{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01483679525222552, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002967359050445104, 'mean_word_length': 5.24537037037037, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Building Bridges in the Teaching of Industrial Relations

In a paper given at the Spring 1986 meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association (IRRA), I emphasized the need for the labor-relations portion of the field to work through the IRRA to improve teaching and to develop influence with the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Business, the business-school accrediting body, since much of the teaching of labor relations takes place in business schools. Here, I stress the importance of developing closer relationships among the various fields comprising industrial relations. There has been a tension, sometimes useful but often not, between labor economists and many of the individuals who have an institutional point of view in their teaching of labor relations. We have come to recognize that descriptive work without proper tools of analysis is limited as well as manipulating variables without an understanding of the underlying field leaves something to be desired. I note my awareness that the overall field is, in many cases, now called human resource administration as opposed to industrial relations, but my emphasis is on the more limited use of human resource administration to refer to the personnel specialties at the organizational level and labor-force training, development and analysis at the macro level.