Industrial Relations and the Social Movement Literature
Abstract: This paper takes as a point of departure a recent appraisal of the field of industrial
relations as a social science. The first part defines the challenges to industrial relations in
terms of a quest for the macro. The second part reviews advances in the social sciences
through the social movement literature. This is for an approach which provides an adequate
frame for analysis of the macro and micro in the contemporary era. The third part compares
and contrasts the fields of industrial relations and human resource management utilising
Giddens' meta-theoretical frame of utopian-realism. Whilst the field of industrial relations is
found to be more objective, human resource management is found to be better equipped with
a meta-theoretical approach. A gap is left for the field of employment studies to fill, if such a
reconciliation is desirable.
This paper is an exploration of the issues raised by Professor Lansbury in his outgoing AIRAANZ
Presidential Address of February 1995 (Lansbury, 1995). On that occasion Lansbury raised two
areas of concern. The first was the changing nature of the field of industrial relations as a social
science. The second referred to Australian and New Zealand industrial relations in an
international context. The inter-relationship between these two areas is marked. With the field of
industrial relations under challenge from human resource management, the danger of 'too narrow a
scope' in IR is identified. By undertaking comparative international research, a tendency to focus
on the 'molecular' (as typified by the research of labour economists and institutionalists) is rounded
out through an appreciation of 'macro' dynamics.
Lansbury thus follows a line established by Kelly and Wood. Kelly seeks a focus away from labour
economics and HRM, and a linkage to the social movement literature. This is for a stronger macro-
orientation, emphasising power and collective action rather than the narrower confines of
employment relationships. Wood seeks an integrated study of the management of the labour
resource, building on theoretical foundations rooted in the social sciences (Lansbury, 1995). What
all three have in common is their advocacy of the use of the social sciences. In his exploration of
this issue, Lansbury turns to Mills. Pointed to in particular is the need to keep our research and
teaching (whatever our subject is called) relevant to the world around us. To Mills, this world
around us is regulated by change-prone institutions. Lansbury thus stresses the importance of
keeping our field of study relevant through keeping up to date with changes in broader institutional
structures. Lansbury points the way to an exploration of the macro by positing the need to locate
industrial relations in an international and comparative perspective (Lansbury, 1995: 4-6, 8-12).
Exploring the macro views from the fontline
There are two broad schools of thought with regard to equipping industrial relations scholars with a
theoretical framework within which to incorporate a more macro-focus. Dabscheck is a proponent
of the need for the field of industrial relations to develop its own general theory in order to achieve
legitimacy within the academy (Dabscheck, 1994). Others, like Lansbury, propose a 'political
economy'. This school sees industrial relations as a field of study informed by broader social theory
and calls on industrial relations scholars to locate partial theory within a meta-framework
In addition to Lansbury, Kelly, and Wood, the political economists include Bray and Taylor, and
Brown. Bray and Taylor see industrial relations as part of social life. This 'requires that attention
be given to the economic sphere, to the ideological and cultural spheres, to the part played by the
State apparatus and to the historical dynamics of the situation' (Bray and Taylor, 1986: 6). Brown
proposes a political-economy of industrial relations theory, postulating that 'the systematic study of
industrial relations has tended to prosper when organised labour has been in the ascendant ...
Theories that are developed at a time of high or rising union power are bound to have deficiencies
when unions are in decline' (Brown, 1988). This side of the debate is in accord that a deficiency in
existing theoretical frameworks in industrial relations lies in the treatment of broader political and
economic factors as exogenous variables not requiring explanation.
Typology's of existing theoretical frameworks in industrial relations vary. Blain and Gennard
discuss three approaches: the 'systems model', the 'Oxford approach', and 'an industrial sociology
view' (Blain and Gennard, 1970: 389-407). This typology is modified by Schienstock who proposes
that the Oxford school should be seen as a variant on the systems approach, and that the Marxist
approach should not be unqualifyingly equated with an industrial sociology approach. He notes the
lack of a research strategy focused on the behaviour of the actors, and proposes a classification of
three approaches to industrial relations. These are: the systems model; the action theory concept;
and, the politico-economic or Marxist concept (Schienstock, 1981). Lumley outlines a rules
(systems) approach, which, along the lines of Blain and Gennard, he attempts to modify by
introducing behavioural variables. He also outlines the competing 'conflict' and 'bargaining
exchange' approaches to industrial relations which make up his typology (Lumley, 1979).
Dabscheck adds corporatism and theories of regulation (Dabscheck, 1989: 1).
This constitutes the range of opinion with regard to classifying theoretical frameworks in use in
industrial relations. The systems model, linked to the Oxford school by Schienstock, and called a
rules approach by Lumley, is recognised as the orthodoxy, but criticised to varying degrees by all.
Schienstock delineates between two sociological perspectives to make up his typology. One of these,
the politico-economic, or Marxist concept, called the 'conflict' approach by Lumley, is commonly
regarded as the chief competition to the orthodoxy. The politico-economic approach is also
criticised, notwithstanding particular reference being made to the fertile field of labour process
theory. Added to these two recognised schools of thought are the Oxford approach, as delineated
from the systems approach by Blain and Gennard (and by Dabscheck); the 'action theory concept'
put forward by Schienstock; the 'bargaining exchange' approach noted by Lumley; and Dabscheck's
additions of corporatism and theories of regulation ('capture theory' and 'bargaining theory').
Similarly, there is a wide-ranging debate with regard to the matter of theory generation. Much of
this revolves around the positivist-empiricist nature of research activity within the field. Another
stream in the debate is with regard to the inter-disciplinary aspirations of some industrial relations
scholars such as those proposing a 'political economy' approach to the subject. This is opposed by
those such as Dabscheck who argues that the lack of a theoretical core to industrial relations, and
an 'intellectual paralysis' on the part of industrial relations scholars, is due to these aspirations
(Dabscheck, 1994: 9). Giles posits that the failure to achieve an inter-disciplinary approach from
the multi-disciplinary has fragmented the subject. This failure has been exacerbated by the
practical policy orientation of the subject. Also problematic to Giles is the narrowness of the
definition of the field. This leads to the exclusion of the determinates of State action and some areas
of public policy. Giles parts with Dabscheck, however, in aligning with those advocating an
interdisciplinary approach. In this respect Giles is an advocate of finding a bridge between the
'political' and 'technocratic' camps of industrial relations (Giles, 1989).
In developing his general theory of Australian industrial relations, Dabscheck rejects the systems
model in seeking to incorporate the various organs of the State. So as to take account of the 'push
and pull' of aggregated entities, and/or their disintegration, and the actions of groups and
organisations not included in the 'aggregates', he rejects both Marxist and corporatist accounts. In
their stead he proposes an infinite and changing myriad of 'interactors'. The dynamic which
underlies this theory, Dabscheck notes, is borrowed from Dahrendorf and is that authority relations
are central to social structures. Thus 'interactors are motivated to be authoritative' (Dabscheck,
Power and politics is thus as integral to Dabscheck's 'grand theory' as it is to the efforts of the
interdisciplinarians to incorporate a more macro focus. All sides are in agreement with regard to
the importance of incorporating notions of power and politics in the field of study of industrial
relations. The question remains, how is this to be in a field of study so reliant on an empirical
tradition? Within the debate about the empiricism of orthodox industrial relations there are
defenders and critics. Cappelli, as a defender, contrasts the inductive and deductive approaches to
industrial relations research. He laments the ascendancy of the deductive-individualist approach
and seeks the combining of empiricist techniques with institutional approaches for a more inductive
approach (Capelli, 1985).
Of the critics, most attribute the deduction of principles from piles of facts to the contribution of the
Webbs to the foundations of sociological enquiry (see e.g. Guille, 1984: 488). Marsden attacks the
epistemology of empiricism which proposes that the process of knowledge is that dialectic between
the knowing subject and the known real object. A recognition that industrial relations deals with
objectified ideologies leads to the proposition of a need to synthesise industrial relations with the
sociology of law. Marsden recommends that law be examined from both the ideological and political
aspects. He makes a distinction between laws and rules, such that laws pervade the workplace and
rules cover informal and personal modes of control. To Marsden, 'Ideologies enforced by social
power are laws ... regardless of the ways in which they are enforced and in whose name' (Marsden,
Following Marsden's criticisms, Guille charts the empiricism of industrial relations research from
the Webbs to Kochan. Guille contends that '(industrial relations) academics produce snapshot
views and emphasise the determinant nature of institutions and the causal importance of factors
such as the economic situation, party politics or leadership struggles'. Guille notes a distinction
between institutional and materialist theories, prefers the latter, and calls for the utilisation of an
economic and historical framework. To overcome the epistemological error in empiricism identified
by Marsden, he repeats Marsden's call for a reconceptualisation of industrial relations as the
expression of the conflict between capital and labour rather than as a location of this conflict.
Guille goes further in utilising theory from the broader social sciences. Building on Marsden's call
for the consideration of the political and ideological aspects of law, he cites Giddens in terms of need
to consider the uncertain and contingent nature of social reproduction (Guille, 1984; Marsden,
Exploring the macro - views from a distance
Social scientists, in seeking to satisfy an intellectual curiosity over a problem, will draw on
whatever materials are available to further their understanding. At the time of Mills' writing,
industrial relations was only just emerging as a defined field of study. To Mills, this challenge to
established fields was no big deal. Mills proposed that 'the problem', rather than methodology or
grand theory, define the field of study. In criticising the schools of the empiricists, and the grand
theoreticians, Mills argued for a political role for the social sciences as tools for exploring problems.
Bemoaning both the bureaucratic ends of the empiricists, and the conservative ideology of grand
theory, Mills extolled the social scientist who could stand alone in confronting the 'principle of
historical specificity'. This is the task of understanding a society 'in terms of the specific period in
which it exists'. To grasp this understanding, the intersection of various mechanisms of change,
which 'come to some specific kind of intersection', needs to be defined. The appreciation of the
trajectory of these mechanisms (or principia media), it is asserted, is the quest of the social
scientist. The 'moral and intellectual promise' of the social sciences, to Mills, is that 'freedom and
reason will remain cherished values', to be used 'seriously and consistently and imaginatively in the
formulation of problems' (Mills, 1959: 149, 173-174).
By defining the problem area of the field of industrial relations in broad terms as the study of all
aspects of work, as Lansbury and Westcott have done (Lansbury and Westcott, 1992), the field is
given a flexibility with which to cope with the changed dynamics of the contemporary era. Indeed,
as has been seen, Lansbury points to increasing international competition, which 'has radically
altered markets and organisation of production world wide', as the frame within which problems
associated with work can be understood (Lansbury, 1995: 8). In identifying globality as the frame,
Lansbury makes a departure from Mills. To Mills, political institutions, economic institutions, the
military, kinship (the family), religion, and education (schools, universities) comprised the principia
media of the epoch. Their intersections were to be located within nations (Mills, 1959).
Building on the work of Critical Theory, Habermas, and Foucault, Giddens has put forward a co-
axial framework with which to conceptualise the contemporary era (Giddens, 1990). There,
Giddens points, as Lansbury has done, to globalisation. In his discussion of 'utopian realism',
Giddens posits a connection between the local and the global study. To complete the schema, 'Both
emancipatory politics and life politics have to be tied into these connections, given the burgeoning
influence of globalised relations':
(politics of self-actualisation)
Politicisation of the local
Politicisation of theglobal
(politics of inequality)
Figure 1: The dimensions of utopian realism
(Source: Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 158.)
The adoption of utopianism is possible due to 'the counterfactual character of modernity'. However,
realism is needed to counterbalance the high-consequence risk of 'moral conviction pursued without
reference to the strategic implications of action' (Giddens, 1990: 154-158). Utopian realism, as a
broad frame with which to capture the historical specificity of our time, also satisfies the political
agenda of the social sciences. Just as Mills was concerned with democracy (freedom) and reason,
Giddens suggests that a 'critical theory without guarantees in the late twentieth century 'must
create models of the good society ...' Models of the good society 'are limited neither to the sphere
of the nation-State nor to only one of the institutional dimensions of modernity'. In addition,
critical theory '... must be sociologically sensitive, geopolitically ... tactical ... and it must
recognise that emancipatory politics needs to be linked with life politics, or a politics of self-
actualisation'. In this prescription, Giddens asserts that 'sociological sensitivity' means being
alert to 'the immanent institutional transformations which modernity constantly opens out to the
future' (Giddens, 1990: 154-158; original emphasis).
In relating both 'emancipatory politics' and 'life politics' to the 'connections between the local and
the global study', Giddens notes that the feminist and student movements pioneered notions of the
personal as political (Giddens, 1991). Here attention is paid to the social movement literature.
Social movements, new and old, have been concerned with emancipatory politics. But it is, in
particular, the new social movements which are articulating notions of life politics.
Like industrial relations, however, the field of study of social movements exhibits some degree of
narrowness. Also, like industrial relations, the field is split into camps. Whilst culturist accounts of
the consciousness and identity of social movements adherents are predominantly European (see e.g.
Touraine, 1978), writers with a focus on the organisation of social movements have straddled the
Atlantic. In this latter group, the resource mobilisation accounts are, in the main, from North
America (Pakulski, 1991; see e.g. Costain, 1992), whereas the European culturist writers pay heed
to the question of social movement strategy and trajectory (see e.g. Offe, 1987). The dichotomy of
the social movement literature into psychologising and structural accounts is something that is
avoided in inter-disciplinary industrial relations when the 'holistic' approach advocated by the
political economists is taken. Those European social movement writers who are examining the
trajectory and psychology of the new social movements provide the most useful leads for those in
the field of industrial relations to follow. Australian writers who have addressed social movement
organisation have done so from the perspective of a supposed decline in the workers' movement,
however (see e.g. Frankel, 1992). This highlights the importance of Scott's proposal for an
integration of culturist and resource mobilisation accounts (Scott, 1990). Watson's appraisal of the
class nature of the environment movement, and Burgmann's advocacy of interaction between new
and old movements are steps in this direction (Watson, 1990; Burgmann, 1993).
To Giddens, the problems of the social sciences revolve around life politics within a 'high modern'
global system. Giddens attributes the dynamism that modernity brings into human social affairs to
the separation of time from space, the 'disembedding' of social institutions, and 'institutional
reflexivity'.1 Life politics (the politics of personal autonomy), emerges as a result of the necessity of
trust relationships in disembedded society (Giddens, 1991). Facilitating personal autonomy, and
trust, is the role of the social scientist in seeking to further democracy and reason. These goals are
to be pursued through studies of the institutional dimensions of the modern order in the frame of
utopian realism. The institutional dimensions relevant to today are capitalism, industrialism,
surveillance, and the industrialisation of war. Each has a logic of its own, and 'represents a radical
discontinuity with non-modern forms of life' (Giddens, 19912).
Industrial relations and human resource management: the relevancy scorecard
1 'Institutional reflexivity' is what Gardiner and Palmer are driving at in their consideration of adaptive
strategy - see M. Gardiner and G. Palmer (1992) Employment Relations: Industrial Relations and Human
Resource Management in Australia, Melbourne, 472-479. Giddens postulates this in much the same way that
E. H. Carr has done in his essay What is History? (London, 1961, 87-108). Giddens talks of 'reflexivity',
augmented by a latter-Parsonian 'everybody wins' notion of power relations under autonomous individuality -
see A. Giddens (1977) Studies in Social and Political Theory, London, 333-49.
2 Though Mills also includes kinship and religion which remain important institutions (see
Imagination, 44-45), and the medical profession is an important new institution [see J. Weeks (1990)
Out: Homosexual Politics in Britain from the Nineteenth Century to the Present, London, Quartet Books,
Giddens' formulation of modernity and the role of the social sciences provides an approach for the
analysis of the problem of the perceived threat to the field of industrial relations from the field of
human resource management. Literature sets from the two fields have been analysed to review the
relevancy of problems addressed, in Giddens' meta-theoretical terms. This is a departure from
Lansbury and Westcott, who, in their survey of the industrial relations literature follow Blain and
Plowman's typology. Lansbury and Westcott identify five streams in the literature. These are the
structures, processes and outcomes of industrial relations, along with industrial relations theory
and international/comparative industrial relations(Lansbury and Westcott, 1992). To analyse this
literature in Giddens' terms, the following questions have been asked:
Is the research sociologically sensitive, that is alert to 'the immanent institutional
transformations which modernity constantly opens out to the future'?
Is the research geopolitically tactical?
Does the research create models of the good society limited neither to the sphere of the
nation-State nor to only one of the institutional dimensions of modernity (i.e. capitalism,
industrialism, surveillance, and the industrialisation of war)?
Does the research recognise that emancipatory politics need to be linked with life politics (a
politics of self-actualisation)?
In the field of industrial relations, both Lansbury and Westcott, and Blain and Plowman, find a
paucity of output in the areas of comparative industrial relations and industrial relations theory. A
predominance of articles reviewed focused on the structures, processes and outcomes of industrial
relations institutions. Lansbury and Westcott warn against a tendency to description rather than
analysis in this research output (Landsbury and Westcott, 1992). Put in Giddens' terms, Lansbury
and Westcott find that little of the industrial relations literature set meets Giddens' prescriptions
for relevant social science.
In the period following Lansbury and Westcott's analysis there has been some change. This change
is best exemplified in a focus on the 'New Industrial Relations'. Here, an interdisciplinary
framework is applied, resulting in the satisfaction of the Giddens' schema. Of particular note is
research examining the intersections of political and economic institutions. These include those of
Owens in examining 'Law and Feminism in the New Industrial Relations', and Walpole and Jost in
their look at 'The New Partnership Between Industrial Relations and Anti-Discrimination Law.
Green also adopts a critical approach to industrial relations regulation, thus opening prospects for
debate and for better steering the 'runaway world' (see Giddens, 1991) towards a vision of the good
society .3 This is also the approach adopted by Lansbury in his call for 'coordinated flexibility' as
per the Nordic model of reform. Through comparative research an alternative is presented to the
'fragmented flexibility' which typified industrial relations reform in Australia under the Keating
government (Lansbury, 1995: 10).
To assess the human resource management literature, the volume of proceedings dealing with new
directions in human resource management from the Inaugural Conference of the International
Employment Relations Association has been analysed. There, in line with HRM texts (Schuler et
al., 1992; Nankervis et al., 1993), many of Giddens' propositions inform the context of research. As
Townsend says in his contribution, contingency theory links the balance between task-oriented and
social-orientated approaches to management, to the demands of the situation (Townsend, 1994).
The open systems approach of HRM combined with contingency (Nankervis et al., 1993), and the
iterative nature of models developed in extrapolating management processes (Brotherton and
Leslie, 1991), satisfies Giddens' requirements of incorporating notions of reflexivity and integrating
more than one institutional structure into the frame of study. The importance of identity politics as
a part of the global frame of analysis is recognised in the context of self- actualisation on the part of
workers. This self-actualisation is stressed as a means of developing flexibility in organisational
responsiveness to a changing socio-economic climate and the demands of global competition (Zeffane
and Mayo, 1994).
3 For these papers, see I. Hunt and C. Provis, (1995) The New Industrial Relations in Australia, Sydney.
Critics of human resource management see issues such as multi-skilling in terms of oppression and
control, rather than in terms of self-actualisation, however (e.g. Legge, 1995: 35). At issue this
divergence is the specific milieux around which the 'problems' of the field are posed. Mills described
the trend to serving the purposes of institutions as 'illiberal practicality' (Mills, 1959: 92). It is the
case with human resource management that researchers seldom 'allow the immediate troubles of
which ordinary ... (people) ... in their everyday milieux are aware to set the problems upon which
they work'. Rather, the field of human resource management accepts as their point of orientation
'the issues defined officially or unofficially by authorities and interests' (Mills, 1959: 128).
Recognition that the problems raised in human resource management are those 'defined officially or
unofficially by authorities and interest', most notably the multi-national corporation, is the essence
of the divergence between the fields of industrial relations and human resource management. It is
also the point of convergence of industrial relations with critical scholars of human resource
management,4 and between industrial relations and those engaged in the development of the field
of employment studies (see e.g. Leece, 1994). Whilst it is recognised in employment studies that the
metatheoretical framework which informs the field of human resource management is conceptually
useful for the contemporary era, it is The challenge to industrial relations is that of integrating
such a metatheoretical approach as Giddens' to the study of all aspects of work within the context of
institutionalised industrial relations, and the advent of the multi-national corporation. Given the
hybrid nature of the contemporary era, employment studies does seem to occupy the high ground,
combining the relevancy of the frame of human resource management, and the objectivity of the
problems posed in industrial relations. But Kaufman places a different light on the need for a
reconciliation between the fields of industrial relations and human resource management. Kaufman
argues that the two fields consist of 'different approaches to consideration of the same subject'
(Kaufman, 1993). With corporate power in the ascendancy, the field of human resource
management comes to the fore. When labour power is in the ascendancy, the field of industrial
relations comes into its own.
Blain, A.N.J. and Gennard, J. (1970) 'Industrial relations theory a critical review.' British
Journal of Industrial Relations 8(3): 389-407.
Bray, M. and Taylor, V. (1986) 'Introduction: directions in industrial relations research.' In M.
Bray and V. Taylor (Eds), Managing Labour: Essays in the Political Economy of Australian
Industrial Relations. Sydney, p. 6.
Brotherton, R. and Leslie, D. (1991) 'Critical information needs for achieving strategic goals.' In R.
Teare and A. Boer (Eds), Strategic Hospitality Management: Theory and Practice for the 1990s.
Brown, W. (1988) 'The theory of industrial relations consideration of a new paradigm.' Paper
presented at the Japan Institute of Labour Thirtieth Anniversary Symposium, September.
Burgmann, V. (1993) Power and Protest: Movements for Change in Australian Society. Sydney.
Cappelli, P. (1985) 'Theory construction in IR and some implications for research.' Industrial
Relations 24(1): 106-107.
Carr, E.H. (1961) What is History? London.
Costain, A.N. (1992) 'Social movements as interest groups: the case of the women's movement.' In
M. P. Petracca (Ed.), The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed. Boulder.
Dabscheck, B. (1989) Australian Industrial Relations in the 1980s. Melbourne, p. 1.
Dabscheck, B. (1994) 'A general theory of (Australian) industrial relations.' Journal of Industrial
Relations 36(1): 3-17.
Frankel, B. (1992) From the Prophets Deserts Come: The Struggle to Reshape Australian Political
G. Schienstock, G. (1981) 'Towards a theory of industrial relations.' British Journal of Industrial
Relations 19(2): 170-189.
Gardiner, M. and Palmer, G. (1992) Employment Relations: Industrial Relations and Human
Resource Management in Australia. Melbourne.
Giddens, A. (1977) Studies in Social and Political Theory. London.
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
4 Such as in Legge's adoption of a labour process approach, see Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and
Realities, 161-172, 228-234.
Cambridge, pp. 210-217.
Giles, A. (1989) 'Industrial relations theory, the State and politics.' In J. Barbash and K. Barbash
(Eds), Theories and Concepts of Comparative Industrial Relations, pp. 125, 148-149.
Guille, H. (1984) 'Industrial relations theory: painting by numbers.' Journal of Industrial Relations
Hunt, I. and Provis, C. (1995) The New Industrial Relations in Australia. Sydney.
Kaufman, B. (1993) The Origins and Evolution of the Field of Industrial Relations in the United
States, Ithaca, cited by R. Kane (1996) 'HRM: changing concepts in a changing environment.'
International Journal of Employment Studies 4(2): 115-177.
Lansbury, R. (1995) 'Industrial relations in an era of global change and challenges.' Presidential
Address to the Ninth Conference of the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of
Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, February.
Lansbury, R. and Westcott, M. (1992) 'Researching Australian industrial relations: dawn of twilight
of a Golden Age.' Journal of Industrial Relations 34(3): 396-419.
Lansbury, R. and Westcott, M. (1992) 'Researching Australian industrial relations: dawn or twilight
of a Golden Age.' Journal of Industrial Relations 34(3): 396-419.
Leece, P. (1994) 'Employment relations: some implications for the teaching of recruitment and
selection.' In D. Mortimer and P. Leece (Eds) Employment Relations: Theory and Practice.
Legge, K. (1995) Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities. London.
Lumley, R. (1979) 'A modified rules approach to workplace industrial relations.' Industrial
Relations Journal 10(4): 49-50.
Marsden, R. (1982) 'Industrial relations: a critique of empiricism.' Sociology 16(2): 233, 235, 256-
Mills, W.C. (1959) The Sociological Imagination. New York, pp. 149, 173-174.
Nankervis, A., Compton, R. and McCarthy, T. (1993) Strategic Human Resource Management.
Offe, C. (1987) 'Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics: social movements since the
1960s.' In Charles S. Maier (Ed), Changing Boundaries of the Political: Essays on the Evolving
Balance between the State and Society, Public and Private in Europe. Cambridge.
Pakulski, J. (1991) Social Movements: The Politics of Moral Protest. Melbourne.
Patmore, G. (1992) 'History and industrial relations: an overview.' In History and Industrial
Relations, ACIRRT Monograph #1: 2.
Schuler, R. Dowling, P., Smart, S. and Huber, V. (1992) Human Resource Management in
Scott, A. (1990) Ideology and the New Social Movements. London.
Touraine, A. (1978) The Voice and the Eye. Cambridge.
Townsend, P. (1994) 'Human resource management effectiveness a contingency theory of
organisational structure and motivational culture.' In D. Mortimer and P. Leece (Eds),
Employment Relations: Theory and Practice.
Watson, I. (1990) Fighting Over the Forests. Sydney.
Weeks, J. (1990) Coming Out: Homosexual Politics in Britain from the Nineteenth Century to the
Present, rev. edn. London: Quartet Books.
Zeffane, R. and Mayo, G. (1994) 'Planning for human resources in the nineties: development of an
operational model.' In D. Mortimer and P. Leece (Eds), Employment Relations: Theory and