arbiter
JournalsAccount

Research note: Mind the gaps – The problems and politics of bibliographic analysis for comparative industrial relations research on workplace equalities

Heather Connolly et al.

European Journal of Industrial Relations2025https://doi.org/10.1177/09596801251397498article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This article offers a critical reflection of the challenges of conducting bibliometric analysis in cross-national comparative industrial relations research on workplace equalities. Drawing on a scoping exercise designed to map equality research in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and the Netherlands, we demonstrate how bibliometric methods struggle to capture situated knowledge and translate contested concepts across national contexts. While bibliometric approaches can offer useful insights when carefully deployed, uncritical applications risk producing ‘thin’ and decontextualised findings. We engage with debates on English Language Predominance, conceptual equivalence, and epistemological diversity, and argue for more reflexive, pluralistic, and ‘slow’ comparative research, sensitive to the socially constructed and locally situated language on equality at work.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09596801251397498

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{heather2025,
  title        = {{Research note: Mind the gaps – The problems and politics of bibliographic analysis for comparative industrial relations research on workplace equalities}},
  author       = {Heather Connolly et al.},
  journal      = {European Journal of Industrial Relations},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/09596801251397498},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Research note: Mind the gaps – The problems and politics of bibliographic analysis for comparative industrial relations research on workplace equalities

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.