COMPARATIVE INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS - THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC TRADITION

  • EDWARDS P
ISSN: 0034-379X
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The shopfloor is receiving renewed attention within the field ofcomparative industrial relations. This interest reflects academicconcerns, notably a wish to understand how new managerial techniquesactually function, but also developments in the real world, particularlythe competitive challenge of Japan and the perception that it is in theregulation of labour within the workplace that a large part of Japan'ssuccess lies. An important but neglected mode of workplace inquiry, theethnographic tradition, has a major part to play in understanding theshopfloor in comparative perspective. The paper sets out its approach,considers issues of validity and generalization, illustrates itscontribution to comparative analysis, and outlines a research agenda forthe future.The approach has three key components. The first is its theorsticalperspective on the nature of work relations. Conflict is the centralprinciple underlying the organization of work because workers areexploited by employers. This ``structured antagonism{''} underliesday-to-day relations. At this level, cooperation becomes significant.Conflict is not separate from co-operation. The two are intertwined, andthe analytical task is to understand how in a particular workplace theyare organized and expressed. Second, therefors, the object of inquiry isthe regulation of work: the rules, procedures, customs andunderstandings that regulate how workers' capacity to labour istranslated into actual effort. Third, research methods place particularweight on intensive observation, though studies that use relativelycasual observation still adopt an ethnographic orientation to the extentthat they focus on day-to-day behaviour and the processes by whichconflict and consent are organized.Several problems with the approach are commonly identified. One is atendency to descend into mere description of the drudger; of workinglives. A second is that studies of individual workplaces can offer nowider generalizations. The former is a weakness of certain studies, andto develop its potential the approach needs a tightly disciplinedconsideration of analytical issues. There are five ways in which it canthereby offer generalizations: 1) the excavation of activitiesthat.would otherwise lie hidden, together with the demonstration thatthey question certain theories about organizational functioning; 2) theindication of mechanisms linking different phenomena together; 3) theanalysis of single ``critical cases' which are able to throw light onwider developments; 4) the use of comparisons of workplaces; and 5) thedevelopment of a research programme which permits cumulative knowledgeto be generated.International comparisons using ethnographic methods are as yet rare,but four approaches illustrate the potential. The first is simply toexplore a country in the light of existing assumptions. For example, thesmall number of shopfloor studies of Japan help to explode myths aboutthe nature and origins of workers' consent. Second, one country isstudied using the perspectives of another. This can ask about processeswhich tend to be taken for granted within a country and can begin toexplain how processes of labour regulation differ, for example what rolethe strike plays in different national regimes. Third, studies fromdifferent countries can be set alongside each other. Where these studieswere conducted in similar types of technology and product markets, thedistinctive effects of national systems are revealed. For example,studies of Britain and North America reveal the distinctive roles playedby the state in the development of factory regimes. Finally, directcomparison between workplaces can test out and develop ideas derivedfrom more indirect comparisons.Such studies help to explain what remains obscure within existingcomparative analyses. For example, the ``political economy{''} traditiontries to explain patterns of labour regulation in terms of theincorporation of labour within national political systems, and it usesstrike statistics as a major index of industrial behaviour. Anethnographic approach goes much deeper than such statistics, and itrelates national-level developments to the site where cooperation isactually generated, namely, the workplace. It can thus resolve certainpuzzles within existing accounts.There are several ways in which the perspective can develop itscomparative contribution. An obvious one is to explore changes inmanufacturing industry, looking for example at quality circles in two ormore countries and exploring their connections with existing systems ofregulation. There is also a need to extend the approach tolittle-studied groups such as white-collar workers. The range ofcountries can also be extended, from the advanced capitalist nationswhich have generally been the focus, to newly industrializing economies.The tradition has, in view of its marginal place in the social sciencecanon, made several significant contributions in the past. As theworkplace gains increasing significance in the pursuit of competitiveadvantage, its future potential is even greater.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

EDWARDS, P. K. (1992). COMPARATIVE INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS - THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC TRADITION. RELATIONS INDUSTRIELLES-INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, 47(3), 411–438.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free