Wreyford’s Research Question, Context And Justification (Research Paper Sample)
Part 1: Critically reporting on existing research
Choose one of the readings listed further below and both describe and explain:
1. What its research question is, the broad context from which the question emerges (intellectual and/or social), and the broad justifications or motivations that the researchers provide for it (about 300 words)
2. how the researchers did or approached the research in question: e.g. the steps that they took, the methods that they used, the challenges that they negotiated (about 400 words)
3. why the researchers did what they did: the researchers’ (explicit and implicit) conceptual, practical and ethical reasons and justifications for taking the particular approach and steps that they did (about 400 words)
Note that the ‘how and why’ questions above would be best integrated into one discussion as they go hand in hand.
4. how the researchers’ methods and approaches shaped or led to their findings and conclusions. Note here that the emphasis is not on what the findings were or what the researchers argue, but how they got to these findings and arguments (about 350 words)
5. gaps and limitations in what the researchers did, and the possible or reported reasons for them; or how the gaps and limitations followed from the steps that the research took (about 300 words)
Part 2: Designing a new research project Report on how you would or could go about researching a new question raised by the piece of research that you discussed in Part 1.
1. Briefly contextualize the new research question by discussing why it is or could be a useful or necessary one to research: e.g. why does the question matter, what can it shed light upon (about 250 words).
2. Describe and explain how you would do this new research (about 600 words):
a. the broad approach that you would take to the research
b. what types of sources you would plan to include, from where, and how you would access them, including human sources (i.e. people) if appropriate. If people, how you would invite them to participate in your research
c. after deciding on your type of sources, how you would ‘sample’ or make decisions about exactly what, how much, and/or who to include and exclude (e.g. which media texts exactly would you like at, from what time periods, what precise demographic of people might you interview, how many people would you aim to include, etc.)
d. what you would do with your sample to derive meanings and findings from it, (e.g. what data analysis method you would use; if researching people what you would do with them and how, etc.)
3. Why you would do the research in the above manner, why these particular approaches and steps (about 500 words)
Note that, as in part 1, the how and why discussion is best integrated into one as they go hand in hand.
4. Ethical and practical considerations you would need to take into account, and any challenges you would anticipate in doing the research (about 400 words)
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.”
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 fif...
- Wreyford’s Research Question, Context And JustificationDescription: 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....11 pages/≈3025 words | 7 Sources | Harvard | Communications & Media | Research Paper |