The article is based upon both qualitative and quantitative methods, allowing scope from both angles of research. This can cause some confusion within the writing however I believe it creates a sense of openness and provides both fact and opinion for the reader.

The first major point that draws my attention from this article is related to the fact that the UK cultural and creative industries are taking advantage of actors/workers, especially those from a working class background.

“This critical work has shown that working conditions in the CCIs actually tend to be precarious, un-paid or low-paid and exploitative (Gill, 2014; Hesmondhalgh and Baker, 2010)”

This statement and this kind of research is very exploitative of the creative industry that we work in each day and is hopefully leading to a change in the way that workers are viewed and paid.

Another very well made qualitative statement suggests that once we enter into the profession we are deemed to be on a level playing field with other classes, working class actors still do not enter the profession with the same resources as those from higher class groups, resulting in a hindered career.

“One limitation of this work, and indeed dominant approaches to social mobility
more generally, is that they often imply that the impact of class origin (on labour market
outcomes) ends at the point of occupational entry. Yet while those from working class
backgrounds may secure admission into the CCIs, they do not necessarily enter
with the same resources as those from more privileged backgrounds, and therefore do
not necessarily achieve the same levels of success” (Ashley, 2015; Friedman, 2015;
Hansen, 2001; Li et al., 2008; Rivera, 2015).

Of course there are exceptions, however the point still stands that we should all enter any profession with equal and ample opportunity.

There are several tables of data included within the research paper. The quantitative data collated exposes that from the actors that are part of the British acting industry, those that gain more success were either privately educated or were educated at ‘oxbridge’, in terms of social capital they also have higher status social contacts, come from a family home worth over £35,000 more than an average actor, parents who obtain managerial positions and the actor’s themselves earn a substantial amount more than the average working class actor.

This research article seems very thorough, to me,  as the researchers do not stop their research at the results from the quantitative data. In order to expand their exploration they use a qualitative method, interviewing 47 British Actors, to gain a clearer  idea as to whether a higher capital actually confers advantage in the acting profession. 

The qualitative research revealed many joint challenges for actors regardlass of their class origin, however it is suggested that class still imposes the way in which the actor responds to such challenges.

“So far we have described that while acting involves shared challenges of irregular, precarious
and poorly paid work, the way individuals respond are shaped by cultural and
material inequalities rooted in class origin.”

One fine example of this, in my opinion, would be that those from a more privileged background could seek financial help from family whilst not working, a luxury that working class actors do not have.

The section related to typecasting was incredibly interesting and links to my dissertation topic. I am therefore going to consider using this article as a source of research in my case study of the Equity manifesto for casting.

Some may find the conclusion to the article to be somewhat frustrating as it doesn’t define an answer. However I like its subjective nature as it leaves room for discussion based on the research findings.