IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/brjirl/v43y2005i1p1-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The British Journal of Industrial Relations: Position and Prospect

Author

Listed:
  • Edmund Heery

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Edmund Heery, 2005. "The British Journal of Industrial Relations: Position and Prospect," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 43(1), pages 1-9, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:brjirl:v:43:y:2005:i:1:p:1-9
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2005.00342.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2005.00342.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2005.00342.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Miguel Martínez Lucio & Heather Connolly, 2010. "Contextualizing Voice and Stakeholders: Researching Employment Relations, Immigration and Trade Unions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 19-29, December.
    2. Martin Behrens & Andreas Pekarek, 2021. "Divided We Stand? Coalition Dynamics in the German Union Movement," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 59(2), pages 503-531, June.
    3. G. Steven McMillan & Debra L. Casey, 2007. "Research Note: Identifying the Invisible Colleges of the British Journal of Industrial Relations: A Bibliometric and Social Network Approach," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 45(4), pages 815-828, December.
    4. Peter Gahan & Andreas Pekarek, 2013. "Social Movement Theory, Collective Action Frames and Union Theory: A Critique and Extension," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 51(4), pages 754-776, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:brjirl:v:43:y:2005:i:1:p:1-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.