Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 79 > Issue 4 (1981)
Abstract
The response to the study in the academic journals was extensive, particularly in light of its multidisciplinary nature, which could be seen as calling for reviewers capable of assessing not only the labor law recommendations, but also the data collection methodology and the statistical analysis. One law review dealt with the multidisciplinary nature of the study by inviting a psychologist and a law teacher to write a joint review, and another law review published separate reviews by a lawyer, a professor of labor law, a labor economist, a professor of industrial relations, and a labor reporter and editor. Most legal journals, however, were content with a single review, normally written by a lawyer or labor law teacher. Reviews by persons with a social science research background were published by a number of social science journals. There were also a number of commentaries on the study, and on the Board's brief acceptance of one of its recommendations, in the popular press.
A response to our critics requires a brief recapitulation of our .findings and conclusions, to which we tum next. That will be followed by our responses, first to the Board, then to the academic critics.
Recommended Citation
Stephen B. Goldberg, Julius G. Getman & Jeanne G. Getman,
Union Representation Elections: Law and Reality: The Authors Respond to the Critics,
79
Mich. L. Rev.
564
(1981).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol79/iss4/3