ABSTRACT
The academic field of industrial relations is typically defined as being the study of the various aspects of job regulation, with a consequent attendant focus on rule-making in the employment relationship. A recent survey of industrial relations research traditions viewed from an international standpoint suggests that studies tend to cluster around two underlying assumptions: first, the 'pluralist-institutionalist' approach, which is especially predominant in Anglo-Saxon countries. As regards the nature of comparative investigation itself within the subject, Sturmthal defines it as 'research dealing with the same phenomena in different countries'. The exposition of the convergence thesis also points to the fact that countries which are alike in other respects would be expected to develop significant differences in their industrial relations if they had industrialised at different historical periods. It is apparent from the foregoing discussion that comparative industrial relations is by no means an easy field of study and has considerable inherent problems.
