| Abstract: | The aim of this paper is to explore the limitations associated with a most similar case research design. It argues that by adopting a most similar case research design, comparative work on industrial relations reform in Australia and New Zealand during the 1980s and 1990s has systematically ignored important historical differences between the two countries, underestimated the similarities in recent reforms and privileged organizational and institutional explanations for changes in industrial relations systems, at the expense of those which are based on systemic factors and material interests. More generally, this paper argues that methodological choices have significant consequences for the types of explanations generated by comparative research and that more serious attention needs be given to the epistemological assumptions embedded in research designs that are taken up by industrial relations researchers. |
