The uses,abuses and non-uses of Rethinking Industrial Relations in understanding industrial relations and organised labour

Introduction

In 1998 with Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilisation, Collectivism and Long Waves, John Kelly published what should have become a seminal work in the study of worker collectivism and labour unionism. That Rethinking Industrial Relations has not, it will be argued, become this seminal work is not a result of any weaknesses inherent in Rethinking Industrial Relations itself (notwithstanding Gall, 1999, 2000) but rather it is a result of the inability and unwillingness of other academics in the field of employment relations to fully engage with the ambitious reach and framework of Rethinking Industrial Relations. The potential of becoming a seminal work exists for Rethinking Industrial Relations because it has been one of the very few holistic attempts to theorise industrial relations from a radical perspective in the last 50 years – certainly since the publication of Richard Hyman’s 1975 work, Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction. Remarkably, Rethinking Industrial Relations does this in less than 150 substantive pages. Its premise is that the field of industrial relations has been under- or poorly theorised, and this weakness has inhibited the ability of industrial relations as a field of study to explain the decline in the power of workers – through worker collectivism and unions – as neoliberalism and human resource management became ascendant and, in doing so, further transferred the balance of power to employers so that the balance became even more unequal than it already was. The consequence of this has also witnessed industrial relations as a field of study in universities being superseded by the study of human resource management (HRM) (see also Kaufman, 2010). In particular, Rethinking Industrial Relations focused upon presenting a robust and rigorous framework for analysing the employment relationship under capitalism at a number of different levels, critically drawing upon mobilisation theory, especially the processes of how, when and why workers may or may not act collectively to defend and advance their interests. In short, Rethinking Industrial Relations, as both an intellectual and political intervention, sought to reorient the field of industrial relations away from relatively narrow and superficial studies to those which are radical in terms of the original Latin meaning of the word, namely, of or relating to the root, and, thus, being both deep and broad. The outcome of the influence of Rethinking Industrial Relations, it was to be hoped, would be a field of study that was intellectually not only more capable of dealing with the challenge of human resource management and neoliberalism but also being of significant utility to organised labour in understanding its current plight and future path to renewal and re-assertion. So in Rethinking Industrial Relations, Kelly’s most significant and original contribution has been twofold: first, to bring social movement theory into the study of industrial relations (especially in Britain) and, second, to provide a robust, radical theorisation of industrial relations and power relations, material interests and ideology in – and at – work. These tasks are primarily carried out in the first four chapters (with the remaining ones focusing on rational choice, long waves and post-modernism). Collectively, Kelly’s work here is most often referred to as ‘mobilisation theory’, albeit it has important and potentially standalone components concerning grievance development, identity and attribution and other chapters are not premised so actively or closely on mobilisation theory such as those on rational choice, long waves and post-modernism albeit their relationship is not tenuous. In the chapter on rational choice, Kelly excoriates the theory of individualism presented by Mancur Olson; in the chapter on long waves, Kelly seeks to link short-term patterns of mobilisation and counter-mobilisation to long-term changes in economy and society by reference to Kondratieff’s exposition of long waves; and in the chapter on post-modernism, Kelly anticipates and counters the influence of post-modernism in industrial relations whereby it advocates the ditching of the old certainties of the single and dominant binary, namely, the conflictual class relationship between labour and capital.

The key aspects of the book and its theses have been met with not insubstantial criticism from some like Ackers (2002), Fairbrother (2005), Martin (1999), Turner (1999), Nolan (1999) and Wajcman (2000) on a number of grounds. These critics’ intellectual positions range across the spectrum from radicalism to pluralism. And, there have also been a set of more limited objections albeit from within a position of what can be termed conditional support within the radical perspective (for example, Atzeni, 2009, 2010; Cohen, 2006; Ghigliani, 2010 – and see also Gall, 1999, 2000). Others, like many of the contributors to this special issue such as Darlington, Gall, Heery, Holgate and Simms, greeted Rethinking Industrial Relations with considerable enthusiasm and still maintain that enthusiasm today, notwithstanding critical observation and commentary on issues such as on long waves ¹ and as the contributions to this special issue show. Furthermore, Heery, on the back cover for the paperback version of Rethinking Industrial Relations, proclaimed that the book was ‘[a]n extremely impressive and ambitious academic tour de force. I have no doubt that it will come to be seen as one of the most significant publications in industrial relations in the past decade’.

In order to assess the proposition that Rethinking Industrial Relations has the (intrinsic or inherent) qualities in order to constitute a seminal work for the field of industrial relations, seminality is held to be the phenomenon of being able to strongly and positively influence later developments in the field of study as a result of having the characteristics of being groundbreaking and pioneering (through originality and innovation), leading in turn to major and beneficial outcomes for the intellectual (analytical, conceptual, theoretical) strength of the fields of industrial and employment relations. Therefore, what Rethinking Industrial Relations offers is neither new empirical evidence nor new theory per se but the pioneering and original expounding of a holistic framework – by drawing upon literature outwith industrial relations – which can then be used to generate a range of testable hypotheses as result of recasting the focus of industrial relations from structures, institutions and attendant processes to the dynamic sociological and psychological interplay of power relations, material interests and ideology. In doing so, it draws upon existing radical theorisation in order to make its combination and application more than the simple sum of its parts. The policy and practical implications for workers and unions are to suggest a focus on the generation of power resources and leverage rather than upon institutional indices of influence like union density and collective bargaining coverage.

Consequently, this seminality would be expected to express itself in the outcomes of not only widespread usage through citations but also critically (1) the shaping of the direction of study and research in the field and (2) the deepening of the understanding of the processes and outcomes of the employment relationship, with regard to worker mobilisation in particular. In other words, the influence would be both wide and deep. So this article examines the extent and nature of the citation and usage of Rethinking Industrial Relations. Surveying citation usage, it argues that while Rethinking Industrial Relations has been highly cited, the nature of these citations has often operated at a largely superficial level with the equivalent of academic ‘name checking’ for references on both general matters of industrial relations and radical approaches to industrial relations taking place. Just as pointedly, Rethinking Industrial Relations has not been well utilised in terms of holistic application to generate testable hypotheses. Much less have its core theses been developed and extended. To make the point bluntly, Rethinking Industrial Relations has been cited as evidence of a radical approach far more than it has been used as a radical approach. Thus, the sense is that, despite its laudable intention – and strong inherent intellectual capability – to try to rescue industrial relations from poor-cum-under theorisation and to provide a deep explanation of the parlous plight of organised labour, Rethinking Industrial Relations has, rather, been incorporated into the existing state of academic consciousness whereby it has been primarily used in a ‘pick and mix’ manner in order to support an existing trajectory. Therefore, this article examines the uses, abuses and non-uses of mobilisation theory in understanding organised labour. ‘Uses’ concern whatever manner Rethinking Industrial Relations has been deployed in. In this sense, it is an objective measure. ‘Abuses’ concern the argument that the ‘uses’ of Rethinking Industrial Relations have not been commensurate with the strength of the overall contribution of said book. Put another way, the purposes it has been deployed for have been less than worthy of Rethinking Industrial Relations. And, ‘non-uses’ concern the argument that Rethinking Industrial Relations should have been used more widely and deeply as a result of its inherent qualities.

Stepping away from the immediate concerns of analysing the uses and influences of Rethinking Industrial Relations, this article also seeks to shine some sociological light upon the nature of the process by which academics and researchers go about studying issues in the field of industrial and employment relations. It suggests that while there are some discernible strengths, there are also some palpable weaknesses – and, critically, probably more weaknesses than strengths in terms of generating deep and robust understanding of the dynamics of employment relations under late capitalism. Some of this may be influenced by the increasing institutional pressure since Rethinking Industrial Relations came out to publish in journals, and thus, in the somewhat restrictive format of the article (in terms of being predominantly standalone pieces, of limited word length and fitting into journals’ particular purposes). This has been buttressed by the institutional decrying of research monographs. But both are unlikely to be able to account in full for the way in which Rethinking Industrial Relations has been received and deployed. However, by the same token, they are unlikely not to have had any discernible effect either.

This article has its origins in two connected events. The first was being asked to review Rethinking Industrial Relations for the journal Historical Materialism, upon its publication (see Gall, 1999). This led to a fraternal exchange with Kelly in Historical Materialism the following year (Gall, 2000; Kelly, 2000). Nearly 10 years later, Maurizio Atzeni organised a session at the 2007 annual conference of Historical Materialism on mobilisation. At that session, I delivered a paper called ‘The uses, abuses and non-uses of mobilisation theory in understanding organised labour’ in which I decried (1) the lack of substantive engagement with Rethinking Industrial Relations’ central arguments and (2) the limited application, development and extension of Rethinking Industrial Relations’ central arguments. In developing the ideas contained in that paper, I am grateful for the constructive comments of colleagues in response to the presentation of these ideas at the symposium held on the contribution and impact of Rethinking Industrial Relations during the British Universities’ Industrial Relations Association (BUIRA) annual conference of 2017. The structure of this article is to examine the citations of Rethinking Industrial Relations as a primary guide to its usage before proceeding to quantify and qualify its usage in journals. From here, the article then seeks to explain these findings by discussing the temporal environment in which Rethinking Industrial Relations was published.

Before proceeding, it is also worth noting that Rethinking Industrial Relations has been bookended by Kelly’s studies, whether sole or co-authored, of aspects which are contained within it, namely Trade Union and Socialist Politics (1988), Dock Strike (1992) and then Ethical Socialism and the Trade Unions: Allan Flanders and British Industrial Relations Reform (2010), Parties, Elections, and Policy Reforms in Western Europe: Voting for Social Pacts (2011), and Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain (2018). These testify to Kelly’s prolonged focus upon the subjects of class, labour unionism, collectivism and mobilisation.

Citation usage and influence

According to Google Scholar, from January 1999 and to the end of May 2018, Rethinking Industrial Relations had 1478 citations. To engage in a brief relative contrast, by the same end point, a comparable text, namely, Hyman’s Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction (1975), had 1080 citations, ² and his Understanding European Trade Unionism: Between Market, Class and Society from 2001 had 840 citations. Meanwhile, from the non-Marxist arena, John Budd’s influential 2004 Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice had just 430 citations. Clearly, Rethinking Industrial Relations has been well cited in the broadest sense of the term compared to these other important books. However, when examining the nature of these citations, the senses of use, abuse and non-use soon start to become apparent.

But before examining this usage through citation data, it is worth commenting on other types of usage. Thus, within higher education (i.e. universities) in Britain for the purposes of teaching, it is known from anecdotal evidence that Rethinking Industrial Relations has been used directly and has promoted the utilisation of mobilisation theory at both undergraduate (advanced modules) and postgraduate levels (see also Kelly, this issue). In similarly anecdotal terms, it has informed a number of doctoral theses – for example, Mark O’Brien (Liverpool, 2007), Tim Sandle (Keele, 2010), Eleanor Kirk (Strathclyde, 2015), Simon Joyce (Hertfordshire, 2016) and Torsten Geelan (Cambridge, 2017). Within further and adult education (i.e. colleges), again there is some anecdotal evidence of the use of Rethinking Industrial Relations in teaching, especially on trade union courses. Unfortunately, more than anecdotal information cannot be presented. And, for similar reasons, it is not possible to provide any rigorous measure of the impact or use of Rethinking Industrial Relations outside of academia, that is, outside of universities and institutions of higher education. However, it is known that Rethinking Industrial Relations has had a greater take up within the union movement and amongst lay activists and employed union organisers and officers (especially amongst those studying for undergraduate and postgraduate degrees) than most other recent books on industrial relations. Reflective of these personal and institutional purchases, sales of Rethinking Industrial Relations by the end of 2016 were just over 2250 copies. ³ By contrast, and over 30 years rather than 18 years, Hyman’s Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction is believed to have sold around 10,000 copies (Gall, 2012a: 139), reflecting amongst other features an initially more hospitable environment consisting of a higher, and often successful, level of working class struggle, a larger socialist audience and a higher level of working class oppositional consciousness.

The data gathering method to assess the validity of the aforementioned proposition has been to assess the contents of the main (English language) industrial and employment relations journals from January 1999 to June 2017. These are the British Journal of Industrial Relations (BJIR), Industrial Relations Journal (IRJ), Work, Employment and Society (WES), Economic and Industrial Democracy (EID), Employee Relations (ER), European Journal of Industrial Relations (EJIR), Journal of Industrial Relations (JIR), Industrial Relations (IR), Industrial and Labor Relations Review (ILRR), Capital and Class (C&C), Labour Studies Journal (LSJ), Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research (T), Human Relations (HR), Human Resource Management Journal (HRMJ) and International Journal of Human Resource Management (IJHRM).

The year, 1999, was chosen rather than 1998 as the starting point for although Rethinking Industrial Relations was published in hardback and softback on 14 May 1998, it was not cited until 1999 due to the length of time taken to write, submit and publish articles (along with any delays due to backlogs in publishing articles). Additionally, this corresponds to the beginning of the period from which the Google Scholar citations for Rethinking Industrial Relations start. There are some challenges in constructing the data for analysis. The first is that Rethinking Industrial Relations replicates some of Kelly’s earlier and other writing on militancy and moderation, most obviously Kelly (1996) and Kelly (2004), which had 329 and 232 citations respectively by the end of February 2018. The second is that Kelly applied Rethinking Industrial Relations in his subsequent work such as Kelly and Badigannavar (2004), Badigannavar and Kelly (2005) and Kelly (2005a, 2005b, 2011). The import of these two points is that authors may choose to cite Kelly’s other writings rather than Rethinking Industrial Relations in order to make the same point even if academic convention could be regarded as to quote the more original of the sources. However, the very act of seeking to ‘make the same point’ does serve to underline one of the phenomena being highlighted, namely, an overly ‘pick and mix’ approach to selectively using the content of Rethinking Industrial Relations rather than applying, or engaging with, its central arguments. The third is the danger of trying to force the ‘square peg’ of all articles about unions and conflict at work into the ‘round hole’ of using Rethinking Industrial Relations. Therefore, care was taken when assessing articles from January 1999 to June 2017 for generating the data on non-use not to conduct such a shoehorning exercise. ⁴ This was achieved by using criteria to assess plausible non-use and reasonably expected use of Rethinking Industrial Relations given subject matter of worker collectivism, labour unionism and collective mobilisation. Indeed, there are other theoretical and analytical perspectives that can be used such as those of radical pluralism. For example, Heyes and Rainbird (2011) consciously utilised a different, albeit not incompatible, theoretical perspective to the primary one outlined in Rethinking Industrial Relations, so this instance was not counted in constructing data as either an oversight or an error leading to the categorisation of non-use.

Then by means of using keyword searches (e.g. Rethinking Industrial Relations, Kelly) in the contents of each journal, articles were identified which cited Rethinking Industrial Relations. In doing so, the criteria used to evaluate the relationship between these articles and Rethinking Industrial Relations were (1) superficial citation; (2) partial usage; (3) fuller usage; and (4) full usage with development and extension. Thus, in keeping with the primary rationale of Rethinking Industrial Relations itself, the underlying objective in terms of identifying the subject matter of the articles citing Rethinking Industrial Relations was to look for usage on issues of workers’ collective representation and collective mobilisation in order to aid understanding of the success and failure of workers’ struggle for the collective advancement of their interest representation. Although books and book chapters have not been ignored in terms of their usage of Rethinking Industrial Relations, they have not been studied to the same degree as the aforementioned journals because their population size is relatively indeterminate while that of journals is not. Moreover, as journal publication has become more important to academic careers and prestige, it is believed that examination of journals is, for the purposes of this article, a more productive measure as more academic output is located in these fora.

The actual uses of Rethinking Industrial Relations were classified according to four categories:

The first three categories examine the application of Rethinking Industrial Relations to understanding intentions, processes and outcomes, with three levels of engagement identified whilst the fourth examines a higher level of engagement with Rethinking Industrial Relations so that the means by which to understand the intentions, processes and outcomes of worker collectivism and industrial relations are augmented. The definition of ‘non-use’ is at one level quite straightforward, for it refers to the complete absence of citation within an article, whether in the main text or associated notes (footnotes, endnotes). At another level and as mentioned before, the definition of ‘non-use’ is less straightforward for it involves making a (subjective) assessment of articles which were deemed to ‘could have’ and/or ‘should have’ used Rethinking Industrial Relations in order to better understand the material being analysed. As alluded to before, care and sensitivity were applied in assessing such articles.

Before making comment on the data contained in Table 1, some caveats are in order. The first is that some of the ‘superficial’ usage is appropriate and acceptable for, following from the aforementioned danger of shoehorning, broader studies of labour, work and employment legitimately make passing reference to Rethinking Industrial Relations without more fully engaging with it. The second is that, and given Rethinking Industrial Relations is a synthesis of many existing ideas and work, especially around what is known as mobilisation theory, the influence of Rethinking Industrial Relations may not be directly detectable via citations, as researchers and writers, having read Rethinking Industrial Relations and the book having served as their introduction to the theory, may have chosen to use the original sources that Rethinking Industrial Relations deployed such as those by Bert Klandermans, Doug McAdam, Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow. In this process, Rethinking Industrial Relations may not be credited at all even though it was crucial to the usage of the mobilisation theory literature. The third is that the examination of journals – as with examination of books and book chapters – cannot account for usage which has no traceable and discernible link to Rethinking Industrial Relations. For example, presentation of the initial ideas of this article to the aforementioned BUIRA annual conference occasioned Peter Ackers to report that Rethinking Industrial Relations had had a major impact upon his thinking and writing in terms of defining and developing his own perspective, that of neo-pluralism, as being something of a rejection of the ideas contained within Rethinking Industrial Relations where this would not always see citation of Rethinking Industrial Relations (for an exception, see Ackers, 2002; cf. Ackers, 2014). Meanwhile in the same session at the BUIRA conference, but with more positive connotations for Rethinking Industrial Relations, Alex Wood told of how the book had helped him find an overall, generalised focus for his research on workers in the ‘gig’ and ‘platform’ economies even if this did not lead to multiple citations and deep and direct usage. Fourth, journals of industrial and employment relations which are not published in English – with the partial exception of Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations (RI/IR) and Transfer – were not examined. Fifth, journals of labour history and the sociology of labour, work and employment were not examined to ascertain whether Rethinking Industrial Relations has made an impact outside of the field of industrial relations. Lastly, the veracity of the citation exercise was not skewed in any appreciable way by self-citation by Kelly himself. The collective import of these points, along with other preceding points, is that the data generated for Table 1 should be taken as being ‘strongly indicative’ rather than anything approaching ‘definitive’.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Journal article use and non-use of Rethinking Industrial Relations, 1999–2017.

Journal/Category	Non-use	Superficial	Partial	Fuller	Development/Extension
BJIR	17	24	5	6	3
IRJ	28	48	4	4	1
WES	19	26	4	0	0
EID	19	4	1	1	0
ER	21	34	2	0	0
EJIR	9	7	0	0	0
JIR	10	11	1	1	0
IR	9	6	0	0	0
ILRR	8	3	0	0	0
C&C	4	13	7	1	0
LSJ	15	6	0	0	0
RI/IR	12	5	0	1	0
HR	3	2	0	0	0
T	9	5	0	0	0
HRMJ	11	4	0	0	0
IJHRM	3	2	0	0	0
Totals	198	200	24	14	4

Table 1 shows that across a range of journals in the field of employment and industrial relations, nearly 250 citations of Rethinking Industrial Relations have been made. ⁵ Holding in regard both absolute and relative perspectives, what is believed to be unhealthy and untoward about the nature of this distribution are the following features: (1) the high number of cases of non-use, with this representing an equivalent of some 82% of the number of cases of actual usage; (2) the limited presence in the ‘fuller’ and ‘development/extension’ categories; and (3) the balance between ‘superficial’ and the other three categories of actual usage. The consequence, it is argued, is a distinct absence of pushing forward the understanding of the plight of organised labour within industrial relations because most extant usage does not try to relate analysis of findings and conclusions to the bigger pictures of dimensions of this plight and its resolution.

Some examples of fuller usage and critique but limited conceptual or theoretical development and extension are Johnson and Jarley (2004), Kirton and Healy (2004), Badigannavar and Kelly (2005), Cox et al. (2007), Cunningham (2008), Atzeni (2009), Cregan et al. (2009), Blyton and Jenkins (2013), Healy and Kirton (2013), Sullivan and Turner (2013), Legault and Weststar (2014), Murphy and Turner (2014) and Simms and Dean (2015). The few examples of development and extension include Gahan and Pekarek (2013) and Gall and Fiorito (2012). ⁶ Some examples of partial usage include Darlington (2002, 2009), Hansen (2002), Bacon and Blyton (2004), Allsop (2005), Beale (2005), Moore and Read (2006), Burchielli et al. (2008), Buttigeig et al. (2008, 2013), Dobbins and Gunnigle (2009), Alexander (2010), Cohen (2011), Gall (2011, 2012b), McBride (2011), Yu (2013), Lyddon et al. (2015), Wood (2015) and Hodder et al. (2017). Recognising that the distinction between the ‘partial’ and ‘fuller’ categories is not a hard and fast one, some articles were found to rest on the cusp between both – for example, Hoel and Beale (2006) and Lopes and Hall (2015).

Moreover, with a number of effectively dedicated editions of British Journal of Industrial Relations, as one of the leading international journals of the study of industrial and employment relations and the highest ranked journal for this in Britain in the Chartered Association of Business Schools’ influential rankings, a further flavour of what Table 1 highlights can be seen. Thus, there was very poor usage in the 44/4 (2006), 50/2 (2012), 53/3 and 53/4 (both 2015) editions which were effectively dedicated to studies of union organising or workers’ rights in the broadest senses and could reasonably have been expected to contain considerable usage of Rethinking Industrial Relations. By contrast, editions 47/4 (2009) and 51/4 (2013) were much better but in the minority. Staying with the British Journal of Industrial Relations, it could have reasonably been expected that Tapia (2013), Tapia and Turner (2013), Holgate (2015) and Fiorito et al. (2015) would have made use of Rethinking Industrial Relations in some way or to some degree given the subject matter of these articles. Meantime, and again in the case of British Journal of Industrial Relations, more than superficial usage could have been expected in, for example, Charlwood (2004a, 2004b), Gall (2001), Hickey et al. (2010), Lévesque and Murray (2013), Metochi (2002) and Simms (2015).

One of the aspects of what would have counted as evidence of the deeper application of Rethinking Industrial Relations would have been the operationalisation of the multi-case type of study carried out by Fantasia (1988) on collectivism and mobilisation, where cases are carefully chosen in order to examine common factors and dimensions in different settings. Even accepting that this kind of work lends itself more easily to the book form and the deployment of significant research resources (grants, research assistants, sabbaticals), there are still few of this type to be found in the article format. Instead, there is a surfeit of single and double case studies which make the process of productive abstraction and generalisation rather difficult (and even where the strength of the case study method is supposed to be depth of enquiry). Equally well, and again highlighted by the aforementioned contrary characteristics of the Fantasia study, Rethinking Industrial Relations has been mostly applied to studies of organising (especially to gain membership and union recognition) in a rather snapshot way rather than to the longitudinal study of the longer (sic) process of interest representation which includes the post-recognition period and changes in opportunity cost structures. But if there were more longitudinal, multi-case studies, the bent to study contemporaneously ‘what has been happening’ (see below) would still reflect the decentralised nature of Anglo-American industrial ‘systems’ and, thus, miss out on seeking to study the processes of institution-building which combine industrial and political action on the part of workers and which is necessary to provide a stronger foundation for any workplace unionism to exist upon. In this way, a rather narrow interpretation or usage of Rethinking Industrial Relations has occurred (see Kelly, this issue). This article now moves to begin providing an explanation for the extent and nature of the usage of Rethinking Industrial Relations.

Context and challenges

The environmental context into which Rethinking Industrial Relations was inserted and has since existed is important to understanding how it has been used and not used. Thus, published in 1998, Rethinking Industrial Relations emerged at a time in Britain when studies of ‘union organising’ as a distinct approach to union organisation (contra ‘union servicing’) were just beginning to be carried out in response to the rise in application of ‘union organising’ itself and the foundation of the TUC’s Organising Academy (in 1998) that emerged from its ‘New Unionism’ project of 1996–1997. ‘Union organising’ was, then, a key part of a wider study of unions and collectivism under the nomenclatures of ‘union revitalisation’ and ‘union renewal’. Rethinking Industrial Relations was, therefore, launched into a receptive audience and environment such that its take up was significant by scholars studying this phenomenon. Of portent for later, these scholars tended to be on the radical end of the intellectual spectrum. Indeed, the study of worker collectivism and labour unionism had increasingly become the preserve of such scholars by the end of the 1990s and into the 2000s.

But this significant (numerical) take up has come at a fairly heavy price inasmuch as the major part of the limited extent of fuller engagement with, and application of, Rethinking Industrial Relations pertains to studies of union organising (as opposed to union organisation or worker mobilisation per se). Fewer studies have concentrated upon collective mobilisations and strikes, even where there is overlap between these foci and union organising (see also Kirk, this issue). More importantly, the impression seems to have been created that Rethinking Industrial Relations is essentially only of utility to such studies rather than those that look at the more formative issues of identity and interest formation amongst workers. This means that Rethinking Industrial Relations has been forced up something of an academic cul-de-sac. One particular aspect of this cul-de-sac is its geographic bent. The vast majority of the citations in Table 1 are from British academics working in British universities and studying labour unionism in Britain. There is also a much smaller strand of citations by Australasian academics working in Australasian universities and studying labour unionism in Australasia as a result of the early promotion of ‘union organising’ in Australasia. The same is true again about Ireland albeit on far smaller scale than Australasia. ⁷

But just as importantly, on the one hand, the normalisation and bastardisation of ‘union organising’ has meant that it has lost much of its distinct appeal as a subject of study with the consequence that for Rethinking Industrial Relations its sense of overt, concentrated and palpable usage has declined. Meantime, on the other hand, Rethinking Industrial Relations has been little used to explain why collective mobilisations did not or could not take place (pace Kirk, this issue; see also Gall and Kirk, 2018). But underlying these points is a much more basic one, namely, that since 1998, organised labour in the major economies (and Britain and the United States especially) has further weakened in terms of membership, participation, coherence, combativity and effectiveness. The effect of this has been to facilitate a further drift amongst employment relations scholars away from studying unions per se and towards studying management and organisation per se. This was something Rethinking Industrial Relations hoped to prevent by examining the more fundamental issues that underlie the particular forms of union activity.

Aside from the particular context of Rethinking Industrial Relations, there is a more generic point to be made. Thus, the ‘shock and awe’ of ‘the new’ can be expected to dissipate over a period of time so that declining usage is to be anticipated. But in the case of Rethinking Industrial Relations, the annual count of citations only provides for limited evidence of this phenomenon for its citations rose from 1999 (17) to 2004 (96) before falling back a little but then rising relatively evenly again from 2006, with a new slightly higher peak in 2014 (99) and annual citations of over 80 between 2015 and 2017. Looked at another way, there were only four years in the first 10 years of citations which witnessed more than 70 citations per year while all the years since 2009 have witnessed more than 70 citations. Clearly, Rethinking Industrial Relations has become increasingly more embedded in the extant general and wider literature as time has progressed. This is likely to have occurred, in part, as it becomes implicitly embedded into the literature through the work of others. This quantitative dimension does not contradict the aspect of the qualitative dimension outlined before, for what is lacking is the fuller application and development and extension of mobilisation theory in this growing body of citations and usage.

Most of the extant usage of Rethinking Industrial Relations has been to understand and explain why collective mobilisations did take place. But if the approach adopted by other researchers had been to try to explain why collective mobilisations did not take place (see Gall and Kirk, 2018), despite – or because of – the implicit political preference of many researchers to favour studying collective mobilisations while collective mobilisations have declined in number and power, then Rethinking Industrial Relations would also be of use. Unfortunately, the activist-inclined bent of many academics studying industrial relations has been to look for answers through the power of positive actual demonstration. Although this may be regarded as a left-wing inclination, it is more than compatible with both the focus upon the present and the policy-orientation of the study of industrial relations per se. In the course of doing this, the challenge of explaining the non-unionised sectors of the economy has not been fully grasped. Rethinking Industrial Relations does not intellectually presuppose that unionisation is or should be the norm. It does, however, facilitate explanation of non-unionism by emphasising that unionisation is the result of deliberate, conscious actions on the part of workers (rather than of compositional and structural factors). Of course, seeking to explain why the conscious choice of no action taking place as well as why unconsciously inaction took place is to engage in a counter-factual exercise which is not necessarily well looked upon by other social scientists or by editors of peer-reviewed journals in particular, making the task an even more challenging one.

Overview

Some of the superficial citing is normal and to be expected for it occurs with any major work regardless of ideological colouring or purposeful intention. However, it is believed that this has probably been greater than is normal in the case of Rethinking Industrial Relations, reflecting some parlous aspects of the state of the field of the study of industrial relations as well as the extent of the reach of Rethinking Industrial Relations, namely, its holistic approach (see Kaufman, this issue). This has typically taken the form of referencing Rethinking Industrial Relations in the introduction and overly quick mentions in the conclusion after presenting and analysing data. Moreover, even where Rethinking Industrial Relations has been used within the main body of studies, this has again been done in a relatively superficial way so that one finds a smattering of usages to substantiate certain relatively minor points. What one does not commonly find is the use of the framework of Rethinking Industrial Relations to authenticate and substantiate studies of workplace unionism. A higher but still incomplete usage of Rethinking Industrial Relations concerns attempts to flesh out Rethinking Industrial Relations by arguing this or that component should be ‘added in’ in order to make it more applicable. But these remain, in essence, pretty brief asides and, therefore, are underdeveloped and under-theorised.

What Rethinking Industrial Relations aimed for, and what has not happened, is that its core foundations would be used widely across time and space to develop testable hypotheses in order to examine propositions concerning both why collective action and inaction occur, why there is both collective resistance and collective quiescence, and why some collective actions are more successful than others. This is not to argue that any and all studies of labour unionism must begin and end with mobilisation theory especially via Rethinking Industrial Relations, but one would have expected a substantial slew of studies and research projects using Rethinking Industrial Relations as a foundation and framework. Of course, to all these observations there are exceptions. But these exceptions do not, it is believed, disprove the general rule. Rather, it is believed, they confirm it. Thus, Rethinking Industrial Relations has not deeply permeated the core of thinking of those studying labour unionism within and without the field of study of industrial relations. But one could equally say, that (a) Rethinking Industrial Relations has not been allowed to permeate the core of thinking of those studying labour unionism and/or (b) those studying labour unionism have not allowed Rethinking Industrial Relations to permeate the core of their thinking. Each outcome implies different causation and attribution, highlighting different aspects about the contemporary state of the study of industrial relations. But fundamentally, these three situations arise because Rethinking Industrial Relations has had to contend with the very factors that it outlined in its opening pages, these being the combined intellectual weaknesses of the field of study as practised particularly in Britain. There are a number of aspects to this. Thus, the predominant approach of industrial relations continues to be concerned with finding out what is ‘going on’ and what is ‘happening’, with the attendant first order level of analysis. There is a sense in which the priority is still mapping out what is going on as well as unearthing differences and discrepancies between actors’ desires and intentions, on the one hand, and attested outcomes, on the other. So long as this is the unspoken concern or that it is believed to be unnecessary to go any further, it would seem that deeper theorisation has no particularly useful additional role to play. In other words, the vast majority of industrial relations research does not start by posing fundamental research questions about power, material interests and ideology and then seek to operationalise them in particular temporal and spatial contexts. Rather, it starts with what is ‘going on’ and, essentially, tends to add theory in like that contained in Rethinking Industrial Relations later on (see also Kirk, this issue).

Nonetheless, and to return to an earlier point, Rethinking Industrial Relations has garnered a large number of citations and within the journal citation exercise – when compared to other works, be they books or articles – the quantitative aspect of citations has not been insignificant. It is worth exploring a little more the nature of the users of Rethinking Industrial Relations over and above what has been argued to be the case for those studying ‘union organising’. For a different generation of radical and critical researchers and scholars in Britain, be they younger or older but new to academia, with Rethinking Industrial Relations Kelly provided the next significant instalment in the radical opus after Hyman’s 1975 aforementioned book. Consequently, Rethinking Industrial Relations has had significant influence among this milieu, which is evidenced by way of them providing the majority of citations in Table 1. By contrast, the corollary seems to have been that Rethinking Industrial Relations has been much less picked up by, and had much less influence within, the mainstream, pluralist part of the field of study of industrial and employment relations (as opposed to HRM). Although this different milieu has not ignored Rethinking Industrial Relations, it has for different reasons – primarily of normativity and, relatedly, focusing more upon studying management as an actor and organisation as a site of agency and interplay – not engaged more fully, extensively or directly with Rethinking Industrial Relations. Essentially, the focus upon workers, the creation of collectivism and the construction of conflict, the intellectual wellsprings that gave rise to these, and the underlying political portent have not been regarded with much pleasure or interest. Kaufman (this issue) is an exception to the rule. Expressed in the fashion of journalese, it seems it was almost a case of Rethinking Industrial Relations (p)reaching to the already quasi-converted. This again marks another disappointing aspect of the reception to Rethinking Industrial Relations.

Conclusion

The starting point for this article has been the proposition that Rethinking Industrial Relations has had the potential to become a seminal work for the development of the fields of study of industrial and employment relations. This was not just because of its radical bent but also because of its introduction of a new perspective (mobilisation theory) and its holistic approach providing totality. In other words, the evidence of seminality would comprise and strongly influence later developments in the field of study as a result of having the characteristics of being groundbreaking and pioneering, with the outturn being major, beneficial outcomes for the intellectual (analytical, conceptual, theoretical) strength of these fields. The end point for this article is this seminality has not materialised due to deficiencies that lie outside Rethinking Industrial Relations itself. Yet notwithstanding Kelly’s (this issue) own critical reflections upon Rethinking Industrial Relations, an auxiliary argument of this article has also been that Rethinking Industrial Relations has made a major intellectual contribution to radical thinking and theorisation in industrial relations and the study of labour unionism in the last 30 odd years – in Britain and other predominantly English-speaking countries with the exception of the United States. Indeed, because of the general political environment it was introduced into and relates to, Rethinking Industrial Relations is believed to have greater salience to the opus of radical work than Hyman’s Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction. Yet Rethinking Industrial Relations is also believed to be a greater contribution to radical thinking than Hyman’s text because it introduces mobilisation theory and provides a more comprehensive and holistic framework for analysis. Yet when this article examined the outturn from Rethinking Industrial Relations, despite having a substantial slew of citations relative to other comparable work, and especially when informed by the (qualitative) assessment of the data in Table 1, the condition of seminality was not found to exist. The content of Rethinking Industrial Relations is, therefore, believed to be necessary without being sufficient to attain seminality because the other part to the equation is both the reception to and the way Rethinking Industrial Relations has been used (or not). It remains an open question as to whether the field of industrial (and employment relations) is now better off with the publication of Rethinking Industrial Relations, and if it is, how much better off it is. As is often said, time will tell, for in another 20 years it will have become clearer whether the field flourished or stagnated and what the relationship of Rethinking Industrial Relations was to this outcome.

Stepping back from this, the primary function performed here, then, has been essentially that of an exercise in surveying the use and influence of Rethinking Industrial Relations, with some similarities to the task of analysing the influence of Hyman’s Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction (see Gall, 2012a: esp. 137–140). However, in carrying out the present task, a much more detailed and thorough approach has been possible with a book which was published a generation after Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction. Contrary to how this article might appear at first sight, its purpose is not to lambast academics studying employment relations (including the current author) for their perceived inadequacy and failings. Rather, it has sought to provide a sociologically orientated explanation for the attestable phenomenon identified. In other words, this article represents research on how we research in our field and a study of how we study in our field, not in terms of methodology but in terms of approaches and perspectives.

Using a predominantly absolute measure, to date, and despite the caveats entered into, the proffered conclusions of this article are fivefold. First and to date, neither the qualitative state of the study of industrial relations nor that of studying labour unionism appear to be as significantly better off for the publication of Rethinking Industrial Relations as might have been expected given its contribution (even if there is some evidence that the quantitative state is better off). Judged by contributions to the examined journals, Rethinking Industrial Relations has not been able to dislodge empiricism – expressed as the consideration of contemporary events, processes and issues through primary data gathering and examined at the (lower) first and second level orders of analysis – that has been, and continues to be, the hallmark of contemporary industrial relations research. Second, Rethinking Industrial Relations has not then been able to deliver upon the promise it held out. This is not believed to be due to any major deficiency in its primary thesis and attendant supporting arguments despite some quite critical reviews when it was first published and the weakest part concerning long wave theory (see also Kelly, this issue). ⁸ This means the majestic and integrated sweep of Rethinking Industrial Relations has not been used to the extent that it warrants and is warranted by the intellectual challenges for the study of industrial relations per se and for those of a radical bent. And, relatedly, the poor quantitative and qualitative use of Rethinking Industrial Relations does not reflect that, essentially, it said what was already known and its only genuine contribution was to formalise this into one single text. Third, the belief of Heery (2005: 4) that Rethinking Industrial Relations ‘is helping to reinvigorate the radical wing of industrial relations scholarship, not just in Britain but in other countries’ appears unwarranted with the benefit of hindsight by 2017/2018. Therefore, Atzeni’s (2009: 5) observation that ‘Despite the relevance of the theory, in particular, for the study of industrial conflict and trade unions organising, Kelly’s work has rarely been used to analyse concrete cases of mobilisation and it is known more as the par excellence, Marxist radical reference in the pluralist-dominated HRM, than as a useful framework for critical analysis’ appears more apposite. Fourth, a number of the articles in this special issue of EID have shown the kind of work that is required to significantly advance and develop the application of the central themes of Rethinking Industrial Relations, but this is too little too late to alter the conclusion of this article. Indeed, this assessment would seem to be at some variance to that offered by a number of other articles in this special issue. How can this circle be squared other than by recognising a difference of opinion and analysis? The more positive assessments of the influence of Rethinking Industrial Relations from the likes of Darlington, Heery and Holgate et al. in this special issue owe much to both their much narrower vistas in assessing Rethinking Industrial Relations, through concentrating upon particular chapters or aspects, and their methodologies which do not involve seeking a quantitative validation of the significance of Kelly’s contributions. Fifth, arguably, Hyman’s (2001) threefold framework of the state, market and society for analysing the orientations of labour unionism has been used in a similarly overly superficial way to that experienced by Kelly’s exposition of mobilisation theory. In this sense, Kelly’s work in Rethinking Industrial Relations has not been subject to a particularly idiosyncratic or unusual fate. Yet there is still time for researchers and scholars to deliver upon the seminal promise of Rethinking Industrial Relations. Revisiting the issues in another 20 years will help produce the evidence for whether or not this happened.