Intersectional analysis has been developing since its emergence from critical race feminism in the 1980s when it was used to conceptualise the inter-relationship of race and gender, and particularly, the experiences of discrimination and marginalisation of black women in employment. While its contribution has been much debated within sociological and gender specific journals, its use still remains relatively limited within studies of work and employment-relations. It is argued here that this field of study would benefit from greater engagement with and understanding of an intersectional approach both to the design and interpretation of research. Two lines of reasoning are put forward for this contention: firstly, that the intersectional approach contains an important caution against over-generalisation that has been obscured; secondly, separating the challenge for all academics to be more intersectionally-sensitive, from the methodological challenges of taking an intersectional approach, brings the significance of intersectionality into sharper relief.2

No abstract

Many unions that have adopted ‘new’ organising approaches have tended to see organising as a ‘toolbox’ of practices rather than as having an underpinning political philosophy or objective. Adopting such an approach has left out the fundamental question of what are we1 organising ‘for’? Academics studying these developments have tended to evaluate organising outcomes against whatever objectives unions have set themselves and have not dealt with the question of what organising is and what it is for. It is important to examine the politics and processes underpinning organising activity and to keep in mind these fundamental questions. We (re)examine the political dynamics of organising and argue that there is a need for a more robust notion of power and the centrality of worker self-organisation in organising objectives.

No abstract

Since the publication of Rethinking Industrial Relations in 1998, John Kelly's mobilization theory has been used by many scholars attempting to understand union organizing-often using specific campaigns to unpack and analyse various elements of the theory that help to explain the success or failure of collective mobilization. We review this literature and highlight the major areas of interest from the book-injustice, framing, and leadership-and the contribution to industrial relations research. We find that the terms mobilizing and organizing are used interchangeably, which, we argue, is problematic and has led to confusion about what is actually happening in unions. Unpacking the difference between the two terms can help to explain limitations in the way mobilization theory has been used by scholars, and, at the same time, deepen our understanding of why unions have not been particularly successful in reversing their decline despite the 'turn to organizing' over the last few decades.