“They can’t be serious,” was the first reaction of one of the
students I asked to look critically at this paper. But of course they are,
unfortunately. This paper does read like a parody of itself. The main
difficulties are the unnecessarily convoluted language, the fact that some of
the conclusions are blindingly obvious, the vagueness of the sample on which
the research is based, the lack of any real information about whether the
conclusions always apply or sometimes apply (and if so how often), or indeed any
satisfactory audit trail to link the conclusions with the data on which they
are supposedly based. And the conclusions are so vague it’s actually difficult
to see what they are.
In short, I think this paper is a complete waste of time. Which
is a pity, because a study of careers in the advertising industry could be very
interesting and useful from the perspective of various stakeholders – the advertising
creatives themselves, those managing the agencies, and society in general.
Furthermore very similar issues are likely to apply to other business areas.
The topic is a good one, worth researching.
The initial problem from the students’ point of view is the
language used. For example: “People
learn by participating in the shared practices of a community or ‘lived in
world’ (Fuller and Unwin, 1998). A community
of practice is a collectively developed understanding of the nature and
identity of the community to which its members are accountable. It is sustained
through norms and relationships of mutuality and a shared repertoire of
communal resources, language routines, artefacts, tools and stories. Those who
are involved in a particular ‘community’ understand its limits or boundaries.
What is learned by participants within a community is identity formation,
rather than knowledge per se: according to Lave and Wenger (1991, p. 53),
‘[l]earning implies becoming a different person with respect to the
possibilities enabled by these systems of relations’. It is the gradual construction
of an identity and learning to talk within a practice (rather than about
it) that allows the novice to become part of a community.” (p. 115)
Does this mean “a
community has its own know-how, jargon, assumptions and habits which people
pick up as they participate”? If so why not use simpler language like this? And
isn’t it actually rather obvious? Any group has its own jargon and
idiosyncracies which beginners need to learn. We all know this. We don’t need
research to tell us. Isn’t this just
translating the obvious into long words so we don’t realize it’s obvious?
Or have I misunderstood because the words are too long for me?
What conclusions
does the article come to? The first paragraph of the concluding section is
“The focus of the
paper has been on how career trajectories unfold within the advertising
industry as a community of practice. It is within this context that
anticipatory socialization, situated learning, and the move from periphery to
centre takes place. Advertising's creative community is not simply a backdrop
for learning: individuals created and developed the community through social
action, and this inter-relationship was crucial in shaping career trajectories.”
And the last
sentence of the article is:
“Nonetheless,
this study of advertising creatives suggests that, although modern careers may
be individualized undertakings, they increasingly unfold within norms and
practices of multiple, inter-related occupational communities.”
These extracts
give a good flavour of the style of conclusions derived from the research. But …
surely all careers “unfold” within “multiple,
inter-related occupational communities”, all
communities are created by individuals “through social action”, and people with
successful careers usually have little choice but to start on the periphery of
their chosen field and then try to move to the centre. And so on. In short, how could things be otherwise? We
really do not need research to tell us this!
Yes, but, you
might say, perhaps advertising creatives’ careers involve more interaction with multiple communities, and “anticipatory
socialization” and “situated learning” are more
important than they are in other careers. Perhaps. We are not told. These
things are not measured so there is no possibility of comparison. Besides their
obviousness, the lack of any indication of the magnitude of any of the features
described, or their importance compared with other contexts, makes the
conclusions too vague to be interesting.
We also really
need more detail of how the research was done. A sample of 34 creatives was
interviewed, which is fair enough. But who were they? We are told the sampling
was “informed” by industry knowledge, and various selection criteria to get a
sample of creatives in “different situations”. But we are not told how this was
done, or any of the details that are necessary to understand the composition of
the sample. A different sample would lead to different conclusions: the reader
needs to be convinced that the sample is in some sense typical. This reader is
not remotely close to being convinced.
Similarly, we are
told about open coding, being “mindful of our theory”, a small set of key
categories, theoretical codes, etc, etc. All the usual grounded theory stuff,
but without any more detail to tell the reader what it actually means. And then
we go straight into a narrative with statements like “creatives who had come
into advertising through such specialist courses talked about the value of what
they had learned in terms of craft skills, immersion in the community and
insights into its employment patterns and work practices.” Does this mean all
of them? Were they right? And where is the evidence, the codes, etc, etc? I
find it hard to believe the grounded theory stuff was actually carried out, and
harder still to believe it had any value. There’s certainly no trace of it in
the paper.
