Jennifer Sappey

Unintended Consequences of Human Research Ethics Committees: Au Revoir Workplace Studies?

AbstractTo protect the welfare and rights of participants in research and to facilitate research that will be of benefit, as well as protect them against litigation, universities and research-funding agencies in Australia adopted the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans (NHMRC 1999).1 In many other countries there are similar statements. However, the ways in which such statements are often implemented by Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) 2 are in conflict with an important stream of industrial sociological research. This stream seeks to deconstruct workplaces and de-layer management rhetoric to understand the realities and complexities of the social relations of production. There is a pluralist basis for much industrial sociology that challenges the unitarist view of the workplace as essentially harmonious. While views of workplaces as being conflictual and exploitative have to be tempered with an understanding of the accommodative and cooperative nature of workplace relations, there is nevertheless a general recognition of acts of resistance, as well as those of cooperation. The way in which the National Statement is typically implemented in Australia means that many HRECs require written, informed consent, which in the first instance will usually be that of management. An unintended consequence is a research focus on consensus, which is at best one-sided and at worst seriously misleading. It is unlikely that managerial consent will be granted unless there is a ‘good news story’ guaranteed. This article explores the ways in which HRECs may influence workplace research. The publication of the revised National Statement provides a valuable opportunity not to be missed by HRECs to implement more effective and efficient practices which would not have the unintended consequences of the earlier version. This would deserve the support of researchers in industrial sociology and other branches of the social sciences.

Flexing Some Muscle: Strategy and Outcomes in the Queensland Health and Fitness Industry

In 1993, contrary to the trend towards enterprise bargaining, and despite an employment environment favouring strong managerial prerogative, a small group of employers in the Queensland commercial health and fitness industry sought industrial regulation through an industry-specific award. A range of factors, including increased competition and unscrupulous profiteers damaging the industry’s reputation, triggered the actions as a business strategy. The strategic choices of the employer group, to approach a union to initiate a consent award, are the inverse of behaviours expected under strategic choice theory. This article argues that organizational size, collective employer action, focus on industry rather than organizational outcomes and the traditional industrial relations system providing broader impacts explain their atypical behaviour.

PHYSICAL CAPITAL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR FITNESS WORKERS IN QUEENSLAND

Sexual, social and employment success have been linked to the physical capital drawn from having aesthetic attributes of the socially idealised body. In certain workplace settings, such as health and fitness centres, the body becomes a mainstream commodity with physical capital affording the fitness worker a high degree of distinction and adoration as well as employment opportunities. The employment relationship is shaped by ‘lookism’, with both the employer and employee taking advantage of the fitness workers idealised form. The workers physical capital provides a walking billboard advertising the employers products and services, while exposure to comparison and adoration provides a heightened sense of self-worth, distinction and celebrity. Fitness workers appear to be prepared to ignore poor employment conditions or trade-off standard entitlements for the alternative rewards that their physical capital brings.