Normal View Dyslexic View
Research Article
‘I’ve been working in TV for 10 years and I’ve never had that’: fostering perceived organisational support (POS) among skilled contingent workers in the television industry
Abstract
This article reports key findings from a pilot project to design, develop, and test an intervention aimed at increasing perceived organisational support among television freelancers. The initiative is a response to a problem rooted in this sector’s model of employment: the television industry has become dependent upon a skilled but contingent workforce who report feeling unsupported and isolated in a work environment characterised by instability and insecurity. The article draws from organisational support theory and explores the utility of the concept of perceived organisational support in its application to contingent workers. The intervention (Supportive Offboarding) was designed to signal support by the inclusion of four key components: the offer of feedback from the company; the request for feedback to the company; a career-related conversation; and the expression of gratitude. Each of these aspects of the intervention is tested, its outcomes analysed, and its implications assessed.
Keywords
organisational support theoryperceived organisational supportfreelancerstelevisioncontingent workforceSupportive OffboardingIntroduction
Over several decades, the television industry’s dominant model of employment has altered, becoming increasingly dependent upon a skilled but contingent workforce—a ‘great army of freelancers’ (Hesmondhalgh & Baker 2011: 137). These ‘hands-for-hire’ exist in a liminal space, treated neither as independent suppliers, nor as employees. They report feeling unsupported and isolated in a work environment characterised by high levels of instability and insecurity, with the period leading up to the end of each contracted term experienced as a time of heightened vulnerability. This article reports key findings from a pilot project that set out to design, develop, and test an initiative aimed increasing perceived organisational support among television freelancers. The intervention—Supportive Offboarding—consists of a brief structured meeting between a freelancer and a facilitator representing the employer: an opportunity for a constructive conversation at around the time the freelancer’s contract is nearing its end with the employing company.
The project described in this article, spanning the execution of both the intervention and its accompanying evaluation, significantly draws upon, and extends, the concept of perceived organisational support (POS) as understood within organisational support theory (Kurtessis et al. 2017). Simply put, this idea recognises the importance of the social exchange which occurs between employer and employed beyond the purely pecuniary contract. The way in which workers perceive how their contribution is valued and the extent to which their well-being is considered are reflected in attitude, performance, and withdrawal behaviours.
The intervention outlined has been designed to signal support to freelancers by the inclusion of four key components: the offer of feedback from the company; an invitation to the freelancer to provide feedback to the company; an opportunity for a career-related conversation; and the expression of gratitude. A carefully structured process and a set of resources enable its implementation to be administered by a non-specialist facilitator representing the employing company. It sets out to be practical, resource-efficient, and flexible. The project took place over a ten-month period in 2024–5. In setting out to design, develop, and test each of the intervention’s main component parts, the project has integrated a broad range of conceptual and methodological approaches drawn from complementary disciplines. These include management studies, organisational psychology (and organisation studies more broadly), and career scholarship. The last, itself a significant and developing discipline, includes both conceptual approaches to career development and the more practice-oriented work of career counselling. It makes an original contribution to the disciplinary fields on which it draws by evaluating, applying, and adapting concepts in relation to the specific and distinctive subject of the television worker with the aim of both extending knowledge and informing practice. It has broader implications for the application of the principles of organisational support for contingent workers more widely.
Context
Critical examination of the nature of work in the television industry first emerged during the 1990s—most notably, from the British Film Institute’s TV Industry Tracking Study 1994–1998 (Dex et al. 2000) and the pioneering research of Gillian Ursell (2000). These studies provided important clues about the way that the TV industry’s employment model was changing to become increasingly fragmented and casualised. Since that time, research in this area has burgeoned, highlighting a wide range of features both directly and indirectly related to the increasingly contingent nature of work in this industry. These have included: long hours and poor working conditions (Ursell 2000); subtle forms of exclusion based on access to work being dependent on informal networks (Lee 2011; Wreyford 2015); lack of skills and professional development opportunities (Grugulis & Stoyanova 2009); the workplace’s toll on mental health (Wilkes et al. 2020); the industry’s culture of bullying (van Raalte et al. 2023), gender disparities, particularly as they relate to motherhood (Percival 2019; Dent 2020; O’Brien & Arnold 2024) as well as systemic inequalities related to class, gender, race (Brook et al. 2020), disability (Randle & Hardy 2016), place (Oakley et al. 2017), and age (Steele 2022). This growing body of literature, focusing mainly on film and television, reflects the development of a broader critical interest in the experience of labour right across the creative and cultural sector (demonstrated in the work of thinkers such as Angela McRobbie, David Hesmondhalgh, Rosalind Gill, and Mark Banks).
Against this backdrop, the project described below responds to a structural paradox within television employment that has come into sharper focus as understanding of the sector has deepened: while the industry attracts a surplus of ambitious new entrants, it simultaneously fails to retain many highly skilled practitioners, with substantial numbers having exited by mid-career (Wallis & van Raalte 2022). This ‘brain drain’ has been increasingly evident as demand for television content has grown more erratic. Between 2015 and 2025, the industry in the UK experienced two unprecedented booms and two downturns which sharply exposed the loss of experienced workers. This loss stems not just from job instability but from workers feeling unsupported in their day-to-day work. Indeed, lack of support was a key issue raised by respondents to the survey, State of Play 2021 undertaken for the industry’s union, Bectu (van Raalte et al. 2021) following the Covid-19 pandemic. This study found that freelancers attributed lack of support to various interconnected aspects of television production culture, echoing issues that scholars had been highlighting for some time (as noted above), as well as to an overall paucity of basic good management practices. Indeed, untrained managers were often freelancers themselves. In short, television freelancers collectively expressed a need for a more supportive environment, along with some of the systems and structures that, in a traditional workplace, would be provided by an effective HR department.
Organisational learning and the improvement of work practices and culture are deterred mainly by the project-based nature of television production. In this context, lessons go unlearned or are quickly forgotten. The wheel is constantly being reinvented. Across different projects, work culture can vary dramatically even within the same organisation at the same moment. Declarations of good intention regarding organisational cultural improvements often prove short-lived, especially during times of fluctuating demand. Within this context, implementing a specific, simple, and systematic approach to freelancer support may offer a more reliable means of instituting and maintaining good practice.
The immediate precursor to this project was a small but defining feasibility study undertaken in 2022 supported by the British Film Institute (BFI), which asked the question: ‘In what way could existing management protocols and practices be adapted and applied to ensure the more effective support of a largely freelance workforce?’ The review identified two key practices that are commonly utilised in industries with more mature HR frameworks: performance reviews and exit interviews. Whilst neither are directly applicable within a freelance employment context, both provide useful points of reference when considering how freelance support might be improved. The idea of an intervention that draws from both practices attracted support from those industry partners who were consulted as part of the study—at least in principle. In practice, many potential obstacles were envisaged. Anticipated challenges included prohibitive time constraints, limited resources, insufficient training or confidence to deliver such an intervention, a lack of trust in the process, as well as broader concerns about the likelihood of candour.
What emerged from this consultation and feasibility work was a ‘white paper’, End-of-contract Interviews (Wallis 2022). Whilst not advocating an ‘exit interview’ per se (at least in the sense that this term is generally understood), this proposal made the case for the liminal period approaching the end of a freelancer’s contract being treated as a crucial moment for the expression of support. It identified this support in terms of the offer of feedback; the request for feedback from the freelancer; and the opportunity to review the employee’s performance in relation to their own career aspirations and continuing professional development needs. It argued that such a conversation need not be over-demanding of time or be necessarily resource intensive. It suggested that, to alleviate concerns about trust and candour, the conversation must be confidential, optional, and facilitated by someone situated at a distance from the project on which the freelancer had been working. It suggested that such a conversation might be highly effective in terms of POS without needing to be of a depth that would require extensive facilitator training. The paper proposed a pilot project to develop a framework and explore the practicalities of delivering such an intervention.
Perceived organisational support (POS)
The concept of perceived organisational support (POS) is the foundational construct in the evolving field of organisational support theory (OST), contributing significantly to our understanding of how employees perceive and respond to their employing organisations (Eisenberger et al. 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002; Krishnan & Mary 2012; Kurtessis et al. 2017). The theory’s origins are in the broader study of organisational behaviour and the concept of social exchange, particularly the work of Peter Blau and Alvin Gouldner, whose analyses of reciprocal exchange and the norm of reciprocity have highlighted the way that employment relationships extend beyond purely economic transactions to encompass social and emotional resources (Blau 1964; Gouldner 1960). Building on this foundation, Robert Eisenberger and colleagues conceptualised POS as employees’ general belief that their organisation values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al. 1986). In doing so, OST exemplifies a broader turn in organisational psychology towards relational and positive paradigms, foregrounding how perceptions of recognition, fairness, and care shape engagement, resilience, and organisational effectiveness.
Central to this perspective is the understanding that, while employers may prioritise employee commitment and performance, employees attend closely to whether their efforts are acknowledged and their welfare considered. POS thus strengthens the psychological contract (Rousseau 1989) by signalling organisational intent and trustworthiness, and by reinforcing the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner 1960). Supportive practices, such as fair treatment, participative leadership, recognition of achievement, and demonstrable concern for well-being, operate as socioemotional resources that employees interpret as indicative of organisational support. Meta-analytic evidence confirms that perceptions of fairness, supervisor support, favourable HR practices, and positive working conditions are key antecedents of POS (Kurtessis et al. 2017), which in turn predicts affective commitment and discretionary effort (Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002).
Yet much of this evidence derives from studies conducted in contexts characterised by standard employment arrangements: stable, long-term organisational memberships in which the employment relationship is clearly defined and sustained over time. In such settings, commitment is often intertwined with tenure and organisational identification. The applicability of OST to freelance or project-based employment is therefore less straightforward. Industries such as television that have been at the forefront of the expansion of nonstandard work arrangements, are characterised by short-term contracts, fluid organisational boundaries, and frequently changing teams and production structures. Under these conditions, the locus of ‘the organisation’ becomes more ambiguous, raising important questions about how, from whom, and with what consequences freelancers might be expected to perceive organisational support.
The Covid-19 pandemic brought the vulnerability of this group of workers into sharp relief, underscoring the critical need for more research in this area. Freelancers in television and related creative industries experienced disproportionate income shocks and employment disruption compared to permanent employees, with many reporting an absence of any organisational safety nets and inconsistent access to government support schemes (Swords & Johns 2024). This has highlighted the need to examine the relevance of OST to contexts where work is episodic, project-based, or structured through complex industry networks. Within the television industry, perceived organisational support (POS) would seem to have the potential for broader appropriation: not for cultivating long-term allegiance to a particular employer, but (setting aside normative considerations) for its potential to sustain a skilled and responsive freelance workforce for the industry at large.
Some such scholarship exists. Shore & Tetrick (1991), for example, had long established that, whilst temporary employees often experience lower levels of organisational commitment due to the transient nature of their employment, they may still feel supported by the employing organisation in ways that enhance their professional well-being. Subsequent studies have sought to reconceptualise POS in light of fragmented or episodic work arrangements. In their review of the evolving themes emerging within OST during the first decade of the 21st century, Baran et al. (2012) identify ‘nontraditional employee-employer relationships’ as a significant theme, although noting that ‘utilization of temporary or contract workers who move in and out of the organisation as needed, may make the development of POS more difficult’ (131). One particular strand of research in this area has been work facilitated by agencies, examining the implications for POS of the dual role of staffing agency and client organisation (Lopes et al. 2019). Another has been organisational career management practices: Sulbout et al. (2022) have observed how such practices differ in the context of skilled contingent workers. They discuss the significance of the formality of such support, how person-focused it is, and whether different levels and types of contingent workers may be treated differently. Studies from related disciplines (those not necessarily identifying with OST) have also begun to recognise the need for support that contingent workforces experience, although much of this is embryonic. As a recent study of ‘IPros’ (independent professionals)—that is, those who work as contractors, freelancers, and self-employed individuals—points out, these workers have not been within the remit of talent management theory or practice, suggesting a significantly neglected area of understanding (McKeown & Pichault 2021). There is, therefore, a pressing need for a more comprehensive understanding of the experience of skilled contingent work in a field like television production, and how this workforce might be better supported.
Approach and methodology
From the outset, this project has been shaped by a number of conceptual principles that have guided its development. First, the case for the intervention was presented to the funder and to partners as a moral initiative grounded in an ethics of care: an approach that emphasises empathy, relationships, and the responsibility to care for others. Unlike traditional ethical theories focused on rules or consequences, it highlights the importance of context and personal connections in making moral decisions. It argues that people’s well-being is shaped by their relationships and that moral choices should prioritise compassion and responsibility toward others. Over the past four decades, scholars such as Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings, and Joan Tronto have significantly expanded this perspective, and it is now widely applied in areas like healthcare, education, and social work (Engster & Hamington 2015). It is also evident in shifting social attitudes, such as in recent interpretations of what constitutes an employer’s ‘duty of care’. Supportive Offboarding, then, is premised on this moral imperative of organisations to support their workforce, and not simply because it may be good for business to do so.
Second, the notion of liminality has informed this approach in recognising that the period leading up to the end of a freelancer’s contract is a crucial transition, where meaningful support could significantly enhance their experience and shape future career decisions. Liminality, a concept first articulated by Turner (1967: 93–111) in anthropological studies of ritual, captures the transitional and indeterminate space that emerges during periods of passage and change, often marked by psychological and emotional strain, ambiguity, and disorientation. In the case of freelancers, anticipating the end of a contract is often marked by uncertainty, anxiety, and vulnerability. While financial insecurity may be a primary stressor, other factors such as disrupted routines, loss of professional identity, and increased isolation can further intensify this experience. Research on career transitions has examined the psychological processes of sensemaking, identity work, and stress management. While much of this scholarship focuses on traditional employment, these dynamics are equally relevant to television freelancers, who must navigate such transitions frequently and without any structural support.
Third, the approach taken here is pragmatic, acknowledging that ideas that seem impressive on paper may sometimes prove impractical. Pragmatism prioritises what is possible in practice, rather than what might be ideal in theory (Ormerod 2006). It values action, adapting what is known to be effective to real-world situations. It recognises that solutions must be flexible, responsive to different situations, and able to evolve as new challenges arise. The aim here has not been to provide the television industry with an immutable framework for feedback-giving, career support, or other cultural change initiatives, but rather to address such support in a limited and focused way. Furthermore, the intervention was never imagined to be a cure-all for the sector’s complex and systemic employment challenges. The Supportive Offboarding approach was always intended to be a modest, specific, and practical intervention that can be implemented swiftly, within a context where budgets are tight, people are busy, and time is limited.
Fourth, the approach draws from the principles of strengths-based management, reflecting a broader disciplinary shift within psychology over recent years: a significant change of emphasis away from pathology toward ‘positive subjective experience, positive individual traits, and positive institutions’ (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi 2000: 5). Departing from traditional deficit-focused models, strengths-based management foregrounds an approach to managing people that contributes to flourishing, emphasising human strengths, well-being, and optimal functioning (for example, resilience, gratitude, and satisfaction) aiming to enhance both individual and collective well-being (Ryff & Singer 2008). By focusing on positive subjective experiences and individual personal growth, this approach provides a relevant and evidence-based foundation for developing an intervention tailored to support the occupational and psychological challenges faced by freelancers.
To advance this proposal into its pilot phase, Bournemouth University partnered with the UK-based production conglomerate Fremantle, a leading ‘super-indie’ producing popular shows that included (at the time of the pilot) Britain’s Got Talent, The Apprentice, Never Mind the Buzzcocks and The Rap Game. Shortly before the start of this work, Fremantle Global Entertainment had launched an initiative aimed at enhancing its talent pipeline and overseeing skills development across its global production operations. Recognising the mutual benefits of working together, Bournemouth University and Fremantle partnered to develop and test the proposed intervention. This pilot took place between March 2024 and February 2025, thanks to the generous support of the British Academy in the form of an Innovation Fellowship award. Given the need to appropriate methodological tools that would enable a highly responsive approach, the process drew heavily on action research, which is qualitative, inductive, and interpretive. Action research formalises the process of systematic reflection and development (McNiff 2000). Notably the work was cyclical (the same essential process being repeated); the intervention was iterative (with each pass developing/improving the intervention); and it was incremental (each new cycle building on the previous one). Each cycle consisted of five progressive steps: the design (or adjustment) of the intervention framework under development; creation (or amendment) of the associated briefing material/resources to support facilitators; implementation of the intervention (focused on the central conversation between facilitator and participant); research interviews (between researcher and participants, and between researcher and facilitator); and analysis of both the emerging interview data and observation/reflection on the implementation process. This analysis then informed the subsequent cycle, enabling a design–develop–test protocol to shape the evolving intervention framework and to refine the process of its implementation—a total of three cycles.
The first action cycle (April–July 2024: project weeks 6–23), facilitated from within Fremantle Global’s team, focused on the initial design and implementation of the intervention framework followed by some initial testing across a number of factual entertainment shows within Fremantle’s UK labels. The second action cycle (September–November 2024: project weeks 28–39), delivered by the talent team within Fremantle UK, focused on the further testing of the intervention, again across shows within Fremantle’s UK labels. The third action cycle (December 2024) continued in a similar vein, but introduced a further level of experimentation by incorporating six key variables: a non-UK cultural and regulatory context (Australia); a different organisational environment (Fremantle Australia); a regional production away from the capital (Melbourne); a contrasting genre (scripted); a milieu where longer-term contracts are the norm (long-running drama); and delivery of the intervention by HR (as distinct from the global or talent/recruitment team).
Facilitator/participant conversations took place mainly, although not entirely, in person. The approach taken by the talent team in cycle 2 was managed in a slightly different way from the others in that two people were often involved, one as the main facilitator and the other as notetaker. A typical Supportive Offboarding conversation in cycle 2 consisted of the participant and facilitator meeting face-to-face at the company’s head office, with the note-taker online. Research interviews were a mixture of in-person and online, a decision made on purely pragmatic grounds.
For ethical reasons the specific content of the conversation between the participant and facilitator remained confidential, was not recorded, and is not cited within this article. Rather, the project’s focus was the participant’s (and in many cases, the facilitator’s) reflection on their interaction after the event. Research interviews were semi-structured, guided by a flexible schedule. The first cycle featured 8 participants; the second featured 16; and the third, a further 10. In total, 34 freelancers participated in the study. Facilitators were interviewed after every conversation during the first cycle, as well as at strategic points in the process; 4 facilitator interviews took place for the second cycle; and 3 for the third cycle. In total, 17 research interviews were conducted with facilitators and a further 5 interviews were undertaken with other individuals to shed light on wider contextual issues and aspects of the intervention’s practical application (for example, interviews with senior managers not directly involved in the project).
As intimated above, through the research process described, a set of tested resources emerged. These were built around a facilitator’s prompt sheet, providing the structure for a focused conversation. This took the form of 12 carefully framed ‘prompts’ to structure the conversation through the intervention’s essential components. Over the course of the project, additional resources produced included an explanatory leaflet, a self-assessment exercise for participants (sent in advance of the conversation as preparation); some supplementary guidance for facilitator/administrators on setting up the process (email templates, etc); and some video support material. At the end of the project, an industry-facing report was also produced (Wallis 2025).
The internal process developed to expedite the Supportive Offboarding conversations was as follows. With the active support of the relevant head of production, an explanatory email was sent by the facilitator to prospective participants (that is, freelancers coming to the end of their time on a show) inviting them to take part. It was made clear that the offer was optional and they were free to decline, which several did. Those who accepted the offer were contacted a second time to arrange a convenient date for a one-to-one meeting; to send them a self-assessment exercise (ten questions) prior to the meeting; and to inquire whether they would like the facilitator to gather feedback about them. Where feedback was requested, the facilitator contacted the production team to ask for it, providing guidance on the tone and kind of feedback likely to be most helpful. Accordingly, the sample was self-selecting. The study’s population was defined as all individuals employed on the participating shows who were on contracts of three months or longer, where those contracts were due to conclude during the period of the research project. All individuals fitting these criteria were invited to participate, and no additional selection criteria were applied. Consequently, the final sample encompassed all levels of experience and the full gamut of production roles, from office runner to series producer.
Meetings between facilitator and participant took place at a mutually agreed time and place, most commonly in person but sometimes online. Crucial to this meeting was the facilitator’s prompt sheet. These meetings varied in length, generally reducing in time over the period of the pilot, as our facilitators became more practised at delivery. (The time demands of the intervention are discussed in more detail below.) Following the one-to-one conversation, the facilitator would typically have a few actions to complete, such as sharing promised information or facilitating a career-related connection for the freelancer.
Findings and discussion
Positivity and gratitude
The one-to-one session commenced with the facilitator conveying the company’s gratitude to the participant for their contribution. Later in the process, the participant was also invited, through the facilitator, to express their own appreciation to colleagues should they wish to. This opportunity for the expression of gratitude was not expected and was unanimously welcomed.
The practice of beginning each conversation with an expression of gratitude for an individual’s specific contribution, seems to have set a positive tone for the conversation that followed:
I thought it might be about kind of negative things. But actually, I was really pleasantly surprised that the nature of it was very positive and I thought that was a really good thing. (SO-A04)1
Another commented:
I was really pleasantly surprised at the line … of questioning. It was a positive line of questioning. ‘How do you think you have contributed to the role?’ ‘What do you think you could do in the future to …? So, I think it felt, as a freelancer, very thought-provoking. But also positively thought-provoking. So I was very impressed with that. (SO-A05)
Facilitators also commented positively on it being ‘a really nice way to put them [freelancers] at ease, knowing that there’s no secret agenda to this’. Another said:
It’s gone down very well, because they’ve probably never been thanked before, so that is a really nice thing—it’s a really nice part of it! (SO-BB4)
Yet another reflected:
The appreciation—it goes a long way. I realise that … since I’m having more of these conversations, they’re shocked. That’s the first reaction I get is that they’re shocked.’ (SO-CC4)
The facilitator’s offer to convey thanks to other people with whom the participant had worked had also been widely taken up, sometimes extensively. Commenting on one of these conversations, the facilitator recalled being given ‘a long list like the Oscars!’ (SO-AX3). One participant commented:
[It] felt nice to share what was positive about specific people in the team, because—well, I just think not enough people get told that they’re doing something really good, that’s made such a difference to someone’s experience. And that’s always worthwhile sharing. (SO-A07)
The expression of thanks on behalf of the company created space for reciprocal acknowledgment and gratitude. Crucially, by signalling that the efforts of individuals were noticed and valued, such exchanges were clearly perceived as a tangible form of organisational support.
Feedback from the company
The option to receive feedback from the company as part of the Supportive Offboarding conversation was widely taken-up and had been a new experience for most participants, typically remarking that ‘to finish a job and actually get some feedback’ (SO-A04) was a novelty:
You do a project and then you’re off, and your only feedback really is if you get booked by the same company again and you’re like, ‘oh, I must have done something well’ [laughs]. (SO-B09)
Where feedback had been requested (and been provided in a timely way by the production team), the facilitator conveyed it in the role of a neutral intermediary: someone focused on fostering constructive discussion rather than serving necessarily as a spokesperson for the feedback.
It was clear that feedback mattered a great deal to people. Participants expressed profound relief simply in having their competence affirmed. By contrast, absence of feedback creates insecurity. This was evident from remarks made not only by the young and inexperienced, but by seasoned operators. Despite being highly skilled and well regarded, one participant described in some detail what he referred to as his ‘imposter syndrome’ and his relief and reassurance at being told how much his contribution was appreciated.
This thirst for feedback extended to critical feedback, so long as it was constructive:
I love feedback, even when it’s critical, if I know that it comes from a good place—it’s constructive—because I want to be doing the job right, and if you can tell me early what isn’t satisfactory about it, then I can fix it. (SO-C03)
Contrary to early fears, feedback did not appear to be too difficult for facilitators to obtain, although, in a couple of cases, it had not arrived in time. Even so, it varied in quality and substance. It was often overly brief and sometimes superficial. It seldom contained great surprises for the recipient, and in most cases it had simply ‘confirmed a few things …’ (SO-A01) or ‘just cemented that what I’ve been doing, I’ve been doing well’ (SO-B13). In some cases, however, feedback had been highly specific and personalised:
I got feedback on how I handled a particular guest mentor who’s been a bit difficult, and I think that specific kind of feedback is always helpful because it’s kind of like, ‘OK, I did handle that situation good, even though it was a difficult one.’ (SO-B14)
Another reported:
I had some comments on improving my confidence to talk to senior people on the team and the execs. So, I think going forward, I’ll have that in the back of my mind. … It’s good to know it because I’d rather know so that I can work on it. (SO-B09)
Feedback was especially appreciated by participants in these cases where it had been specific and personalised. Nevertheless, all feedback had been welcomed, and any feedback was preferable to none. Typically:
It didn’t go into immense detail. It was just sort of headlines about, you know, being professional, working well as a team. And that’s all you can ask for really, as a freelancer. To know that you did your job to the best of your abilities and that there were no complaints at the end. (SO-A04)
Although the offer of feedback was made to all participants, it had not always been taken up. This was sometimes because of an oversight or lack of engagement in the process on the part of the participant, and sometimes for other reasons. Those in more senior roles were notably less inclined to ask for feedback knowing it would have come from peers, or people whose opinions they felt they already knew, or who (they thought) might be too busy to give it the necessary time. A number of those who had declined the offer, however, were clearly conflicted about having done so:
I’m desperate for feedback! I say it all the time. … I would love to have some kind of structured feedback… . (SO-A08)
Another said:
I guess at the time it didn’t necessarily feel like something that I needed, but on reflection, I feel like in the future I would. (SO-B06)
Whether or not people asked for feedback, the proactive offer of feedback had been noted and appreciated. This was particularly so by those who said they would have been reluctant to ask for it themselves.
Participants were asked their thoughts about their feedback being delivered to them by someone who had not been closely involved in their project. Many were ambivalent on this point but thought it to be of equal value to the alternative:
I think if I did have this conversation with someone on the team, that would have also been useful. It just would have been a very different conversation. (SO-A01)
Another participant reflected that a third-party conversation like this ought to complement, rather than be an alternative to, a team debrief. In at least one case, it was the conversation with the facilitator that had directly prompted a subsequent conversation with the line manager:
… after the chat, I went and spoke to my boss and we had a little catch-up about it, so I did kind of get both versions, if that makes sense. … Because I wouldn’t, naturally, maybe have the confidence to go and ask ‘hey, please give me feedback on what I’ve done’. Whereas this kind of sparked that conversation. (SO-B09)
The facilitation of a third party in the feedback process did seem to add symbolic value to the conversation, indicated by comments such as:
it was really lovely having them read what she had said about me, to me. (SO-B10)
Another commented:
it was good to just hear it and also hear it from someone else. (SO-C06)
Overall, then, although not everyone requested feedback, there was an overwhelming consensus that the offer of feedback was welcome, and when given, it was seen as meaningful, irrespective of its quality:
… for them to, like, write it and say ‘look, I’ve noticed it—we see you, and we see that’—that was quite validating. (SO-B12)
Any and all feedback was better than none. Or as one participant put it:
It was just nice to get it, full stop! (SO-B14)
The career focus
Since freelancers rarely have the chance to discuss their career aspirations, another opportunity to demonstrate organisational support was the space to reflect on how their recent experiences may relate to their longer-term career aspirations. This opportunity to discuss careers and development needs was widely welcomed, although a few participants expressed mild disappointment about the limited time available. This part of the conversation was necessarily brief and was intentionally framed not as career counselling, but rather as an opportunity to provide a listening ear with occasional insights or tips drawn from the facilitator’s own experience, and, where appropriate, the offer of introductions:
I think it was really useful. And to hear from someone who has also a quite different experience to me, I think was very valuable as well. And you know, there was a couple of people who he pointed me in the right direction to in Fremantle, who I might not have known about. (SO-A08)
This aspect of the intervention, then, was generally thought to have been ‘very helpful and positive’ (SO-B03):
As a freelancer, sometimes you feel like it can be quite a competitive industry. But to have somebody to sort of say ‘no, no, I think you’re doing the right thing’ and from a personal perspective, ‘I know people that have done this’ or maybe signpost courses and other sort of areas that I could look at in the future—I thought that was really helpful. (SO-A04)
For the more junior participants, the practical aspect of this career-related part of the conversation was especially appreciated:
[It was] really good, to get tangible feedback of what can I actually do, rather than just go, ‘oh, you should see if they’re hiring!’ because I’ve tried that and no one replies to my e-mail so I don’t know what to do! So, getting actual ‘I will cc you with this person’ or ‘send you a link to this course’ is really helpful as practical steps. (SO-A07)
Not all conversations included this kind of practical support. In many cases, this aspect of the intervention had consisted of little more than a few minutes of attention, recognition, and affirmation. Nevertheless, it was clearly perceived as supportive as an offset, at least notionally, to the endless pressure simply to land the next contract:
First and foremost, at the top of my head, is ‘at the moment, where’s my next contract coming [from]?’ Where’s the money coming for the mortgage? Rather than—realistically—where do I want to be in five years-time? (SO-B05)
It is this ongoing need to find work in the form of the next contract that acts as a disincentive to reflect on longer-term aspirations:
I think, so often, I’m not really thinking long term. I’m thinking ‘ohh God, my contract finishes in a week and I just need to find work!’ (SO-B09)
Hence, to be asked direct questions about their broader career trajectory was seen as valuable:
I think, day-to-day, we’re often in this industry so busy thinking about the production and focusing on the needs of production, that we don’t necessarily take much time to consider our own circumstance and our own career development. I think it’s quite difficult to build that into our day-to-day. And so, I think I found the pause—having a moment to pause and think and reflect on it, really, really useful. (SO-A04)
Here again, then, it was the novelty of this experience that participants noted.
Feedback for the company
As with other aspects of this intervention, there had been initial surprise at being invited to provide the company with feedback, with comments like ‘I hadn’t been asked that question [before]’ (SO-B08) and ‘it doesn’t happen often, if at all …’ (SO-B09). This had led to some initial scepticism:
I think initially … I was like ‘oh this is just some more corporate reputation washing or something’. … That’s my initial reaction. But I think I did—partly because I heard that there was a more junior member of the team who did it and said they got something out of it … that did make me think that maybe I should at least engage with this a bit better …. (SO-B02)
Despite such initial misgivings, feedback in most cases had been positively constructed by participants, often involving comparisons of the company’s processes or practices with those of other employers they had worked for:
I just said some stuff that had happened at previous companies which hadn’t happened at this company, and thought maybe that’s a way to approach things. (SO-B05)
Another commented:
… it wasn’t necessarily that I had anything kind of massive to contribute, but there were a few things that I thought, from experiences with other companies, that might be quite useful. You know, certain working practices when I’ve worked with other companies, and I was like ‘actually that would be quite handy if that happened at Fremantle’. So hopefully it felt like I could contribute those ideas and they might have an impact on other employees further down the line. (SO-A04)
Several facilitators commented that this part of the conversation had yielded some particularly useful insights and suggestions. Reporting on feedback given by one participant, the facilitator commented:
[The colleague] was very honest in a very constructive way about some of the challenges she faced, as well as the things that she obviously enjoyed about working on the project … . [She] talked about some of the ways that systems could be made easier and just improvements [to] our workflow basically, based on her own experience over at ITV previously. So that was very helpful for me personally, because it’s something that we can actually address and incorporate into future series. (SO-BB1)
Whether or not facilitators had felt empowered to take specific action in response to matters raised, there was thought to be value simply in being able to express a view or concern. Support was perceived to reside in the act of being heard:
I’ve been able to let go of a few things I’ve been thinking about in that I’ve told someone now, so I don’t have to mull over—I don’t have to ruminate over that anymore. Even if nothing really comes from it. (SO-B02)
Nevertheless, there was evidence of some caution and even self-censorship, in this part of the conversation. There were comments like:
I didn’t want to be saying the wrong things. (SO-B05)
As one participant said:
… you don’t want to be seen as being—you know, wrongly—you don’t wanna be seen to be ungrateful or causing a stir as a freelancer, because I think you—and especially in the current climate—you’re acutely aware that these are the people that are hiring you. [And someone who is] moaning a lot, you don’t wanna hire them. (SO-B07)
Another explained:
I just thought, I don’t really wanna be that guy. I don’t wanna be negative. I’ve got a good relationship with [the talent manager]. She’s great! … I don’t know how I would have addressed [a particular issue they had chosen not to raise] without feeling super-awkward. (SO-B13)
People were worried that they might be misunderstood, thought to be ‘making a fuss over nothing’ or creating problems. There was a concern about seeming negative to people one might still be working with, or would need to work with in the future, or whose feelings one didn’t want to hurt:
… you know how hard everyone else works and you don’t want to come across as critical. Especially when you’re so junior to someone senior, and you know that they’re dealing with challenges from the execs and the channel and legal and all those sorts of things. You don’t want to come across like a junior just whining about the things that were hard. (SO-A01)
Yet, despite some self-censorship of this kind, most participants reported having taken the opportunity to provide some form of feedback to the company, and this was generally felt to have been a positive experience:
It felt really good to share what I found good about the company with the hopes that that was something that they’d know benefited people and potentially would continue with or, you know, try to continue funding etc etc. (SO-A07)
Concerns that this aspect of the intervention might raise serious personnel issues, proved to be unfounded. On a couple of occasions where this might have been the case, the matter was already being dealt with by the company’s HR department. Generally, any problems raised had, as one facilitator put it, been ‘really easy stuff to fix’. (SO-AX4)
Participants considered the ‘third-party’ position of someone located outside the ‘bubble of production’ (SO-A05) to be essential when it came to their giving the company feedback, with none of the ambivalence expressed when asked about receiving feedback. One participant explained this in terms of ‘our own strange quasi-social/work relationship’ (SO-B02) that tends to muddy these kinds of conversations when they are within teams. Another said:
… when you [give feedback directly to] a producer who is kinda like your employer, you know, it’s a huge risk on yourself. We talk about all these horrible things that have happened in this industry … but if you have a third-party person, you know, it feels a lot safer …. (SO-C03)
Participants clearly wanted facilitators to be ‘a step away from the project’ (SO-B10) but still have a level of knowledge about the show (or at least its production processes more broadly). A facilitator needed to be someone that represented ‘a different perspective’ and to whom it would be ‘easier to be honest’, thereby providing a listening ear for ‘stuff I wouldn’t say to my immediate team’ (SO-B05), but at the same time, not so far removed that it would ‘feel like I was explaining something alien to them.’ (SO-B10). Three different approaches to arm’s-length facilitation were tested: first, with someone from a different part of the organisation; second, with the talent management team; and third, a member of the HR team. Each approach seemed to work, although factors such as personality, career background, and experience make it difficult to draw reliable conclusions about any correlation between facilitation effectiveness and role. The talent team seemed to occupy the strongest position, deeply knowledgeable about the show and its needs, yet entirely removed from the production process. They also had the advantage of being people who most freelancers were keen to talk to:
… as a freelancer you wanna be speaking to those people … because those are the people who are potentially going to give you jobs, and keep you in mind, and are aware of the different roles and stuff coming up across a massive company like Fremantle. You don’t want there to be stuff lost in translation. (SO-B07)
By the same token, the talent team found the process to be valuable to themselves, providing them with an idea of how productions had gone: helpful information they otherwise may not have been party to.
The request for feedback, then, was perceived as organisational support by freelancers in terms of the opportunity to get things ‘off one’s chest’ and in being encouraged to feel that one’s opinions counted and one’s voice was being heard:
I felt like my voice was really valued and they were really taking on everything that I was saying. (SO-B03)
Facilitators had conveyed a sense of genuine interest in the participants’ feedback (be it positive or negative) and this had been appreciated:
… they do want to listen to us, and they do want to know what kind of feedback we have so they can, you know, try and make things better … . (SO-B08)
Overall experience
Participants were asked to summarise their thoughts on the overall experience of the intervention and whether they would take the opportunity again, if it were offered. The response was unanimously positive to both questions. The experience had left them feeling ‘more openly supported by senior members of the team and the company’ (SO-A01). Although some admitted to having been initially sceptical or concerned about their limited time to participate, they consistently expressed the view that they were glad that they had. Having this kind of ‘human interaction’ helped them to feel ‘valued as an individual’ rather than being simply ‘a cog in a machine’ (SO-A01) or ‘just going through revolving doors’ (SO-B09). It was important to know that ‘what you’ve done on [the show] has been useful and appreciated, and that your feedback counts for something’ (SO-B13).
I thought it was great! I thought I would leave and feel like it was irrelevant. And I left and I felt excited! I think I thought it was just like a box they had to tick. But then I was like, ‘oh, this is about me—it’s actually you checking-in with me’. I felt respected and seen. (SO-C05)
The experience was taken as a recognition of the fact that they worked hard, and sometimes in challenging conditions:
… this series that I’ve worked on—this show in particular—it was quite a rollercoaster of a series, so I think [the intervention] couldn’t have come at a better time in all honesty! [Laughs]. (SO-B12)
Another participant (working on a different show) commented similarly:
[Name of the show] is quite a hard show—there’s downsides to it. But after this [conversation] I feel like I’m going away with a very nice experience, so it’s a nice send off! (SO-A06)
A recurring theme to these summative remarks was (once again) the overall novelty of the experience:
I’ve been working in TV for 10 years and I’ve never had that. (SO-B12)
This was echoed by many:
It’s not something I’ve ever had the opportunity to do before, and I think it’s something that the industry needs. (SO-B13)
Most expressed the view that it was something that ought to happen at the end of every contract, recognising that their relationship with employers is one of mutual dependence. One participant summed it up thus:
… it’s a two-way street, isn’t it? The companies need freelancers to work for them to make these programmes, and as freelancers, we want to work for companies but we want to also feel valued. So I thought that that was a really positive experience and something that I would definitely look to do again. (SO-A04)
Freelancers, then, welcomed the overall experience of the intervention, emphasising that it was highly unusual, but one they would gladly repeat.
Synthesis and conclusion
Motivated by both an ethics of care and the business imperative to retain skilled talent across the industry, this project set out to address the lack of organisational support experienced by contingent workers in the television industry. Grounded in the principles of strengths-based management, the project adopted a pragmatic, collaborative approach, working in close partnership with a major production conglomerate. Its intention was to design, develop, and test an intervention to signal support for freelancers at the time that their contracts were coming towards their end. Organisational support theory (OST) with its core construct of perceived organisational support (POS), has functioned as both the theoretical foundation for its design and primary criterion for its evaluation. Could even a relatively simple, light-touch intervention of this kind increase perceived organisational support among skilled contingent workers? The findings of this study indicate that it can. Freelancers reported that the experience engendered a sense of being validated, affirmed, and heard. In different ways, each of the four elements intentionally designed into the intervention appeared to contribute to this overall effect.
The unanimity of the enthusiasm for this intervention may, of course, be explained partly by its optional nature: those choosing to participate might be expected to be more favourably predisposed towards it. By the same token, alternative designs may well have yielded comparable outcomes. Almost certainly, further refinement could enhance the design versions tested here. It should also be noted that the disproportionately positive outcomes are likely to reflect not only the quality of the intervention but also the current paucity of any form of support for freelancers—analogous to the effect of water in a drought. The novelty of the experience emerged as a dominant theme. This raises a further question about sustainability: were such an intervention to become normalised practice, its meaning could shift. Well-being initiatives that begin as genuine gestures of care, once institutionalised, can be experienced as performative and tokenistic. The exit interview genre may be particularly susceptible to this, given its associations with organisational risk management. The findings reported here regarding participants’ anxieties about giving feedback speak directly to this vulnerability. How perceptions of such an intervention might evolve over time, and with familiarity, could be a productive focus for future research, although its voluntary nature remains an important protection.
These caveats notwithstanding, the findings of this study strongly suggest that there is a pressing need to continue adapting and extending the principles of organisational support for application within skilled contingent labour markets. Central to participants’ positive responses was the act of recognition. Being thanked, listened to, or given feedback (however limited) was experienced as highly validating. Such symbolic forms of support may be equal to, or even outweigh, transactional gestures in their impact, particularly in contexts where employment is unreliable or discontinuous. By focusing on the liminal phase of contract endings, the intervention has also indicated that the timing of this kind of support may be as significant as how it is delivered.
The study confirms that the concept of perceived organisational support is not only applicable to contingent labour markets but may be especially salient in such settings. Here, the beneficiaries of support are not confined to a single employing organisation but are distributed across the wider industry ecosystem and professional community. It is, therefore, the television industry collectively that must assume responsibility for the long-term sustainability of the sector by ensuring the resilience of its talent base. These findings, therefore, have implications not only for television production companies, but also commissioning bodies, broadcasters, unions, and other pan-industry bodies. Indeed, many smaller television companies would be unable to accommodate the approach as set out here, unaided. The answer to one of the secondary questions this project has sought to address—that of who is best placed to facilitate Supportive Offboarding—remains inconclusive, largely due to the marked resource disparity between ‘super-indies’ and the many SMEs in this sector.
In an industry like television, suffering the loss of mid-career talent, initiatives like Supportive Offboarding are urgently needed to foster a healthier work culture. They cannot be a panacea for the systemic problems of television production culture, particularly those rooted in the current employment model. Nevertheless, in a context where even small gestures matter, initiatives aimed at fostering POS, such as this one, offer a modest but meaningful pathway toward incremental change.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges support from the British Academy in the form of an Innovation Fellowship for the project ‘Supportive offboarding: Developing new practices to support sustainable freelance careers in TV’ (IF2324∖240035). He also thanks the production conglomerate Fremantle for collaboration and access to production teams in both the UK and Australia.
References
BaranB.E., ShanockL.R. & MillerL.R. (2012), ‘Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(2): 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3
BlauP.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life (New York, NY, Wiley).
BrookO., O’BrienD. & TaylorM. (2020), Culture is Bad for You: Inequality in the Cultural and Creative Industries (Manchester, England, Manchester University Press). https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526177827
DentT. (2020), ‘Devalued women, valued men: motherhood, class and neoliberal feminism in the creative media industries’, Media, Culture & Society, 42(4): 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719876537
DexS., WillisJ., PatesonR. & SheppardE. (2000), ‘Freelance workers and contract uncertainty: the effects of contractual changes in the television industry’, Work, Employment & Society, 14(2): 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170022118419
EisenbergerR., HuntingtonR., HutchisonS. & and SowaD. (1986), ‘Perceived organizational support’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3): 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
EngsterD. & HamingtonM. (eds.) (2015), Care Ethics and Political Theory (Oxford, Oxford University Press). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716341.001.0001
GouldnerA.W. (1960), ‘The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement’, American Sociological Review, 25(2): 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
GrugulisI. & StoyanovaD. (2009), ‘“I don’t know where they learn them”: skills in film and television’, in
SmithC. & McKinlayA. (eds), Creative Labour: Working in Creative Industries (New York, Palgrave Macmillan). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-12173-8_7
HesmondhalghD. & BakerS. (2011), Creative Labour: Media Work in Three Cultural Industries (London, Routledge).
KrishnanJ. & MaryV. (2012), ‘Perceived organisational support—an overview on its antecedents and consequences’, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(4): 1–13.
KurtessisJ., EisenbergerR., FordM., BuffardiL., StewartK. & AdisC. (2017), ‘Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory’, Journal of Management, 43(6): 1854–1884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575554
LeeD. (2011), ‘Networks, cultural capital and creative labour in the British independent television industry’, Media, Culture and Society, 33: 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443711398693
LopesS., ChambelM.J. & CesárioF. (2019), ‘Linking perceptions of organizational support to temporary agency workers’ well-being: the mediation of motivations’, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(5): 1376–1391. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-08-2018-1502
McKeownT. & PichaultF. (2021), ‘Independent professionals as talent: evidence from individual views of working as a contractor’, Human Resource Management, 60(2): 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22045
McNiffJ. (2000), Action Research in Organizations (London, Routledge).
O’BrienA. & ArnoldS. (2024), ‘Combining motherhood and work in the creative industries: mothers have the problem’, Media, Culture & Society, 46(6): 1200–1215. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437241229327
OakleyK., LaurisonD., O’BrienD. & and FriedmanS. (2017), ‘Cultural capital: arts graduates, spatial inequality, and London’s impact on cultural labor markets American’, Behavioral Scientist, 61(12): 1510–1531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217734274
OrmerodR. (2006), ‘The history and ideas of pragmatism’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(8): 892–909. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602065
PercivalN. (2019), ‘Gendered reasons for leaving a career in the UK TV industry’, Media, Culture & Society, 42(3): 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719890533
RandleK. & HardyK. (2016), ‘Macho, mobile and resilient? How workers with impairments are doubly disabled in project-based film and television work’, Work, Employment and Society, 31: 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017016643482
RhoadesL. & and EisenbergerR. (2002), ‘Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4): 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698
RousseauD.M. (1989), ‘Psychological and implied contracts in organizations’, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2): 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384942
RyffC.D. & SingerB. (2008), ‘Know thyself and become what you are: a eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being’, Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1): 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0
SeligmanM.E.P. & CsikszentmihalyiM. (2000), ‘Positive psychology: an introduction’, American Psychologist, 55(1): 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
ShoreL. & TetrickL. (1991), ‘A construct validity study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 637–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.637
SteeleD. (2022), ‘Absent friends: scaling the film and TV industry’s retention problem’, Film and TV Charity, Online: https://filmtvcharity.org.uk/leading-change/absent-friends-report/
SulboutJ., PichaultF., JemineG. & NaedenoenF. (2022), ‘Are skilled contingent workers neglected? Evidence from a cross-sector multiple case study on organizational career management practices’, European Management Journal, 40(3): 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.07.005
SwordsJ. & JohnsJ. (2024), ‘Deepening precarity – the impact of COVID-19 on freelancers in the UK television industry’, Cultural Trends, 33(5): 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2023.2247375
TurnerV. (1967), The Forest of Symbols (Ithaca, Cornell University Press).
UrsellG. (2000), ‘Television production: issues of exploitation, commodification and subjectivity in UK television labour markets’, Media, Culture and Society, 22(6): 805–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344300022006006
van RaalteC., WallisR. & PekalskiD. (2021), State of Play 2021: Management Practices in UK. Unscripted TV (Poole, Bournemouth University). https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/35897/
van RaalteC., WallisR. & PekalskiD. (2023), ‘More than just a few ‘bad apples’: the need for a risk management approach to the problem of workplace bullying in the UK’s television industry’, Creative Industries Journal, 18(1): 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2023.2182101
WallisR. (2022), End-of-Contract Interviews: The Purpose and Principles of an Intervention to Improve the Support of Television Careers (Bournemouth University) eprints. https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37395/
WallisR. (2025), Supportive Offboarding: Report on the Design, Development and Testing of an Intervention to Improve the Way the TV Industry Supports its Freelancers (Project Report, Poole, Bournemouth University). https://doi.org/10.18746/shkc-1383
WallisR. & van RaalteC. (2022), ‘Britain’s got talent? A critique of the “talent pipeline” crisis in the UK’s film and television industries’, Media Industries, 9(1): 282. https://doi.org/10.3998/mij.282
WilkesM., CareyH. & FlorissonR. (2020), The Looking Glass: Mental Health in the UK Film, TV and Cinema Industry. Online: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/lums/work-foundation/TheLookingGlassFinalReport-13Feb19.pdf
WreyfordN. (2015), ‘Birds of a feather: informal recruitment practices and gendered outcomes in the film and television industries’, Sociology, 49(1): 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514529901
1
Quotations are identified using alphanumeric codes developed for this study to distinguish participants while preserving anonymity.
Cite
DOI: 10.5871/jba/014.a09
Published on: 12 June 2026
Volume: 14
Issue: Issue 2
Article view count: 0
Article download count: 0
Copyright statement
© The author(s) 2026. This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International LicenseCite this article
Wallis, R. (2026), ‘“I”ve been working in TV for 10 years and I’ve never had that’: fostering perceived organisational support (POS) among skilled contingent workers in the television industry’, Journal of the British Academy, 14(2): a09 https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/014.a09Crossref
Dimensions
Altmetric
Article metrics
View count: 0
Download count: 0
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
Received
October 2022
Accepted
May 2023
Published
July 2023
From the ‘culture wars’ to reparative histories Gurminder K. Bhambra, Elizabeth Edwards, Margot Finn, Fiona Williams
The ‘culture wars’ that dominate public discourse in the UK turn, very often, on the significance accorded to histories of empire, slavery, and colonialism. What seems to be primarily of concern is the place of such histories in the telling of our national story. In this section, the articles explore different ways in which we could think about the relationship of the past with the present. Specifically, the articles collected here use the frame of ‘reparative histories’ as a potentially more effective way of engaging with complex and contested pasts. They address the idea of a reparatory sociology, colonial photography, representation and indigenous spaces, the gendering of reparative histories, and the need to rethink the welfare state from such a perspective.
22 May 2024
Young Palestinians’ struggles for accountability and participation: beyond formal systems and public resistance Laura Beckwith, Reem Talhouk, Owen Boyle, Maxine Mpofu, Inga Freimane, Fuad Trayek, Matt Baillie Smith
Young people worldwide are engaged in diverse forms of participation which offer a pathway for demanding accountability from governance actors. In contexts with fragile governance structures, young people face a unique set of challenges in their efforts to demand accountability or participate in decision-making. The expected relationship between participation and accountability as understood in liberal, democratic settings is often absent and instead demands for accountability are often made through strategies ‘at the margins’. Using Palestine as a case study, we show how young people look for accountability beyond state institutions and the national scale, using diverse strategies depending on their embedded position in society. This analysis sheds light on the complex reality of youth participation and accountability mechanisms in socially, politically and physically contested spaces and, by extension, points towards challenges and opportunities in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals.
2 November 2023
No Data Found
