The Eclipse of Dabscheck’s General Theory: A Reply

Abstract

C discussion and debate about matters of theory in any field or discipline is a healthy sign. We therefore welcome the response by Braham Dabscheck to our paper (Michelson & Westcott 2001) which critiqued his general theory of (Australian) industrial relations or ‘orbits’ theory (see Dabscheck 1994, 1995). Our point of departure in writing the paper was to ask why, in spite of more recent interest in matters of a theoretical nature, had Dabscheck’s theory received so little public interest among, and commentary from, the academic community. We concluded that the apparent intellectual indifference stemmed from the theory’s inability to provide new insights and understanding. A detailed analysis revealed that there were a number of shortcomings with the theory. These included the way in which the theory was constructed, problems with its underlying assumptions including the exaggeration of agency, the purpose of, and privilege ascribed to, ‘authority’, the equivocal distinction between ‘orbits’ and ‘interactors’, and the wholly descriptive nature of its empirical predictions. We were also interested in trying to account for why the theory had appeared when it had, believing that ‘history does matter’. Here we spent a not inconsiderable part of the paper (see Michelson & Westcott 2001: 309–317) tracing Dabscheck’s intellectual journey in the area of theory over the last 20 or so years. The historical expedition was fruitful because it revealed significant stages of conceptual development which pointed to the general theory. Moreover, it highlighted the close relationship between changes in national industrial relations in Australia and how Dabscheck had sought to explain these changes. To claim, as he does, that the general theory ‘occurred by happenstance’, is unconvincing. In fact, this claim contradicts an earlier point where he notes ‘it is difficult to know how I, or anyone else for that matter, could not be influenced by Australian empirics’. By regularly modifying his theoretical explanations in light of the successive industrial relations changes observed, a pattern emerges which suggests that Dabscheck considers ‘good’ theory to be ahistorical. Perhaps this is one of the ‘crimes’ he confesses to having committed? One widely understood measure of ‘good’ theory is its ability to endure over time, irrespective of changes to the key phenomena of interest. Before progressing we need to make one final point. Dabscheck is perturbed that we have not used more of his work in our analysis of his intellectual journey. Specifically, he notes his Industrial Relations in Australia text co-authored with