ABSTRACT
Purpose: Ample literature has demonstrated that workers in the creative industries are excluded in terms of gender, race and class. Fewer studies, however, have examined the career advancement challenges faced by creators with disabilities. Drawing on insights from the established-outsider theory, this study aims to fill this lacuna. Design/methodology/approach: The participants were 24 creators in the Israeli film and television industries (FTIs) contending with severe forms of mental or physical and sensory impairment. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore practitioners' conceptions of the challenges they face in making careers in the FTI, as well as how they contend with these challenges. Findings: Intergroup dynamics yield an established-outsider figuration that situates creators with disabilities in a marginal occupational position in the FTI. Creators with disabilities' lack of access to networks of prominent creators place them in a disadvantageous position in the ongoing struggles over scarce resources in the FTI. The structural features of the FTI, which are intertwined with the social mechanisms of stigmatization and exclusion, make it difficult to breach any figuration once established. In defiance of their occupational figuration, creators with disabilities utilize two tactics aimed at professional advancement: hyper-meritocracy and advocacy. These tactics yield only partial success. Research limitations/implications: This study does not represent the voices of decision-makers in the film and television industries in Israel. Practical implications: Implications are suggested regarding the role of culture funds as well as policymakers in advancing workforce diversity and opportunity in the film and television industries. Originality/value: This study addresses covert and unspoken barriers to equality in the creative workforce. The findings also shed light on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workforce diversity and opportunity in the FTI. © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Ample literature has demonstrated that workers in the creative industries are excluded in terms of gender, race and class. Fewer studies, however, have examined the career advancement challenges faced by creators with disabilities. Drawing on insights from the established-outsider theory, this study aims to fill this lacuna. Design/methodology/approach: The participants were 24 creators in the Israeli film and television industries (FTIs) contending with severe forms of mental or physical and sensory impairment. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore practitioners’ conceptions of the challenges they face in making careers in the FTI, as well as how they contend with these challenges. Findings: Intergroup dynamics yield an established-outsider figuration that situates creators with disabilities in a marginal occupational position in the FTI. Creators with disabilities' lack of access to networks of prominent creators place them in a disadvantageous position in the ongoing struggles over scarce resources in the FTI. The structural features of the FTI, which are intertwined with the social mechanisms of stigmatization and exclusion, make it difficult to breach any figuration once established. In defiance of their occupational figuration, creators with disabilities utilize two tactics aimed at professional advancement: hyper-meritocracy and advocacy. These tactics yield only partial success. Research limitations/implications: This study does not represent the voices of decision-makers in the film and television industries in Israel. Practical implications: Implications are suggested regarding the role of culture funds as well as policymakers in advancing workforce diversity and opportunity in the film and television industries. Originality/value: This study addresses covert and unspoken barriers to equality in the creative workforce. The findings also shed light on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workforce diversity and opportunity in the FTI. © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: CBT-I is the gold standard treatment for insomnia, but access to in-person care is limited, which has worsened due to the recent COVID-19 pandemic. While providers across spheres of care have rapidly pivoted to telehealth there have been few systematic comparisons of in-person treatments to telemedicine approaches. The current study, launched pre-COVID, aimed to examine the perspectives of patients who were randomly assigned to receive CBT-I in-person or via telemedicine. Additionally, provider reflections were collected. Methods: Individuals with DSM5 Insomnia Disorder (n=60) were randomized to in-person CBT-I, telemedicine CBT-I or a wait-list control group. CBT-I was delivered over 6-8 weekly sessions by video telemedicine or in-person. This nested qualitative study addressed patient and provider perspectives on treatment approaches. A sample of participants from each group (n=36) were interviewed 3 months post-treatment. Phone interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. Results were organized into thematic categories including 1) participant experience with CBT-I, 2) access issues and 3) accountability issues related to delivery approach. Additionally, participating providers (n=7) were interviewed and shared their reflections on delivering CBT-I in-person vs. telemedicine. Results: Patients reflected positively on CBT-I, and this did not vary across treatment groups. Patients and providers noted telemedicine benefits related to access that included, but were not limited to, reducing transportation barriers to treatment and improved continuity of care (e.g. not having to cancel an appointment if a patient was traveling). Patients and providers shared concerns they had anticipated pre-treatment about possible telemedicine related technological hurdles and barriers to establishing meaningful rapport on-line. However, they reported that these concerns did not prove to be barriers to effective telemedicine visits. Conclusion: This qualitative study allowed patients and their providers to reflect on their experience delivering in-person vs telemedicine CBT-I. CBT-I was accepted well regardless of delivery approach. Telemedicine is currently being deployed widely and this study provides a systematic comparison between approaches.