Industrial Relations was the first multidisciplinary field in American universities, established fifty years before the next one to come along, American Studies. For almost three-quarters of a century it provided the central paradigms for the large majority of the social scientists, law professors, arbitrators, mediators, and personnel managers concerned with union-management issues and also the key figures in the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the National War Labor Boards, and virtually all the other government commissions and boards established to regulate labor. For some scholars and professionals it still does. In recent years faculty have challenged and reshaped nearly all of the older conceptions in the social sciences and humanities. Nothing comparable has yet occurred in the newer studies programs. But now Bruce Kaufman, a labor economist and director of the Institute for Personnel and Employment Relations at Georgia State University, has sharply attacked the Industrial Relations field. To reassess Industrial Relations (or IR, as it is colloquially known), Kaufman adopted a historical approach, a decision which itself represents a departure. Like Kaufman, John R. Commons, the founder of labor economics in America, was not originally a historian. Yet Commons was strongly committed to historical research. I cannot bring in . . . an employers' association and a trade union, put them in a glass case ... watch them tussle, higgle, settle their differences-the way Sir John Lubbock did when he studied bees and ants, he told an audience in 1907.1 Commons believed that unions must shun radicalism to survive in the United States and used historical illustrations to advance his conviction. Between the world wars Commons's proteges, such as Edwin Witte and Selig Perlman, pushed the historical approach to Industrial Relations even further. But when the number of IR programs increased enormously after World
Read full abstract