This article considers the practical methodological challenges and variances related to doing research in the cultural industries. More specifically, it seeks to illuminate how considering the specific proclivities of prescribed, historically inflected, fields of study and concomitant sites therein (e.g., in our case study, the infrastructural/cultural dynamics of media organizations in a small, central-European media market) force methodological (re)considerations which can enhance doing practical research in this realm.
AggeriF. (2017). How can performativity contribute to management and organization research? Theoretical perspectives and analytical framework. Management, 20, 28–69. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.201.0028
2.
AustinJ. L. (2011). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
3.
BanksM.ConorB.MayerV. (2015). Production studies, the sequel! Cultural studies of global media industries. Taylor & Francis.
4.
BrowneB. C.McBrideR. S. (2015). Politically sensitive encounters: Ethnography, access, and the benefits of “Hanging Out.”Qualitative Sociology Review, 11, 34–48.
5.
BuchananD.BrymanA. (2008). The organizational research context: Properties and implications. In BuchananD.BrymanA. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 1–18). Sage.
6.
CarpentierN. (2014). “Fuck the Clowns from Grease!!” Fantasies of participation and agency in the YouTube comments on a Cypriot problem documentary. Information Communication and Society, 17, 1001–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.875582
7.
CísařováL. W.MetykovaM. (2020). Peripheral news workers expelled to the periphery: The case of camera reporters. Journalism, 21, 838–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920901971
8.
CollinsH. (2019). Creative research: The theory and practice of research for the creative. Bloomsbury.
9.
DarbiW.KnottP. (2019). An organizational ethnography of strategic networking practice in an under-researched and potentially difficult to access setting: The roles of the researcher, the researched, and context. Sage.
10.
DeleuzeG. (1988). Qu’est-ce qu’un dispositif ? In Michel Foucault philosophe. Rencontre internationale, Paris 9, 10, 11 janvier 1988 (pp. 185–195). Paris: Seuil.
11.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
12.
DeuzeM.PrengerM. (2020). Making media: Production, practices, and professions. In DeuzeM.PrengerM. (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam University Press.
HesmondhalghD. (2019). The cultural industries. Sage.
18.
JenkinsH. (2006). Fans, bloggers, and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. New York University Press.
19.
KatzL. (2008). Negotiating International Business—Japan. In KatzL. (Ed.), Negotiating international business: The negotiator’s reference guide to 50 countries (pp. 262–271). CreateSpace.
20.
KotišováJ. (2019a). Devastating dreamjobs: Ambivalence, emotions, and creative labor in a post-socialist audiovisual industry. Iluminace, 31, 27–45.
21.
KotišováJ. (2019b). The elephant in the newsroom: Current research on journalism and emotion. Sociology Compass, 13, Article e12677. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12677
22.
LarrocheV. (2019). The dispositif. Wiley.
23.
LeeD.ZoellnerA. (2019). Media production research and the challenge of normativity. In DeuzeM.PrengerM. (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions (pp. 45–60). Amsterdam University Press.
24.
LindströmS. (2017). Be creative: Making a living in the new culture industries. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 23, 652–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2017.1330334
25.
MayerV.BanksM. J.CaldwellJ. T. (2009). Production studies: Cultural studies of media industries. Taylor & Francis.
26.
NegusK.PickeringM. (2004). Creativity, communication and cultural value. Sage.
27.
PaninaD. (2018). Kimberly D. Elsbach and Roderick M. Kramer. Handbook of qualitative organizational research. New York: Routledge, 2016, 488 Pages, $295 Hardback. Personnel Psychology, 71, 285–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12269
28.
RaffnsøeS.Gudmand-HøyerM.ThaningM. S. (2016). Foucault’s dispositive: The perspicacity of dispositive analytics in organizational research. Organization, 23, 272–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508414549885
SaussureF. (2011). Course in general linguistics. Columbia University Press.
32.
ThompsonE.BakhtinM. M.HolquistM.EmersonC.HolquistM. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. World Literature Today, 55, 693–694. https://doi.org/10.2307/40136453
33.
VonderauP. (2019). Access and mistrust in media industries research. In DeuzeM.PrengerM. (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions (pp. 61–72). Amsterdam University Press.
34.
WeinkeA.RosenbergT. (1997). The haunted land: Facing Europe’s ghosts after communism. German Studies Review, 20, 374–375. https://doi.org/10.2307/1431999
