Wreyford’s Research Question, Context And Justification

REPORT ABOUT THE RESEARCH WREYFORD, N., (2015). “BIRDS OF A FEATHER: INFORMAL RECRUITMENT PRACTICES AND GENDERED OUTCOMES FOR SCREENWRITING WORK IN THE UK FILM INDUSTRY.” Student’s Name Course Date Part 1 Wreyford’s Research question, context and justification Natalie Wreyford is concerned about the rate which men have taken over the film industry in the United Kingdom. Wreyford’s main concern is that allowing men to dominate the film industry denies women chances for development and limits diversity in the film industry. While it is possible for one to assume that perhaps women have not developed interest in this industry, Wreyford starts the argument by stating out that the methods of recruitment used to enrol women in the film industry disadvantages women. Even the topic of the article lays out what Wreyford intends to discuss in the paper. The topic mentions”informal recruitmwnr practices and gendered outcomes…” Wreyford writes that her article seeks to unpack the truth in recruitment procedures that rely on ‘connections’ and ‘afinities of habitus’ and how this limited approach leads to gender inequality in the film industry (p. 84). One can, therefore, conclude that Wreyford’s research question is: How do informal recruitment procedures lead to gender inequality in the United Kingdom’s film screenplay? And why do film employers opt to use social and professional connections as tools of recruitment? The concern is that disadvantaging women in the film industry denies them an opportunity in the talent development. Wreyford justifies “social recruitment procedures” in the UK film sector by arguing that the film industry is not the new sector that has gone head to rely on social connections in recruitment procedures. Wreyford writes that social connections in the employment processes have disadvantaged many groups in the cultural sector and even quotes Gill’s research on the development of social connection procedures. Wreyford writes that in the film industry, workers are always relying on networking processes and this has led to the gender inequality in the industry. Wreyford is concerned that even women have accepted this norm and they are hardly objected to it. Wreyford also justifies the research question by using data in the research. The fact that women made only 16.1% of the UK film industry between 2010 and 2012 and ten percent in 250 films produced in 2013 reveal that gender inequality is a menace that requires immediate attention. Another justification is when she writes that “One male employer listed his grandfather, father, uncles, cousin…as all working in the industry” (p. 92). This implies that the film industry in the UK is has taken a social connection approach and that is why she sarcastically names her article “Birds of a feather” in reference to the nature of theUK film sector. Approach to the Research Wreyford uses a quantitative research approach to tackle the research question and find the truth underlying the gendered UK film sector. Data is collected from research surveys and interviews using a multicultural approach. Wreyford conducts 40 semi-structured interviews with screenwriters and their employers to identify why employers have opted to rely on social connection recruitment approaches. The reason for this approach is to reveal the disadvantage that the approach creates to the industry, especially for women who are potentially disadvantaged candidates. Wreyford’s study reveals that women screenwriters made up just 16.1 per cent of all the writers of UK independent films released in 2010–2012 and only 10 per cent of the writers of the two hundred and fifty films in 2013 (Wreyford, N. 2915, p. 87). If one was to research the statistics presented here based on social connections, it would not be surprising to find that most of the women that participated in these films were connected by their relatives or the people that had close ties to them. Wreyford’s sample of study comprises of thirty-four white film owners and six black film owners and traders. The choice of this sample is to identify cultural aspects of the film industry and find reveal whether there is any connection between racial differences and recruitment approaches. Unfortunately, Wreyford finds that there is no significant different between the white employers or traders and the black in the industry. This implies the depth of social connections and why it is difficult for women to navigate the cycle if they are not linked to someone in the industry. Wreyford also notes that even though all the film traders and employers for her study were based in London while the screenplay writers were drawn from different geographical regions in the country, there was still a gap in gender representation in the industry. The fact that film owners have the capacity to draw relatives from different parts of the country shows the seriousness of the industry and the expectations placed on potential female employees. Wreyford’s research goes ahead to reveal the reasons as to why many film owners and traders rely on social and professional connections. Two of the reasons why employers opt for social connections is the level of confidentiality and reliability. Wreyford writes that some of the samples interviewed confessed that strangers are not always available when they are required. Wreyford also concealed the identities of her interviewees when she published her research. The reasons for concealment of identities was for ethical reasons. Why Wreford conducted the Research in the Above Manner Wreyford argues that she decided to pick the interviewees from London because London has many film industries. She does not give any justification for deciding to pick on thirty-four white film owners and six black film owners and traders. One can, however, comfortably conclude that white people make the dominant race in the UK and Wreyford did not have a specific criterion of having an equal racial representation. Furthermore, her research question was to unearth gender inequality in the film industry in general and not on a specific culture. If the research was based on a specific culture, she could have not used random sampling approach which generated a big racial disparity margin in the sampled group. Practically, Wreyford started the research early enough and that is why she found time to conduct forty interviews with potential samples of her research. Wreyford seems to have first identified her samples and this is why she states that she had to make sure that she had to make sure that her sample had a bigger representation of women (23 women out of a sample of 40) (Wreyford, N., p. 87). The reason for going to a weighted bigger representation of women was to determine whether female employers could have recruited their fellow women to the industry. The fact that even with a greater representation of female employers she still ended up with gender disparity reveals how employers have decided to rely on social and professional connections to recruit screenplay writers to the industry. One would have expected that with a bigger female sample, female could have performed better. Another reason why Wreyford used quantitative approach and interview in the research was to determine the impact of homophily in the film sector. Wreyford defines homophily as an approach used to determine why people will always want to stay connected to the individuals they share common characteristics with. Most of the interviewed employers stated that social and professional connections provided the level of trust and reliability. The cost of producing films is also always high and it is not guaranteed that the audience will always like it. No employer will, therefore, want to experiment or take chances with new screenplay writers in the industry. Link between approaches and findings As discussed earlier, Wreyford’s findings for this study relied on quantitative data that she collected from forty interviews. Surprisingly, even after making sure that female employers exceeded male employers in the industry; her study did not yield significant positive result for female screenplay writers in the industry. Male screenplay writers still dominated the industry, implying how far social connections have taken the film industry in the UK. Gaps and limitations Every research project has gaps and limitations and Wreyford’s research is not reflections. Wreyford’s research is restricted to London alone. It is possible that the results could have been different if Wreyford could have tried to incorporate other towns and cities. Wreyford also relied on interviews and used a biased sample where the number of female interviewees was weighted to have be higher than that of male interviewees. This may have impacted the results. If she had used a random sampling method, the results could have been different. Interviews are also full of biases but Wreyf...