers, No 83, December
Mauldon, F. R. E. (1931) "Cooperation and Welfare in Industry", in Copland, D. B. (ed.) An Economic Survey of Australia, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 150, September, 1931, pp. 183-92
Mayer, H. and Nelson, H. (eds.) (1973) Australian Politics: A Third Reader, Cheshire, Melbourne
Mayo, E 1919a on Freud and Jung in factories
Mayo, E. (1960) The Human Problem of an Industrial Civilization, Viking New York (first pubhshed, 1919)
McCarthy, B. (1990) The airlines dispute: wage determination or union extermination?, 12th Annual Sir Richard Kfrby Lecture, Dept. of Economics, University of WoUongong, NSW
McCawley, T. (1922) "Industrial Arbitration in Queensland", International Labour Review, Vol. 5, pp.385-409
McCoU, M. (1980) "The Mass Media and Industrial Relations News: A Case Study", Journal of Industrial Relations, 22, 4, December, pp. 420-41
McDonald, T and Rimmer, M. (1988) 'Award Restructuring and the Second Tier", Australian Bulletin of Labour, June, 14, 3,
McDonald, W. D. (1962) "Recent Developments in Labour Relations - The Owner", in ChUd, J. (ed.) Recent Developments in Labour Relations,
429 Proceedings of 4th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW pp.15-18
McEachern, D. (1991) Business Mates: The Power and Politics of the Hawke Era, Prentice-HaU, Sydney
McGarry, G. J. (1977) "Legahsm in the Austrahan Concffiation and Arbitration Commission: a comment". Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 2, June pp 193- 7
McGraw, P and Palmer, I (1990) "Reluctant Conscripts? SmaU business management attitudes to employee relations in travel agencies", Journal of Industrial Relations, 32, 4, December, pp.513-22
McGraw, P. and Dunford, R. (1987) 'The Strategic Use of Quahty circles in Austrahan Industrial Relations", Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 2, June, pp. 15-68
McGraw, P. et al. (1987) Quality Circles, Employee Participation and Industrial Relations, A Study of Australian Industry, AGPS, Canberra
McKersie, R. (1990) "Governance: Our Framework for Our Field", in Proceedings of Forty Third Annual Meeting, Industrial Relations Research Association, January, Washington, D. C. pp. 1-10
McKinlay, B. (1979) A Documentary History of the Australian Labour Movement 1850-1975, Drummond, Melbourne
McLeUand, R. (1976) "Towards CoUective bargaining m Austraha: a critical analysis of trends", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 4, pp. 391-99
McMuffin, E. (1974) "Empiricism at Sea", in R. S. Cohen, and M. W. Wartofsky, (eds.) Methodological and Historical Essays in the Natural and Social Sciences, D. Reidel, Dordrecht-HoUand, pp.21-32
McNair Report, see Report of the Committee on Freedom of Employers' and Workers' Organisations, (1956)
Meltz, N. (1992) "The IRRA as a Professional Asociation", Proceedings of the Forty Fourth Annual Meeting, Industrial Relations Research Association, January, New Orleans, pp.244-58
Metin, A. (1977) Socialism without Doctrine, Alternative Pubhsffing Co-op, Sydney (Translated by R. Ward, originaUy pubhshed Paris, 1910)
Michels, R. (1962) Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, Coffier, NY
430 Michelson, G. and Westcott, M. (1999) A Critique of the Dabscheck General Theory of (Austrahan) Industrial Relations, Paper Presented to the Labour Studies Seminar Series, University of Sydney, June
Mffis, C W. (1948) The New Men of Power, Harcourt Brace, New York
Mffis, C Wright, (1957) The Sociological Imagination, OUP, New York
Mffis, P. (1985) "Dfrections for the Future: Industrial Law", in P. Sutchffe, and D. Ralston, (eds) Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ Brisbane, 1985, pp.317-25
Mffis, R. C (1945) "Some Economic Factors in Industrial Relations", Economic Record, Vol v, pp.34-53
MitcheU, R. (1979) "Industrial relations under a conservative government: the Coahtion's labour law programme, 1975-to 1978", Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 4, December, pp.435-65
MitcheU, R. (1980) "Industrial relations under a conservative government: a reply". Journal of Industrial Relations, 22, 3, Setember, pp.348-52
MitcheU, R. (1987) "Labour Law Research in Austraha: A Review of the Literature, 1975-1985", in K. Hince, and A. Wiffiams, (eds.) Contemporary Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand: Literature Surveys, AIRAANZ, Weffington, Vol 1, pp. 115-58
Molhuysen, P. C (1975) "The Academic Respectabffity of Industrial Relations and Labour Economics", Journal of Industrial Relations, 17, 1, March, pp.97- 99
Moore, J. C (1973) "The institutional framework for the settlement of industrial disputes", Journal of Industrial Relations, 15, 4, December, pp. 343-7
Morehead, A, Steel, M., Alexander, M., Steven K. and Duffin L. (1997) Changes at Work: The 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey, Addison Wesley Longman, Melbourne
Morris, R and Wood., A. (eds.) (1971) The Corporate Economy, Macmffian, London
Morris, R. (1987) "The Early Uses of the Industrial Relations Concept", Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 2, June pp.532-9
Morris, R. (1993) "From the Webbs to SciUhn: The Appearance of Industrial Relations as a Branch of Knowledge, Labour History 64, May, pp. 70-89
Morris, R. (1997b) "The Old Concept of Employment Relations and its Modem Renaissance", in Essays in Employment Relations Theory, Centre for
431 Employment Relations, University of Western Sydney - Nepean Sydney pp.67-86
Morris, R. (1998) "The Employment Relations Concept: History and Uses", in K. Dundas, and Woldring, (eds.) Towards Real Reforms in Employment Relations: Can the Adversarial Culture Be Replaced?, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference of the International Employment Relations Association, 10-13 July 1996, Southern Cross University / lERA, Lismore pp.263-272
Morris, R. (ed.) (1997a) Essays in Employment Relations Theory, Centre for Employment Relations, University of Western Sydney - Nepean, Sydney
Morrow, R. A. (1994) Critical Theory and Methodology, Sage, Thousand Oaks, (with David A Brown)
Mortimer, D. (1995) "Employment Relations Theory: A Conffict Based Approach" in L. Puffin and M. Fastenau, (eds.) Employment Relations Theory and Practice: Current Research, Monash, Gippsland, pp.363-80
Mortimer, D. and Leece, P. (eds.) (1994) Employment Relations: Theory and Practice, Volume 1, Policy and Labour Market Studies, Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the International Employment Relations Association, UWS Nepean, Sydney
Mortimer, D. and Leece, P. (eds.) (1994) Employment Relations: Theory and Practice, Volume 2, Regional Studies and Case Studies, Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the International Employment Relations Association, UWS Nepean, Sydney
Mortimer, D. and Leece, P. (eds.) (1994) Employment Relations: Theory and Practice, Volume 3, New Directions in Human Resource Management, Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the International Employment Relations Association, UWS Nepean, Sydney
Mortimer, D. and Leece, P. (eds.) (1995) Workplace Reform and Enterprise Bargaining: Issues, Cases and Trends, Centre for Employment Relations, UWS, Nepean, Kngswood, NSW
Moses, I. (ed.) (1990) Higher Education in the Late Twentieth Century : Reflections on a Changing System, HERDSA, Kensington
Moss, M. (1997) "Archives, the Historian and the Future", m M. Bentley (ed.) Companion to Historiography, Routledge, London/NY, pp.960-73
Moth, L. (1972) "Industrial relations in the plant: a study of evolution within the system", Journal of Industrial Relations, 14, 3, September, pp.282-93
Munz, P. (1997) "The Historical Narrative" in M. Bentley, (ed.) Companion to Historiography, Routledge, London/NY, pp.851-872
432 Murakami, T. (1995) "Teamwork and Participation in the German Car Industry", in L. Sonder, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations AIRAANZ, Melbourne, pp.311-314
Muscio, B. (1917) Lectures on Industrial Psychology, Angus and Robertson, Sydney
Myers, C A. (1964) "Two Neglected Areas in Traditional Labor Courses", Industrial Relations, 4, 1, October, pp.29-32
Neumann, W. L. (1997) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 3rd ed. AUen and Bacon, Boston
Newlon, D. H. (1989) "The role of the NSF in the spread of economic ideas", m D. Colander and A. W. Coats, (eds.) The Spread of Economic Ideas, CUP, Cambridge, pp. 195-228
NUand J. (1989) Transforming Industrial Relations in New South Wales - A Green Paper, NSW Government, Sydney
NUand, J. (1964) "Employers Associations in New South Wales", Journal of Industrial Relations, 6, 2, July, pp.55-65
NUand, J. (1974) "Some Fundamental Questions for Manpower Planning" Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 4, pp. 304-13
NUand, J. (1976a) "CoUective Bargaining in the Context of CompiUsory Arbitration: An Austrahan DUemma", Paper presented to 47th ANZAAS Conference, Hobart, Section 28, Industrial Relations 28-4
NUand, J. (1976b) "The Case for More CoUective Bargaining", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 4 December, pp.365-90
NUand, J. (1978a) Collective Bargaining and Compulsory Arbitration in Australia, New South Wales University Press, Kensington
NUand, J. (1978b) "Funding Aspects of University Research in Industrial Relations: An Austrahan Perspective", in D. Turkington, (ed.). Industrial Relations Teaching and Research: Proceedings, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria Umversity of Weffington, Weffington (NZ), pp.234-53 (also UNSW Working Paper No 25)
NUand, J. (1981b) "Research and Reform in Industrial Relations", Journal of Industrial Relations, 23, 4, December, pp.482-503
NUand, J. (1984) "Industrial Relations reform: why, how and with what objective?, in J.Aldred (ed.) Industrial Confrontation, George AUen and Unwin, Sydney, pp.1-19
433 NUand, J. and Prothero, M. (1976) "Industrial Relations Research in Austraha", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 3, September, pp.272-82
NUand, J. and Turner, D. (1985) Control, Consensus or Chaos?, AUen and Unwin, Sydney
NUand, J., and Isaac, J. (1975) Australian Labour Economics: Readings, Sun Books, Melbourne (2nd edition)
NUand, J.R. (compUer) (1981a) Australian Industrial Relations Directory, IRRC, UNSW
Norris, K: (1984) "Book Review: Japanese and Australian Labour Markets: A Comparative Study", Journal of Industrial Relations, 26, 3, September, pp.418- 9
Novakovic, S. (1974) "Is the Transition From an Old Theory to A New One of a Suddent and Unexpected Character?" in R. S. Cohen, and M. W. Wartofsky, (eds.) Methodological and Historical Essays in the Natural and Social Sciences, D. Reidel, Dordrecht-HoUand, pp. 173-96
Nowak, S. (1985) "PhUosophical Schools and Scientific Working Methods in Social Science", International Social Science Journal, 102, pp.587-604
Nyland, C (1989b) "The Reduction of Standard Work Times: An Examination of the Literature", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.67-86
Nyland, C T. (1987) "Higgins, Scientific Management and the 44 Hour Week", in K. Hince, and A. WUhams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ Weffington, 1987 Vol 2, pp. 187-232
Nyland, C T. (1989aj Reduced Worktime and the Management of Production, OUP, New York
Nyland, C T. (1989c) "The Income and fatigue explanations for worktime change". Journal of Industrial Relations, 31, 4, December, pp.538-51
Nyland, C T. (1990) "Sexual Differences and Industrial Relations Research", in G. Grfffin, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ Melbourne, pp.432-42
Nyland, C T. (1996) "Taylorism, John R. Commons and the Hoxie Report", Journal of Economic Issues, 30, 4 pp.985-1013
Nyland, CT. (1998) Taylorism and the mutual-gains strategy". Industrial Relations, October, pp.518-40
434 O'Brien, J. (1990) "Regulating Decentrahsed Industrial Relations: The NUand Report", in G. Griffin, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations AIRAANZ Melbourne, pp.310-324
O'Brien, J. (1994) "McKinsey, Fred HUmer and the BCA: The 'New Management Model of Labour Market Reform", in R. CaUus, and M. Schumacher, (eds.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, Vol II, AIRAANZ Sydney, pp. 1003-35
O'Dea, R. (1970) Industrial Relations in Australia, 2nd edition. West, Sydney
Ogden, M. (1994) Towards Best Practice Unionism: The Future of Unions in Australia, Pluto Press, Sydney
Olson, M. (1969) 'The Relationship Between Economics and the Other Social Sciences", in S. M. Lipset, (ed.) Politics and the Social Sciences, OUP New York, pp. 137-62
Oxnam, D. (1950) "The relation of unskffied to skffied wage rates in Austraha" Economic Record, 26, pp. 112-8
Oxnam, D. (1951) "Strikes in Austraha", Economic Record, 27, pp.73-89
Oxnam, D. (1952) "Some Economic and social consequences of the Austrahan system of wage fixation", in AIPS What should we do with our wages system? Sydney
Oxnam, D. (1953) "Strikes in Austraha", Economic Record, xxix. No 56, pp.73- 89
Oxnam, D. (1974) "Industrial Relations and A.N.Z.A.A.S.", Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 1, pp.74-7
Oxnam, D. W. (1955) "Some economic aspects of the scientffic study of Industrial Relations", Australian Quarterly, vol 27, June, pp.30-41
Oxnam, D. W. (1956), "Industrial Arbitration in Austraha: Its efects on Wages and Union Growth", Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol 9, JxUy, pp.610-28
Palmer, G. (1990) "Presidential Address, ChaUenge and Opportunity for Industrial Relations: A Personal View", in G. Griffin, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ Melbourne, pp. 1-8
Palmer, G. (ed.) (1988) Australian Personnel Management: A Reader, Macmffian, Melbourne
Palmer, I and McGraw, P. (1989) "The Struggle For Relevance: Attempts to Unionise the Industry of Travel Agents", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues
435 and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ WoUongone pp.350-74 ' ^'
Palmer, I. and Dunford M. (1996) "Confficting uses of metaphors: reconceptuahzing their use in the field for organizational change", Academy of Management Review, July 1996 213, pp.691-723
Parkes, R. (1956) "The Austrahan Waterfront", Quadrant, 1, 2, Summer 1956- 7, pp.5-12
Parsons, T. (1947) "Introduction" for M. Weber The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Free Press, NY / Coffier, London, pp. 1-86
Parsons, T. (1986) "Power and the Social System", in S. Lukes, (ed.) Power, BlackweU, Oxford, pp.94-143 (first pubhshed, 1963)
Parsons, Talcott (1951) The Social System, Free Press, Chicago
Patience, A and Head, B. (1979b) "Austrahan Pohtics in the 1970s", in A. Patience and B. Head, (eds.) From Whitlam to Fraser: Reform and Reaction in Australian Politics, OUP Melbourne, pp.283-90
Patience, A. and Head, B. (eds.) (1979a) From Whitlam to Fraser: Reform and Reaction in Australian Politics, OUP Melbourne
Patmore, G. (1983) "Labour History and Industrial Relations" in J. Benson, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, Gippsland 1983, pp.73-83
Patmore, G. (1990b) "History and Industrial Relations: An Overview", in G. Patmore, (ed.) History and Industrial Relations, ACIRRT Monograph No. 1, University of Sydney, pp. 1-15
Patmore, G. (ed.) (1990a) History and Industrial Relations, ACIRRT Monograph No. 1, University of Sydney
Paunz, K. and Patton, L. (1977) "A Selected Bibhography, 1970-1976", in R. L. Pritchard, (ed.) Industrial Democracy in Australia, CCH, Sydney, pp.217-36
Peet, R. (1999) Modern Geographical Thought, BlackweU, Oxford
Perlman, M, (1995) "What makes my mind tick", American Economist, 39, 2, FaU,
Perlman, M. (1953) "An Industrial Problem: Austraha's Longshoremen", Labor Law Journal, vol 4, July, pp.462-73
Perlman, M. (1954) Judges in Industry: A Study of Labour Arbitration in Australia, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne
436 Perlman, M. (1977) "The Editing of the Economic Record, 1925 - 1975" in J. P. Nieuwenhuysen, and P. J. Drake, (eds.) Australian Economic Policy, Melbom-ne University Press, Melbourne, pp.218-30
Perlman, S. (1949) A Theory of the Labor Movement, Augustus KeUey NY (ffist pubhshed 1928)
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982) In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New York
Phffiips, A. A. (1962) "The Schools", in P. Coleman (ed.) Australian Civilization, Cheshfre Melbourne, pp. 105-72
Piatt, J. (1986) "Functionahsm and the survey: the relation of theory and method". Sociological Review, 34, pp.500-36
Piatt, J. (1992) "Cases or cases ... of Cases", in C S. Ragin and H. S. Becker, What is a Case: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, CUP Cambridge, Mass. pp.21-52
Piatt, J. (1996) A History of Sociological Research Methods in America, 1920- 1960, Cambridge U. P., New York
Plowman, D and Bryce, M. (1991a) The Journal of Industrial Relations: A Consolidated and Annotated Index; 1959 - 1990, IRRC, University of New South Wales, Kensington
Plowman, D. (1978) "Course Content and Structure in the Teaching of Industrial Relations", in D. Turkington, (ed.). Industrial Relations Teaching and Research: Proceedings, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Weffington, Weffington (NZ), pp. 130-59
Plowman, D. (1979) Some Aspects of Contemporary Industrial Relations Development, Working Paper No 35, Department of Industrial Relations, UNSW, Kensington
Plowman, D. (1987) "Employer Associations: a Literature Review", in K. Hince, and A. Wiffiams, (eds.) Contemporary Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand: Literature Surveys, AIRAANZ, Weffington, Vol 1, pp. 199-28
Plowman, D. (1989b), "Presidential Address, Industrial Relations Teaching and Research: Trends, Pressures, Strategies", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.l- 12
Plowman, D. (1989c) Management and Industrial Relations, Working Paper No 73, School of Industrial Relations and Orgamzational Behaviotn, UNSW, Kensington, May
437 Plowman, D. (1991b) "Research Design and Research Strategy" in D. KeUy, (ed.) Researching Industrial Relations: Methods and Methodology, ACIRRT Monograph No. 6, Sydney, pp. 15-27
Plowman, D. and Rimmer, M. (1992) Bargaining Structure, Award Respondency and Employer Associations, IRRC, UNSW, Kensington
Plowman, D. H. (1987) "Economic forces and the New Right: employer matters in in 1986", Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 1, March, pp.84-91
Plowman, D. H. (1989a) Holding the Line: Compulsory Arbitration and national employer coordination in Australia, CUP, Melborne
Plowman, D. H. and WaUcer, A. J. (1985) Industrial Relations Teaching, Theory and Research: An Annotated Bibliography, IRRC, Kensington NSW
Plowman, D., Deery, S. and Fisher, C (1980) Australian Industrial Relations, McGraw-Hffi, Sydney (Revised edition, 1981)
Pohkarov, A. (1974) "The Divergent - Convergent Method - A heuristic Approach to Problem-Solving" in R. S. Cohen, and M. W. Wartofsky, M.W. (eds) Methodological and Historical Essays in the Natural and Social Sciences, D. Reidel, Dordrecht-HoUand, pp.211-33
Poole, M.(1981) Theories of Trade Unionism: A Sociology of Industrial Relations, Routledge, London
Popper, K. (1979) Objective Knowledge, Clarendon, Oxford
Pratt, A. C (1994) Uneven Re-Production: Industry, Space and Society, Pergamon, London
Price, R. (1972) "University of Warwick, SSRC Industrial Relations Research Unit", Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 25, 4, pp.606-8
Pritchard, R. L. (ed.) (1977) Industrial Democracy in Australia, CCH, Sydney
Provis, C (1986) "Comparative wage justice", Journal of Industrial Relations, 28, 1 March, pp.24-39
Pulhn, L. and Fastenau, M. (eds.) (1995) Employment Relations Theory and Practice: Current Research, Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference of the International Employment Relations Association, 19994, Gippsland School of Business, / lERA, Churchffi, Vic.
PurceU, J. (1983) Tragedy or Farce: Recent Developments in British Industrial Relations, in J. Benson, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, Gippsland 1983, pp. 195-204
PurceU, J. (1987) "Mapping Management Styles m Employee Relations", J. Management Studies, 24, 5, pp. 533-48
438 PurceU, J. (1993a) "Ideology and the end of institutional industrial relations", Labour and Industry 5, 3, October, pp.57-74
PurceU, J. (1993b) "The End of Institutional Industrial Relations", Political Quarterly, 64, pp.6-23
Pusey, M. (1991) Economic Rationalism in Canberra: A Nation-Building State Changes its Mind, CUP, Cambridge
Quinlan, M. (1979) "Austrahan trade unions and postwar immigration: attitudes and responses". Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 3, September, pp.265-8
Quinlan, M. and Rimmer, M. (1989) "Workplace Industrial Relations reform and Legislative change: Hancock, Hanger, NUand and the Business councU of Austraha, Labour and Industry, 2, 3, October, pp.434-52
R. NichoUs Society (1986) Arbitration in Contempt, Proceedings of the inaugural seminars of the H.R. NichoUs Society held in Melbourne 28 February ~ 2 March, The Society, Melbourne
Rabb, T. K. and Rotberg, R. 1. (1982) The New History The 1980s and Beyond Studies in Interdisciplinary History, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Rawson, D, (1958) "Pohtics and 'Responsibffity' in Austrahan Trade Unions," Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol 4, pp.224-243
Rawson, D. (1987) "How Much Change in the Pubhc Sector", in K. Hmce, and A. Wiffiams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ Weffington, Vol 2, pp.301-24
Rawson, D. W (1956) "The Frontiers of Trade Unionism", Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol 1, May, pp. 196-209
Rawson, D. W. (1962) "Recent Developments in Labour Relations - The Social and Economic Background" in J. ChUd, (ed.) Recent Developments in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 4th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW pp. 1-8
Rawson, D. W. (1978) Unions and Unionists in Australia, George AUen and Unwin, Sydney
Rawson, D. W. (1981a) "The law and objects of federal unions". Journal of Industrial Relations, 23, 3, September, pp.295-309
Rawson, D. W. (1981b) "Changes in Union Membership in the 1970s and Beyond", Australian Bulletin of Labour, 8, 1, December, pp.31-41
Rawson, D. W. (1982b) British and Australian Labour law: the Background to the 1982 Bill, RSSS Industrial Relations Papers, ANU Canberra
439 Rawson, D. W. (ed.) (1986) New Developments in Public Sector Management 8: Industrial relations in the Public Sector, Proceedings of 8th National Conference, 19-20 May, Centre for Continuing Education, Austrahan National Unuversity
Rawson, D. W. and Wrightson, S. (1982a) Membership of Australian Unions, December, 1981, RSSS Industrial Relations Papers, ANU Canberra
Redman, D. A. (1991) Economics and the Philosophy of Science, OUP, Oxford
Reed, R. (1987) "Making newspapers pay: employment of women's skffis in newspaper production", Journal of Industrial Relations, 29, 1, March, pp.25-40
Reeves, W. P. (1902) State Experiments in Australia and New Zealand, Grant Richards, London (two volumes)
Report of the Committee on Freedom of Employers' and Workers' Organisations, (1956) International Labour Office, Geneva, (McNair Report)
Riach, P. A. And Howard, W. A. (1973) Productivity Agreements and Wage Determination in Australia, John WUey, Sydney
Rich, R. F. (1981) "Knowledge in Society", in R. F. Rich (ed.) The Knowledge Cycle, Sage, Beverley Hffis, pp. 11-40
Rich, R. F. (ed.) (1981) The Knowledge Cycle, Sage, Beverley Hffis
Richardson, J. (1972) 'A Role and Purpose for CoUeges of Advanced Education", in G. S. Harman and C Selby-Smith (eds) Australian Higher Education: Problems of a Developing System, Angus and Robertson., Sydney, pp. 1-14
Rimmer, M. (1981) "Long-Run Structural Change in Austrahan Trade Uniomsm", Journal of Industrial Relations, 23, 3, September, pp. 323-43
Rimmer, M. (1988a) Enterprise and Industry Awards, Report prepared for the Industrial Relations Study commission. Business CouncU of Austraha, Melbourne
Rimmer, M. (1988b) "Research into Workplace Industrial Relations: Lessons From the British Experience", in R. Callus, (ed.) Research into Industrial Relations at the Workplace: Centre for Industrial Relations Research, Umversity of Sydney (CIRRUS) / Labour Studies Programme, University of Melbourne, Working Paper No. 1. May, pp.4-18
Riverina Murray Institute of Higher Education, Division of External Studies, School of Management Management Technology and the Arts (1985) Course Notes, (various)
440 Rodger, S, (Hon), (1987) "Mmisterial Address", m K. Hince, and A. WUhams, (eds.) Contemporary Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand: Literature Surveys, AIRAANZ, WeUington, Vol 1, pp. 13-16
Rosenau, P. M. (1992) Post-Modernism and The Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads and Intrusions, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ
Ross, A. M. (1964) "Labor Courses: The Need for Radical Reconstruction", Industrial Relations, 4, 1, October, pp. 1-17
Ross, D., Kearney, T., O'Reffiy, 0., and Carey., A. (1963) "Symposium on Compulsory Unionism", in ChUd, J. (ed.) Recent Problems in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 5th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW (Sydney?), pp.37-52
Ross, G. W. (1945) "The Constitutional History of Industrial Arbitration in Austraha", Minnesota Law Review, 30, pp,l-22
Ross, L. (1962) "Recent Developments in Labour Relations- The Trade Unions", in ChUd, J. (ed.) Recent Developments in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 4th Convention ofthe Industrial Relations Society of NSW pp.9-10 (Synopsis only)
Ross, L., (1950) "Sociahsm and Austrahan Labour - Facts, Figures, and Future", Australian Quarterly, 22, 1950, pp.21-35
Rosser, D., (1992) "Biting the BuUet: TQM and the Individual Expereince of Organisational Change", Blackmur, D. (ed.) (1992) Contemporary Australasian Industrial Relations Research, AIRAANZ Brisbane, pp.510-18
Rosser, D., Todd, P., and FeUs, R. (1995) "Implementation of the Employment Relations Aspects of the Best Practice Programme: A Case Study Approach", in L. Sonder, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Melbourne, pp.396-407
Roth, H. (1987) "Writing Labour History in New Zealand: Trends and Achievements", in K. Hince, and A. WUhams, (eds.) Contemporary Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand: Literature Surveys, AIRAANZ, Weffington, Vol 1, pp. 159-68
Sabine, G. (1963) A History of Political Thought, George G. Harrap, London (3rd ed.)
Samuelson, P. A., Hancock, K. and WaUace, R. (1970) Economics: An Introductory Analysis, McGraw-Hffi, Sydney (1st Austrahan edition)
Santos, M., "Geography in the late twentieth century: new roles for a threatened disciphne", International Social Science Journal, (special Issue on Epistemology of Social Science) 102, pp.657-72
441 Sayer, A. (1992) Method in the Social Science: A Realist Approach, Routledge NY
Schachter, H. L. (1989) Frederick Taylor and the Public Adminsitration Community: A reevaluation, SUNY, Albany, NY
Schatz, R. W. (1995) "From Commons to Dunlop: Rethinkmg the Field and Theory of Industrial Relations", in N. Lichtenstein, (ed.) Industrial Democracy in America: The Ambiguous Promise, CUP, Cambridge, Mass., pp.87-112
Schatz, R. W. (1995) "What's Wrong with Industrial Relations?" Reviews in American History, 23,4, pp.693-8
Scherer, P. (1985) "Exit, Voice and Marginahty: The Interaction between Labour Markets and Workplace Industrial Relations Systems", in P. Sutchffe, and D. Ralston, (eds) Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Brisbane, 1985, pp.297-316
Scherer, P. A. (1981) Skilled Tradesmen and Apprentices in Australia: An Inventory of Data Sources, Centre for Economic Pohcy Research, Austrahan National University, Canberra
Scherer, P. A. (1983) The Kirby Report, Implications for Training, Education and Work, Bureau of Labour Market Research, AGPS, Canberra
Scherer, P. and Fisher, N. (1983) Research on Commonwealth employment and training programs and services. Bureau of Labour Market Research, AGPS, Canberra
Scholte, B. (1983) "Cultural Anthropology and the Paradigm-Concept: A Brief History of Their Recent Convergence", in L. Graham, W. Lepenies, and P. Weingart, (eds.), Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories, D. Reidel, Dordrecht pp.229-79
Schuler, R., et al. (1992) Human Resource Management in Australia, Harper, Sydney, (2nd ed.)
SchiUtz, J. (1986*) Steel City Blues, Penguin Ringwood
Schuster, J.A. and Yeo, R.R. (1986) "Introduction", in J. A. Schuster, and R. R. Yeo, (eds.) The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. ix-xxxvu
Schuster, J.A. and Yeo, R.R. (eds.) (1986) The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, D. Reidel, Dordrecht
Scott, R. H. (1990) The Economic Society of Australia: 1925 - 1985, Economic Society of Australia, n.p. (Supplement to Economic Record)
442 Scott, W. H. (1974) "Orientations of Speciahsts in a Continuous Process Plant" Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 3, pp.223-9
see Department of Employment and Industrial Relations
SeUs, D. M. (1924) "The Development of State wage Regulation in Austraha and New Zealand", International Labour Review, Vol 10, pp.964-1004
SeweU, G. and Wilkinson, B. (1992) 'Empowerment or Emascffiation? Shopfloor SurveiUance in a Total Quahty Organization', in P. Blyton, and P. Turnbiffi (eds.) pp.97-115
Shann, E. O. G. (1930) Economic History of Australia, Cambridge, London
Sharkey, L. (1943) Communist Theory and Practice of Trade Unions, Sydney
Sharkey, L. L. (1931) "Strike struggles in Austraha", Labour Monthly, (London) Vol 13, February, 117-22
Sharp, I. G. (1959) "Some features of the Australian industrial relations scene", Journal of Industrial Relations, 1, 1, April, pp. 1-6
Sheehan, B. (1978) "The Associate Diploma at Preston Institute of Technology: A Report", in D. Turkington (ed.), Industrial Relations Teaching and Research: Proceedings, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Weffington, Weffington (NZ), pp. 105-15
Sheldon, P. and Thornthwaite. L. (eds.) (1999) Employer Associations and Industrial Relations Change: Catalysts or Captives?, AUen and Unwm, Sydney
Sheridan, T. (1975) Mindful Militants: The Amalgamated Engineering Union in Australia, 1920-72, CUP London
Sheridan, T. (1979) "Democracy among the aristocrats: participation of memebrs in the affairs ofthe AEU (Austrahan Section), 1900-1972, Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 2, June, pp.161-83
Sheridan, T. (1987) "Regulating Market Forces: The Run-in to the 1949 Coal Strike", in K. Hince, and A. Wiffiams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ Weffington, 1987 Vol 2, pp. 157-86
Sheridan, T. (1989) Division of Labour: Industrial Relations in the Chifley Years, 1945 - 1949, OUP. Melbourne
Sheridan, T. (1990) "Of Mind-sets and Market Forces: The Contribution of Historical research to Industrial Relations", in G. Patmore (ed.) History and Industrial Relations, ACIRRT, University of Sydney, Sydney, pp.43-59
Sherff, M and Sherff, C W. (1969b) "Interdisciphnary Coordination as a Vahdity Check: Retrospect and Prospects" in M Sherif and C Sherff (eds.) Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, Aldine, Chicago, pp.3-20
443 Sherif, M. and Sherif, C (eds.) Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, Aldine, Cfficago
ShiUtz, G. (1964) "Labor Courses are not Obsolete", Industrial Relations, 4, 1, October, pp. 23-8
Sinclafr, W. A. (1975) The Process of Economic Development in Australia, Cheshfre, Melbourne
Skinner, Q (1988) "What is InteUectual History?", in J. Gardiner, (ed.) What is History Today...? MacmiRan, Basingstoke, pp. 109-12
Skinner, Q. (ed.) (1992) The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences, CUP, Cambridge, UK
Shchter, S. H. (1928) "What is the Labor Problem" in J. Handman, (ed.) American Labor Dynamics, Harcourt Brace, New York
Shfe, B. D. and Wiffiams, R. N. (1995) What's Behind the Research: Discovering Hidden Assumptions in the Behavioural Sciences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Cahf.
Sloan, J. (1994) "Comments on "The New Industrial Industrial Relations: Does it Exist?"", in I Hunt and C Provis, (eds.) The New Industrial Relations in Australia, Federation Press, Sydney, pp.89-91
Smith, Adam, since Book 1 of Wealth of Nations was titled Of the Causes of Improvement in the Productive Powers of Labour and of the Order according to which its produce is normally distributed among different Ranks ofthe People.
Smith, G. W. F., Dolan, C, Ducker, J., Laffer, K. (1963) "Symposium on Higher Remuneration for Skffi", in J. ChUd (ed.) Recent Problems in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 5th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW (Sydney?), pp.53-61
Smith, J. H. (1963) "Industrial Relations and Social Change", (Review Article) British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1, 1, 1963, pp. 122-127
Smith, J.A. (1989) "Think Tanks and the pohtics of ideas", in D. C Colander and A. W. Coats (eds.). The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge Umversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 175-94
Solow, R.M. (1989) "Faith, Hope and Clarity", in D. C Colander and A. W. Coats (eds.). The Spread of Economic Ideas, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.37-42
Somers, G. G. (ed.) (1969) Essays in Industrial Relations Theory, Iowa State UP, Ames, Iowa
Sonder, L. (1987) "A Research Project into Industrial Relations Education and Teacffing Needs for Management in Austraha", in K. Hince, and A. Wilhams,
444 (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ Weffington, Vol 2 pp.355-66
Sonder, L. (ed.) (1995) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Melbourne
SorreU, G. H. (1979) Law in Labour Relations: An Australian Essay, Law Book Coy, Sydney
SpauU, A. (1979) "Education" in A. Patience and B. Head, (eds.) From Whitlam to Fraser: Reform and Reaction in Australian Politics, OUP Melbourne, pp 125- 39
Spicer, I. (1977) "Employer matters in 1976", Journal of Industrial Relations, 19, 1, March, pp.87-92
Spooner, K. (1989) "A Literature of Arbitration", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.61-6
Stern, J. L. (1992) "Whither or Wither IRRA", Proceedings of Forty Fourth Annual Meeting, Industrial Relations Research Association, January, New Orleans, pp. 1-8
Stewart, A. (1977) "The Business Offensive in the United States - Wffi it Spread?", Journal of Industrial Relations, 22, 4, pp.484-91
Stewart, Andrew, (1986) "The new unfair dismissal jurisdiction in South Austraha", Journal of Industrial Relations, 28, 3, September, pp. 367-409
Stokes T.D. (1986) "Methodology as a Normative Conceptual Problem: The Case of the Indian Warped Zipper Model of DNA", in J. A. Schuster, and R. R. Yeo, (eds.) 77^e Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 139-66
Storey, J. (ed.) (1989) New Perspectives on Human Resource Management, Routledge, London
Strachan, G. (1985) "Softly, Softly, Equal Opportunity and Industrial Relations", in P. Sutchffe, and D. Ralston, (eds) Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, Brisbane, pp.176-99
Strauss, G. and Feuffie, P. (1978) "Industrial Relations Research: A Critical Analysis", Industrial Relations (Berkeley), 17, 3, pp.259-77
Stretton, H. (1969) The Political Sciences: General Principles of Selection in Social Science and History, Routledge and Kegan Paid, London
445 Sutchffe, J. T. (1967) A History of Trade Unionism in Australia, Macmffian, Melbourne (Foreword by G.W. Ford, 1st Pubhshed 1919)
Sutchffe, P. and Sappey R. (1990) "Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations: Towards a Framework for Analysis", in G. Griffin, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ Melboiu-ne, pp. 1-8
Sykes, E. (1963) "Discussion" in J. ChUd (ed.) Recent Problems in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 5th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW (Sydney?), pp. 34-5
Szakats, A. (1974) "Workers' participation in management: the German experience". Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 1, March, pp.29-44
Taft, P. (1976) "Reflections on Sehg Perlman as a Teacher and Writer", Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol 29, february, pp.249-57
Taylor, (1990) "Industrial Relations and Management Education", in G. Griffin, (ed.) Current Research in Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ Melbourne, pp.526 48
Taylor, F. W. (1915) "Principles of Scientific Management", Bulletin of Society to Promote Science of Management, 1, 1, pp.4-15
Taylor, J. E. (1962) "Summing Up" in ChUd, J. (ed.) Recent Developments in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 4th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW pp.42-8
Taylor, V. (1983) "Methodologies and Research Practices in Industrial Relations", in Benson, J. (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ, Gippsland, pp.207-228
Taylor, V. (1989) "Product Markets, Industrial Relations and the Contested Terrain", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.213-227
Teicher, J. (1984) "Industrial mffitancy among ehte workers in high technology industries: Victorian power station operations". Journal of Industrial Relations, 26, 3, September, pp.315-34
Teicher, J. (1987) "Industrial Democracy and Austrahan Government Employment, 1972-82", in K. Hince, and A. Wiffiams, (eds.) Industrial Relations Research Themes, AIRAANZ Weffington, Vol 2, pp.325-54
Teicher, J. (1989) "Employee Participation and the Pubhc Sector: A Review of Initiatives at National and State Level in Six Advanced Capitahst Countries", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp. 107-58
446 The Australian Businessman's Handbook, Sydney 1956
The Economic Journal 1890s (where?)
Thom, J. N. (1963) "Comment on Dr Isaac's Paper", in J. ChUd (ed.) Recent Problems in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 5th Convention of the Industrial Relations Society of NSW (Sydney?), pp.24-8
Thomas, R. (1983) "Tertiary Institutions and Corporate Funding: The New Fascism or Neo-Gomperism in Austraha", in J. Benson, (ed.) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in Australia and New Zealand, AIRAANZ Gippsland pp.513-29
Thompson, E. P. (1980) The Making of the English Working Class, Penguin, Harmondsworth (First pubhshed, 1963)
Thornthwaite, L. (1989) "De-CoUectivisation of Labour and the Equal Opportunity Tribunal", in M. Bray and D. KeUy, (eds.) Issues and Trends in Australasian Industrial Relations, AIRAANZ, WoUongong, pp.87-106
Tffiy, C (1981) As Sociology Meets History, Academic Press, NY
Torrington, D. Mackay, I and HaU, L. (1985) "The Changing Nature of personnel Management", Employee Relations, 7, 5, pp.231-43
Toulmin, S. (1972) Human Understanding, Clarendon Press, Oxford
Treatt, T. B. (1881) Some sociological phases of strikes, ANZAAS, Sydney
Trevor-Roper, H. (1957) Historical Essays, Macmffian, London
Trevor-Roper, H. (1980) History and Imagination, Clarendon Press, Oxford
Tsokhas, K. (1984) A Class Apart? Businessmen and Australian Politics, 1960- 1980, OUP, Melbourne
Turkington, D. (1978b) "Industrial Relations Teaching and Research in America", In D. Turkington, (ed.). Industrial Relations Teaching and Research: Proceedings, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Weffington, Weffington (NZ) pp.58-65
Turkington, D. (ed.) (1978a) Industrial Relations Teaching and Research- Proceedings of the Conference of Teachers of Industrial Relations, 10-12 May, Industrial Relations Centre, Victoria University of Weffington, Weffington (NZ) ("Son of AIRAANZ")
Turner, H. A. (1962) Trade Union Growth, Structure and Policy: A Comparative Study of the Cotton Unions, AUen and Unwin, London
Turner, H. A. (1968) "The Royal Commission's Review Papers", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 4, 3, pp.346-59
447 Turner, Victoria B. (1921) "Labour Unrest in Austraha and South Africa, Pt 1". Australia Monthly Labor Review, 13, pp.951-63
Turtle, A. et al. (1984) "Women's Participation in the New South Wales Teachers Federation", Journal of Industrial Relations, 26, 4, December, pp.451-71
Utilising Human Resources: Seminar conducted by Productivity Group Advisory CouncU, Victoria, and Institute of Personnel Management, Austraha, Melbourne, 1968
Vaughan, E, (1977) "Theories of Participation: an analysis of core assumptions", Paper presented to Section 28, The Founding of the ACTU, 48th ANZAAS Conference, Melbourne
Vaughan, E. (1983) "Structure and strategy in the case for worker participation", Journal of Industrial Relations, 25, 3, September, pp.317-26
Vaughan, E. J. (1976) "Some observations upon the logic of participative management", Journal of Industrial Relations, 18, 3, September, pp.220-28
Walker, K. F. (ed.) (1955), Unions, Management and the Public, Addresses to the First Labour Management Conference, UWA Press, Perth
Walker, K. F. (1946) "The Psychological Assumptions of Economics", Economic Record, Vol XXII, pp.66-82
WaUcer, K. F. (1957) "Arbitration in a New Key", Economic Record, Vol 33, No 64, pp.60-71 Walker, K. F. (1960) Research Needs in Industrial Relations, University of Western Austraha Press, Perth
Walker, K. F. (1970) Australian Industrial Relations System, Harvard U. P. Cambridge Mass. Walker, K. F. (ed.) (1956) Automation: Addresses to Second Labour Management Conference, UWA Press, Perth
Walker, K.F. (1955) "The Scientffic Study of Industrial Relations, : A Framework for Interdisciphnary Research", Australian Quarterly, 27, Sept 1955, pp.55-66 Walker, K.F. (1956) Industrial Relations in Australia Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. Walton, R., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. and McKersie, R. (1994) Strategic Negotiations: a theory of change in labor-management relations. Harvard Business School press, Cambridge, Mass.
448 Watson, v., and ChUd J., (1960) Conflict and Cooperation, Proceedings of 2nd Annual Convention of Industrial Relations Society, May
Waud, R. et al., (1996) Economics, Harper, Sydney
Webb, B. (1938a) My Apprenticeship 1, Pehcan, Harmondsworth
Webb, B. (1938b) My Apprenticeship 2, Pehcan, Harmondsworth
Webb, Sidney and Beatrice (1897) Industrial Democracy, Longmans Green, London
Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, (1902) History of Trade Unionism, Longmans, London, (second edition)
Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Free Press, NY / Coffier, London
Weber, M. (1968) Economy and Society, Bedminster Press, NY
Weiner, H. E. (1951) "Communist Led Industrial Unrest in Austraha and New Zealand", Notes on Labor Abroad, No 19., March
Wertheimer, M. (1980) "Historical Research: Why?", in J. Brozek, and L. Pongratz, (eds.), Historiography of Modern Psychology, Hogrefe, Toronto
Western, J. (1990) "After the Deluge: The Turbulent State of Higher Education" in Austraha", in I. Moses, )ed.) Higher Education in the Late Twentieth Century : Reflections on a Changing System, HERDSA, Kensington, pp. 10-23
Wheelwright E. L. (1953) "Management and human relations". Current Affairs Bulletin, 12, 11, May
Wheelwright, E. L. (1978) Capitalism, Socilaism or Barbarism? The Australian Predicament: Essays in Contemporary Political Economy, ANZ Book Company, Sydney
White, D. (1972) "Education and Capitahsm", in J. Playford and D. Kfrsner, (eds.) Australian Capitalism: Towards a Socialist Critique, Penguin, Ringwood, Vic.
Whitley, R. (1982) "The Estabhshment and Structure of the Sciences as Reputational Organizations", in N. Ehas, H. Martins and R. Whitley, (eds.) Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, D. Riedel, Dordrecht, pp.312-57
Whitley, R. (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, CUP, Cambridge
Whitley, R. (1985) "Knowledge Producers and Knowledge Acquirers: Popularization in a relation between Scientific Fields and Thefr Pubhcs" in T
449 Shinn and R. Whitley (eds) Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularization, Dordrecht, HoUand,
Wielgosz, J. (1974) "Financial resources of trade unions". Journal of Industrial Relations, 16, 4, December, pp.314-32
WUczynski, J. (1983) Comparative Industrial Relations: Ideologies, Institutions, Practices and Problems Under Different Social Systems with Special Reference to Socialist Planned Economies, Macmffian, London
WUkinson, P. (1971) Industrial Relations in the 1970's: A Precis of Lecture Given by Mr G. W. Ford", Economics, 6, 3, October, pp.34-7
Wiffiams, A, (1987) "Presidential Address, Macroeconomics in Flux: Monetarism, New Classicism and Pubhc Choice: Some Possible Imphcations for Industrial Relations Theory", in K. Hince, and A. Wiffiams, (eds.) Contemporary Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand: Literature Surveys, AIRAANZ, Weffington, Vol 1, pp. 1-12
WiUiams, B. (1972) "The Fifth Report of the Austrahan Universities Commission", The Australian University, 10, 1, November, pp.214-237
WiUiams, M. and May, T. (1996) Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Research, University CoUege London Press, London
Winau, R. (1983) "The Role of Medical History in the History of Medicine in Germany", in L. Graham, W. Lepenies, and P. Weingart, (eds.) Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 105-20
Winchester, D. (1983) "Industrial Relations Research in Britain", BJIR. 24, 3, pp.381-9
Windschuttle, K. (1994) The Killing of History, Macleay, Sydney
Wood, R. (ed.) (1978) Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Democracy, CCH, Adelaide
Wood, S (ed.) (1982) The degradation of work?: Skill, deskilling and the labour process, Hutchinson, London
Wooden, M. (1988) "The impact of redundancy on subsequent labour market experience", Journal of Industrial Relations, 30, 1, March, pp.3-31
Woolf, D. R. (1997) "The Writing of Early Modern European InteUectual History, 1945-95", in M. Bentley (ed), Companion to Historiography, Routledge, London/NY, pp.307-35
Wootten, J. H. (1962) "Recent Developments in Labour Relations - The Lawyer" in J. ChUd, (ed.) Recent Developments in Labour Relations, Proceedings of 4th Convention ofthe Industrial Relations Society, pp.35-41
450 Wren, D. (1987) The Evolution of Management Thought, 3rd. ed. WUey New York
Yerbury, D. (1984) Dismissal, Redundancy, and the Law in Australia: An Annotated Bibliography, IRRC, Kensington, MSW
Yerbury, D. and Isaac, J. "Recent Trends in CoUective Bargaining in Austraha", International Labour Review, 103, 5, pp.421-52,
Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research : Design and Methods, Sage, London, (2nd effition)
Yorston, K. Smyth, E. B. and Brown, S. (1977) Accounting fundamentals. Law Book Co., Sydney
Zappala, J. (1988a) Just-in-Time Techniques in Metal Manufacturing - An Assessment of Its implementation and Impact, Occasional Paper, No 5, Department of Industrial Relations, University of Sydney, March
Zappala, J. (1988b) Workplace Industrial Relations in Australia: An Annotated and Selected Bibliography, 1970-1987, CIRRUS/BCA , University of Sydney
451 A Note on Primary Sources
There were several sorts of primary soiu-ces avaUable for this project, but they tended to be scattered geographically and temporaUy. The Laffer Papers are an uncategorised coUection of letters, notes, drafts of articles, and subject guides selected by Kingsley Laffer for retention by the Department of Industrial Relations, University of Sydney. They date from 1954 to 1976 when Laffer retfred. They are retained in the Labom- History Resource Room at the University of Sydney, and are roughly in chronological order. They provide an outstanding and fascinating insight into the workmgs of the mtersection between university and inteUectual pohtics in the 1970s.
Other primary sources include notes on interdisciphnarity written for seminar discussions by retired socio technical theorist, Fred Emery in the 1970s. 1 eventuaUy amassed an assortment of subject guides, assessment sheets, and textbook notes covering industrial relations subjects at undergraduate level from Charles Sturt University, Griffith University, Newcastle University, University of New South Wales, University of Sydney, University of Western Austraha, and University of WoUongong.
FinaUy, the interviews, notes and comments from a very large range of scholars was quite essential. Interviews ranged from informal and unstructured to a large number of formal interviews which used the same interview protocol. Among those who were interviewed formaUy according to the same protocol were Greg Bamber; Ron CaUus, Braham Dabscheck, Stephen Deery, Bffi Ford; Gerry Griffin, June Hearn; Kevin Hince; Bffi Howard; Joe Isaac; Russell Lansbury; Chris Leggett, Ross Martin, John NUand; David Plowman; the late Don Rawson, Malcolm Rimmer; John Saw; Tom Sheridan and Elsa Underhffi, many of whom were extremely reassuring in other ways as weU. Interviews with John T. Dunlop (Harvard University), Peter Fairbrother; (Umversity of Cardfff), Richard Hyman (Warwick university) and John Godard (University of Manitoba).
452
I91RYEDALER0A0 1 WESTRYDE2114 "