1. Introduction
2. Relevance
3. Central purpose and research questions
4. Theoretical foundations and theoretical debates
5. Research Design – Data and Methods
6. Sub-projects

Subproject 1: Institutional mechanisms, film conventions and ‘Mavericks’
Subproject 2: Narrative Identity-work
Subproject 3: Sense(making) and Sensibility
Subproject 4: Negotiating and directing artistic contribution in film production

CINEMA1
Organizing and Managing Creative and Innovative Enterprises.

1. Introduction
Economic transformation and globalization continue to alter how organizations and employees view work. These transformations require workers and managers to understand and adjust to major changes in definitions of and approaches to work, organisational structures, and relationships within and among organizations. Social scientists like Caves (2000) and Florida (2002) argue that creativity, as a resource, is critical for long-term economic development and that creative industries, in particular, act as agents of change that help drive economic development. Caves notes, that ‘economists have studied a number of industrial sectors for their special and distinctive features’, but have largely missed ‘the creative industries supplying goods and services that we broadly associate with cultural, artistic, or simply entertainment value’ (Caves 2000:1).2 Florida (2002) is concerned with if and where creativity happens and notes that such questions are increasingly important for all organizations and societies in which the ‘creative class’ is growing as a result of the knowledge-based nature of the economy (Florida 2002). What researchers have yet to examine, is how organizations within the creative industries operate and how the organizational members define and manage work, and the relationships needed in such enterprises. The purpose of the CINEMA project is to study the film industry and filmmaking to produce detailed, empirical analyses of the actual forms and processes through which these enterprises organize and manage symbolic and material production, creativity and substantial commercial interests.

2. Relevance
Creative industries are experiencing rapid growth, both in Denmark (Kultur- og Erhvervspolitisk Redegørelse 2000; Regeringen, September 2003) and globally (Pine & Gilmore 1999; Florida 2002), and there are important lessons to be learnt from the “cultural, creative motor”, yet, it is little understood. The CINEMA project has selected the film industry and filmmaking3 for study as a prominent example of a creative industry. The Danish film industry is particularly interesting for several reasons. First, it is widely acknowledged for its high artistic quality, winning several international prizes and awards. Second, it has been highly commercially successful (Kultur- og Erhvervspolitisk Redegørelse 2000:45-52). Third, the composition of the Danish film industry (production, distribution structure, role of and regulation from the state through state subsidies etc.) share many elements and resemble other European countries (e.g. France, Italy, Spain and Sweden), making it an exemplary European case.

Furthermore two distinguishing features of the film industry make it an important sector for empirical study.
First, patterns of cooperation in the film industry are largely based upon temporally delimited projects and project groups. The complexity in organizing (Weick 1979) which follows from this make speed; negotiation between various professionals, experts and specialists; ability to cope with intensive work pressure and emotions; as well as the art of improvisation, innovation and creativity crucial factors in the process of bringing a film-product to the market. Hence, the production form typical of film production can be seen as paradigmatic for how an increasing number of people in post-industrial economies work.
Second, the organization of ‘creative industries’ has received surprisingly little attention from social scientists in general and from economists in particular (Caves 2000). This is explained as due to the nature of the information available about the creative industries, where ‘systematic data are scarce’ and the conventional sources that economists use are not found (Caves 2000:vii). This has resulted in economic research first and foremost focusing on contracts and the logic of economic organization, leaving a void for sociological perspectives on organizing and managing creative enterprises. CINEMA’s primary contribution is to help fill this void in our knowledge about how creative industries and creative enterprises actually operate.

3. Central purpose and research questions
Filmmaking is characterized by each production being a new project demanding new collaborative partners, suppliers, staff, etc. Thus, film projects are seen as complex, temporary systems, which require creative-cultural, human, financial and material resources to be realised (Faulkner & Anderson 1987; Baker & Faulkner 1991; DeFillippi & Arthur 1998). Academic inquiries have emphasized the critical role of a range of business activities and players (e.g. dealers, agents, production companies, distributors) as prerequisites for the artistic endeavor in producing and getting artwork to public (Hirsch 1972; Becker 1982; White & White 1993; Caves 2000). They have also pointed out the inherent contradiction between creative work and humdrum commerce.
A central problem in creative industries appears to be the coordination of symbolic and material production together with creativity and commerce. CINEMA focuses on the nexus between culture and economy and studies the apparent dichotomy behind a commercial, business oriented, efficiency logic, and an artistic, experiential, creative logic. Yet, CINEMA suggests, that this dichotomy represents an oversimplification of the matter. The relations between art and commerce are of a far more complex nature. One of the purposes of this research project is to investigate and generate knowledge about this complex and co-constitutive relationship. Thus, the overall research question is:

In relation to filmmaking, CINEMA takes a point of departure in the two modes of production or an ideal-typical contrast between “High Concept” (Wyatt 1994) filmmaking and what we term “High Framework” filmmaking.4 “High concept” is a term used to describe the archetypical contemporary Hollywood producer-centred filmmaking process. “High framework” filmmaking is a concept we develop to capture the fundamental processes, circumstances, ideals and ideologies behind what is often referred to as “European” (director-centred) filmmaking.

High framework film production dominates European and Scandinavian filmmaking, yet our knowledge about the production form is limited. CINEMA focuses on the organizing and negotiation of roles, statuses, identities and emotions in relation to core organizational filmmaking activities (divisions of labour, coordination of flows of knowledge, the handling of complex tasks and practices) that are posited to be influenced by the meso-field “superstructure” which we label “high framework”.

4. Theoretical foundations and theoretical debates:
A point of departure is taken in organizational sociology and in new institutional theory (Dacin, Goldstein & Scott 2002; DiMaggio & Powell 1991; Meyer & Rowan 1977; Scott 1995; Scott et al. 2000). In new institutional theory the field concept is a central construct developed to emphasize vertical, interorganizational relations between firms and other types of organizations within a domain (DiMaggio and Powell 1991). Organizations within a field are seen as conforming to existing conventions and practices in order to gain legitimacy, resulting in standardization (isomorphism) of activities and meanings among those organizations.

While the neo-institutionalist approach has been a successful paradigm in the social sciences for the past 20-25 years, its persistent Achilles heel is the continued lack of a concerted exploration of micro-sociological foundations for its tremendously successful and influential operation at the meso level. The importance of exploring and developing micro foundations has been noted by several researchers (DiMaggio 1988; Powell and DiMaggio 1991; Scott 1995; Zucker 1977). Only scattered theoretical work on this topic has been conducted (e.g. DiMaggio 1988; Fligstein 1997; Vaughan 2002), and limited empirical applications have been carried out (e.g. Christensen et al 1997; Jones 2001; Lant and Baum 1995). CINEMA’s extensive work at the micro level is continuously (and recursively) informed by developments at the meso level, thus an inherent rather than a fabricated link between these levels is examined.

Identity construction is a central topic in CINEMA and seen as taking place in a complex, co-constitutive interplay between, on one hand, field level isomorphic processes in which the characteristics of legitimate actors are constructed through the creation of isomorphism and, on the other hand, local organizational adaptation and sensemaking processes where the boundaries of those actors are constructed through the creation of uniqueness. We suggest that these processes depict two sides of the process of the social construction of the corporation as actor and thus are concerned with processes of identity construction (Boutaiba & Strandgaard Pedersen 2003; Strandgaard Pedersen & Dobbin 1997). Hence, a contribution will be made to the debate on identity construction, linking meso and micro processes.

CINEMA’s concern with identity construction is multifaceted, combining the abovementioned theories of institutions with theories of narrative (Boje 2001; Carr 1986; Czarniawska 1999; Gabriel 2000), theories of organizational identity (Albert, Ashforth & Dutton 2000; Albert & Whetten 1985; Whetten & Godfrey 1998), and theories of emotions (Finemann, 2000; Mangham, 1998, 2003).

A narrative approach to identity construction and organizing has only recently been acknowledged within organization studies. Some conceptions of narrative in organization studies are informed by structuralism (e.g. Gabriel 2000; Downing 1997). With the ambition of coming to an understanding of communicative processes in a contemporary society that understands itself as fluid, there is a great need to work towards establishing an approach to narrative that is thoroughly processual (Boutaiba 2003). With this aim, CINEMA will contribute to the emerging focus upon the narrative construction of identity in two ways:

A narrative approach seeks to understand how specific actors discursively position themselves vis-à-vis specific conditions of possibility and constraint within the film field. Instead of assuming that organizational identity is about that which is central, enduring, and distinctive (Albert & Whetten 1985), we contend that it is necessary to understand the work and strategic efforts involved in the performance of specific identity-narratives.

Another approach to identity construction taken in CINEMA focuses on emotion (Darmer 2002a, 2002b; Finemann 2000, 2003; Mangham 1998; Sturdy 2003). This approach emphasizes how emotions are an inseparable part of sensemaking (Weick 1979, 1995, 2001). This is a unique angle to the study of balancing art and business and, innovation and creativity. This study is also empirically unique in many respects. Apart from analysing and understanding sensemaking and emotions as inseparable dimensions of filmmaking, the study will comprehensively map out not just the structural relations between various actors and units within the film company, but also chart the flow of substantive, qualitative, emotional exchanges between them. This study also explicitly addresses the central issue for the overall project: how the balance between art and management are established and how innovation and creativity unfolds in the film enterprise.

CINEMA takes up central matters in sociology such as the relationship between structure and agency and the interactive coordination of action among social agents. Management theories such as those of Courpasson (2000), Knights & Willmott (1999), and Mintzberg & Waters (1998) resemble sociological theories of agency in positing that actors utilise resources made available to them through a more or less structured and endowed environment to impact and motivate behaviour in similarly constituted social actors. These theories thus posit the centrality of position in a social field or setting as decisive for what resources are available to a given actor, as well as the types of information, perspectives, dispositions and social pressures the actor is likely to be subject to or aware of. Theories of framing (Goffman 1974; Klandermans & Goslinga 1999; Zald 1999) as well as social-psychological interactionist perspectives (Collins 2000; Ridgeway 2000, 2003; Stolte, Fine & Cook 2001; Turner 2002) are employed to examine the micro-social details of negotiation and motivation. However, our interest is not restricted to micro level analyses of micro-social interaction. One of the central purposes of this project is to link levels of analysis. This is done by tracing the links between the discursive and motivational resources used in micro negotiations to the meso-field level. That is to say, to see how institutionalised understandings produced at the meso field level, and even the macro societal level, are used in micro negotiations (Fine 1996). Attention is also paid to how these local micro outcomes may recursively impact the field level institutions. Thus, the project also allows us to address a criticism of neo-institutionalist theory – its underdeveloped micro foundations or a theory of agency mentioned earlier. To address this criticism, the embryonic micro-sociological work within the neo-institutionalist framework is wedded with more focused advances in the field of social agency (Barnes 2000; Harvey 2002; Joas 1996).
A concurrent strain running through the above mentioned theories and incorporated into the empirical projects is the emphasis on the role of practice in producing and disseminating knowledge, stabilizing meaning and behaviour as well as leading to change and innovation (cf. Schatzki [2001]).

5. Research Design – Data and Methods
As Caves has already pointed out there is a need for systematic research on organization in the creative industries (Caves 2000: vii). CINEMA generates knowledge on one particular creative industry - the film industry - through the application of systematic and rigorous qualitative methodology. Qualitative research is inherently multi-method in focus (Denzin & Lincoln 1994: 5). This also applies to CINEMA and each subproject (see below), uses a variety of data-generating methods to obtain in-depth understanding of the phenomena investigated.

While qualitative researchers largely agree that there is no one correct interpretation of any particular phenomenon (Janesick 2000: 393), we contend that this should not work as an excuse for avoiding systematic and reflective interpretation of the data generated. Each subproject makes use of different techniques to ensure a high level of systematic analysis in the progressive steps of interpretation, developing a rich knowledge base of ‘high framework’ film production enterprises through rigorous methods. This process of knowledge production may be seen through the concept of intertextuality (Boje 2001). Thus, as a project we literally meet on the basis of a variety of textual inscriptions ranging from interviews, notes from observation, audio and video sequences and various archival material and must find a way to make them talk to each other and inform our knowledge about high framework film production (commercially and artistically) and about the particular way creativity is performed. To enable this, each subproject makes use of a systematic documentation and coding of events talked about, situations encountered, ways of talking, thereby applying lessons and heuristic strategies akin to that of a grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2000: 510).

The project relies on a field study approach. An argument for this approach – as a supplement to archival, text or data base studies – is to exploit the advantages of focusing on “practice” and social action (Geertz 1973:17). The project makes use of single and multiple case studies (Yin 1994). The single case studies are inspired by ethnographic case methodology characteristic of anthropological fieldwork and the sociological ethnography of the Chicago School. In such case studies researchers spend extensive periods of time in the environment they study in order to obtain knowledge about and understand a group of people and their interaction. The case studies function both as independent units or studies of protracted fieldwork for an (native) analytic understanding of the groups they study, as well as compositely comprising the Yin (1994) inspired case research design of a multiple case study.

Data generation is based on pre-established common definitions and formats of focal issues related to the research questions in the various subprojects and the overarching project’s interests. Given these considerations CINEMA will generate well-crafted case studies based on field visits, observational notes, interviews, company documents, press clippings, and primary-source literature. CINEMA also makes use of descriptive statistics on the film field to measure the volume and magnitude of activity within the field comparatively and over time. Secondary information, including books and articles from the business and film press on filmmakers, their production companies, artists, art managers and gifted professionals alike, will be used to gain background and comparative information, broadening and refining our perspectives and improving the soundness of our inferences.

The analyses of data sources will follow the case study approach and be based on multiple sources of evidence. Several types of analyses will be carried out applying a range of data analytical tools such as computer based text analysis tools (Atlas, Nudist) and database registration systems (FilemakerPro). As is typical of inductive research, to advance theory out of a staggering volume of data (Eisenhardt 1989), the rich information generated will be integrated into detailed write-ups for each case. Then, within-case and across-case analyses will be performed, following design indications for comparative qualitative research by Miles and Huberman (1994). Our theory building has affinities with grounded-theory approaches based on numerous iterations between the in-depth case studies and extant theory (Strauss & Corbin 1998; Dyer & Wilkins 1991). Theory building from cases will, for the majority of the analyses, be based on analytic generalization, “in which previously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results of the case study” (Yin 1994:38).

6. Sub-projects
Film projects are seen as complex, temporary systems that require creative-cultural, human, financial and material resources to be realised (DeFillippi & Arthur 1998; Faulkner & Anderson 1987). Legitimate actors that comply with the rules, norms and demands of the film field are supposed to be more likely to obtain access to these resources. The legitimization of filmmakers, and hence their access to resources and opportunities, takes place in a field wherein isomorphic mechanisms conventionalise and standardize a range of practices. Conventions for film creation taught at educational institutions (e.g. film schools and media science at universities) and mediated through awards at film festivals (e.g. Bodils and Golden Palms), form a normative basis for standardization. Different types of ‘gate keepers’ (e.g. film critics, financial investors, and producers) formulate and reproduce certain criteria, defining ‘artistic quality’ and ‘commercial potential’, institutionalizing more or less explicit standards (‘blueprints’) for acceptable modes of production, efficient organizational forms and proper managerial practices. Recipes for success are established and, organizations and individuals (‘artistic’ as well as ‘commercial’) consume these recipes through imitation processes (Sevon 1996).

Sensitivity is particularly important to the complexity and relationships between the various actors and activities taking place within the film field. A range of studies within the CINEMA project captures some of this complexity. Four sub-projects, ranging from studies of the meso field level, to company studies at the organizational level, to “associational” project studies at the micro level are outlined below. An overview of the four subprojects is provided in Table 1. below:

Table 1. Overview of subprojects and division of labor among project members

Subproject 1 5: Institutional mechanisms, film conventions and ‘Mavericks’
On one hand, isomorphic mechanisms seemingly exist within the film field, implying a certain extent of imitation, standardization and drive towards conventionalism. On the other hand, Danish filmmaking has been very successful recently and as creative and innovative as ever, creating distinct, non-conventional films. The purpose of this subproject is to understand how innovative, high framework filmmakers organize and manage their creative enterprises. Departing from new institutional theory the research question is:

Combining new institutional theory with micro theories of action an avenue is pursued in investigating generative forces and institutional entrepreneurs (Fligstein 1997; Jones 2001; Powell 1991). Institutional entrepreneurship and field transformation is assumed to happen when field actors 1) contribute to the reproduction of a field adapting to dominant norms, practices and conventions in pursuit of legitimacy, while they, 2) also challenge these conventions in a search for innovation and unique identities (Brewer 1991; Lounsbury & Glynn 2001; Strandgaard Pedersen & Dobbin 1997). The extreme case of entrepreneurship is that of a ‘Maverick’ who disobeys the established conventions (Becker 1982) in contrast to ‘integrated professionals’ who find support in the film field conventions and institutions 6. Building on the distinction between ‘integrated professionals’ and ‘mavericks’ (Becker 1982; Caves 2000), different strategies are identified for how innovative and creative film enterprises organize and manage the coupling between artistic and commercial activities 7.

Research design
In order to address and study this research question, a first step will be to identify relevant isomorphic mechanisms, based on institutional theory, assessing the extent of structuration within the Danish film field 8. This step will include field level actors and institutions like regulators and resource allocators (e.g. Danish Film Institute, festivals and award giving institutions, and financial investors) educational institutions (e.g. Danish Film School, media science) filmmakers and their professional associations (e.g. producers, directors, actors) and other ‘gate-keepers’ (e.g. film critics, journalists). Data for this study is generated through: 1) existing descriptive statistics on the film industry, 2) archival material (documents, books, news clippings, etc.) and 3) interviews with key informants from the field. Analyses will be carried out via IT based tools (Atlas, Nudist and FilemakerPro).

The second step is an intensive field study comparing 2-3 cases of film production enterprises (e.g. Zentropa, M&M productions, Nimbus film). A comparative study based on the distinction between ‘integrated professionals’ and ‘mavericks’, will be conducted on the ways in which the selected cases organize and manage their filmmaking activities and investigate to what extent and in what ways the field level institutions influences the local organizing and filmmaking processes. A particular focus will be on identities and collaborative patterns. Pursuing differences in ways of organizing film making in high framework enterprises, a study based on a distinction between the work of ‘integrated professionals’ and ‘mavericks’ (Becker 1982; Caves 2000), is conducted on filmmakers’ collaborative patterns, investigating if ‘mavericks’ to a larger extent than ‘integrated professionals’ have regular collaborative partners and established ‘teams’ in their film productions as the literature seems to indicate. The patterns of collaboration will be studied systematically, generating data through case studies relying on two sources of evidence: 1) interviews with key informants and 2) information about the staffing of films (e.g. from the Danish Film Institute, ‘Site and Sound’) supplemented by systematic registration of credit lists from DVD/VHS films. All data will be coded and analysed via FilemakerPro.

‘High Framework – High Concept Filmmaking’ (PhD project)
The PhD student selected for this project must be given some discretion in formulating a full project, and will be selected on the basis of a qualified project application and supported by the normal procedures in IOA’s PhD-School. Though these principles restrict the degree to which the project can be specified, some guidelines will apply under all conditions.

The focus of the study will be based on the central distinction between ‘High concept’ and ‘High framework’ filmmaking and investigate similarities and differences in their ways of organizing and managing filmmaking activities, exploring the relevance of the distinction in a Danish context.

The first phase of the project is a study of the film field. This part of the study will primarily be based on archival studies of documents, articles and descriptive statistics combined with interviews with key actors and central institutions within the film field (e.g. Ministry of Culture, Danish Film Institute, Danish Film School, film associations, ‘gate-keepers’ etc). The outcome of this archival study will be an understanding of central institutions in the film field and on developing the distinction between ‘high concept’ and ‘high framework’ filmmaking, forming a basis for the study’s second phase.

The second phase will be to select innovative (high framework) film enterprises (e.g. Zentropa, Nimbus) and study what strategies for organizing they pursue in an attempt to create and maintain their creative space. In particular a focus will be on how they balance the artistic and commercial activities. These case studies of high framework film enterprises will be compared to more conventional (high concept) filmmaking cases (e.g. Nordisk Film, Grasten Film). In this phase a number of different theoretical and methodological approaches could be selected or combined to guide inquiry: ethnographic approaches relying on observation and interviews, archival studies based on documents and descriptive statistics etc. In this respect the PhD student will have some latitude as long as the study aims at addressing and capturing the general research questions and research purpose of the CINEMA project. The outcome will be a contribution to understanding how filmmaking enterprises organize and manage their ‘high framework’ and ‘high concept’ activities. A number of possibilities exist for collaboration with the other subprojects outlined below and for gaining access to other filmmaking case studies.

Subproject 2: Narrative Identity-work
In contemporary society, it is believed that things are changing at an increasingly rapid pace. We see this in newspapers, books, or every speech we listen to that modern (business) life is a race towards new horizons, or towards newness tout court. No matter which standpoint one engages vis-à-vis the rhetoric of change and the accompanying need to innovate, it is important to reflect upon the way one presents oneself vis-à-vis important stakeholders, including the most invested stakeholder – oneself. In short, persons and organizations are forced to engage in ongoing reflections as to their own identities, seemingly following the mantra: ‘there is more identity in deviation than in conformity’ (see Bauman 2000; Giddens 1991; Maffesoli 1997). Notably, the drive to change and to be innovative characteristic of much societal discourse seems even more on the agenda for companies that may be referred to as avant-garde. The aim of this subproject is to study the anatomy of innovativeness. An exemplary case to study the narrative concern of being innovative is the film production company Zentropa, which is widely renowned for being innovative and for having contributed to a renewal of the Danish film industry. The reason for selecting Zentropa is that it has narrated itself as a ‘Maverick’9 (Becker 1982) within the high-framework filmmaking and is generally recognized as a remarkable example of innovativeness in Denmark (Kultur- og Erhvervsministeriet 2000). As such, it seems Zentropa embodies this intense focus upon the ability to change and be innovative, a matter central to this project.

The focus of this subproject is on the particularities of the identity-work needed to maintain a sense of being a maverick player in the film field. Thus, the preferred notion will be that of identity-work as opposed to that of identity with its more staid connotations. The overall research question is:

Members of Zentropa might already consider themselves innovative (as might other important stakeholders), but it still demands work to maintain such a self-conception, because the very distinction between the innovative and the conformists is always a result of negotiations between various actors in a field.

Research Design
The Danish film company, Zentropa, has been chosen as an exemplary case to come to an understanding of the anatomy of innovativeness, i.e. of the way innovativeness is performed as a specific sign-regime to be detected in the kind of narratives Zentropa tells about itself and the narratives told about Zentropa. The data sources are: 1) interviews with employees and managers at Zentropa; 2) interviews with dialogue partners from the Danish Film Institute, the Ministry of Culture involved in writing the new reports on the Experience Economy in Denmark, journalists who have written extensively on Zentropa, from other film producing companies; 3) a focused study of newspaper articles enrolling Zentropa in specific narratives. Data will be coded and analysed in FilemakerPro; and 4) a study of the material on the process of making particular films, wherein members of Zentropa seemingly try to reveal who and what they are, when they perform their core activity (e.g. ‘Dogville Confessions’, ‘Von Trier’s 100 eyes’).
The theoretical underpinnings will revolve around theories of narrative as it has been introduced within organization studies (Boje 2001; Boutaiba 2003; Czarniawska 1999; Gabriel 2000), social psychology (Brewer 1991; Bruner 1990), philosophy (Carr 1986; Ricoeur 1984), and literary studies (Bakhtin 1981; Morson 1994). Another line of research to be included is on identity construction (Albert & Whetten 1985; Albert et al 2000; Boutaiba & Strandgaard Pedersen 2003; Shotter & Gergen, 1989; Whetten & Godfrey 1998). This combination of research traditions is grounded in the belief that identities are narratively performed, and ought to be studied as such.

Subproject 3: Sense(making) and Sensibility
Organization studies and analysis have traditionally overlooked the emotional side of the organization, although a few exceptions have emerged in recent years (e.g. Darmer 2002a, 2002b; Fineman 2000; 2003; Mangham 1998; Stacey 2003; Sturdy 2003). Overlooking emotions is a general phenomenon in science since science is about sense and rationality not about sensibility and emotions (Kleinman and Copp 1993; Mazzarella 2001). On the other hand, emotions are often considered an integral part of innovation and creativity, which is immanent in the creative industries. Emotions as integral to artistic work makes emotions more visible in the creative industries than in other business organizations, where people are expected to be rational (not display emotions). Therefore, a creative film enterprise, where emotions are legitimised and displayed, becomes a very interesting border case study. The creative film enterprise enlists directors, actors, and so forth that are considered emotional and intuitive as an immanent part of their jobs, and the film industry is all about drama and telling tales that evoke emotions.

This subproject integrates emotions in the analysis of sensemaking (Weick 1995) in a creative film enterprise. The focus of the analysis is: How are sensemaking and emotions intertwined? The subproject suggests that the way a film enterprise make sense of its activities cannot be properly understood if emotions are not integrated in the analysis. Thus, emotions are perceived as interwoven in sensemaking. Hence, the analysis of a film enterprise will miss out in the understanding of the enterprise if emotions are not integrated into the analysis. The overall research question is:

This study of a creative film enterprise will analyse and explicate how emotions are integrated in the sensemaking of a film enterprise. This entails examining sensemaking and:

Empirically, studies of sensemaking in film enterprises are scarce in general, and by making emotions an immanent part of sensemaking, the empirical study becomes unique. This unique angle to the study also indicates that the way art and business and, innovation and creativity are balanced with entrepreneurial aspects, is seen from a new perspective.

Research design
Doing an ethnographic study is necessary to get access to emotions and to analyse and understand sensemaking in a creative film enterprise. The ethnographic case study consists of:

Theoretically the study creates a novel synthesis of theories of sensemaking (Stacey 2003; Weick 1979, 1995) and theories about emotions in organizations (Darmer 2002a, 2002b; Fineman 2000; 2003; Mangham 1998; Sturdy 2003). Three perspectives on emotions in organizations are commonly advanced (Fineman, 2000; Mangham, 1998):

This subproject theoretically draws upon the third perspective thus seeing emotions as integrated in all aspects of sensemaking (Weick 1995), which in turn is an ongoing process in all organizations.

Subproject 4: Negotiating and directing artistic contribution in film production
The purpose of this study is to investigate how creative, artistic contributions are negotiated, coordinated, motivated, and integrated with one another in a temporary but structured, complex collaborative commercio-artistic endeavour. This is operationalised through an empirical, ethnographic case study of the making of a feature-length film. Filmmaking is recognised (Bechky 2002; Caves 2000) as an ideal setting to explore such issues due to central characteristics of the contemporary film production process: temporary production units and processes, emphasis on artistic and creative contributions from a variety of professional specialists, high degrees of mutual dependencies and uncertainty, the centrality of personal and professional integrity in role performance, the indeterminacy of metrics of evaluation, the creation of strong but fleeting allegiances and loyalties, relatively fixed financial budgets but expandable social and symbolic resources, etc. This study focuses on negotiating, eliciting, coordinating and integrating – roles often ascribed to and assumed by the director, also played by others, and always interactively with other acting subjects. Interest is not in the director or other agents as creators in the artistic sense, but rather as negotiator or arbiter of their artistic vision vis-à-vis other artistic contributors. Our interest is also in how contributions are motivated or elicited. Focus lies on investigating how, and which frameworks are drawn upon in these micro negotiations; i.e what is recoursed to standardized roles and what is recoursed to biography (Heimer 2001) and what reference is made to potential future collective achievements.

The study explores commercio-artistic production in a non-organizational setting. A film production is better conceived as an association (of freelance, contracted professionals) than as an organization in conventional meaning. Without an organizational framework providing integrative and coordination resources around the production process it is posited that three other factors attain heightened significance: 1. Cultural and cognitive discursive resources made available by the ideologies at the meso field level; 2. Socialization and artistic development processes that the artistic professionals have previously been part of (formal training, previous work, collegial interaction); 3. Individual resources and capacities. A unique contribution of this project is that it discerns and elaborates upon the differences between organizational and associational-based projects. We contend that associational-based project production is a form on the increase and thus merits more theoretical and empirical attention.

Research design and methods
The heart of the sub-project comprises an ethnographic, on-location, case study (Fine 1999; Bertaux & Thompson 1997) of the production of a feature-length motion picture. Interviews with central participants in the production will also be conducted to understand how they interpret the events observed by the researcher, as well as to gain insight into pre- and post-production activities that are too discrete to be observed by researchers. As much material as possible will be audio and digital videotaped for three reasons: 1. To invite other scholars to interpret the statements and events recorded to see if and how their interpretations vary from ours; 2. To have detailed, preserved data for our own analysis of discrete events and general process; 3. To have multimedia material for use in teaching, conferences and public presentations.

The study explicitly connects theories on meso and micro processes, where central sociological debates about agency, culture and structure intersect with social-psychological and management research and theory on group interaction, negotiation, coordination and leadership. Neoinstitutional theory is used to examine the dynamics of ideology or idea-clustering at the meso field level (“high framework” filmmaking, see above). Fligstein’s (1997; 2001) conception of “social skill” is used as one way of linking micro-level agency and the meso field, augmented by the more general work on structure, culture and agency of Archer (2003), Barnes (2000), Mathieu (1999), Sewell (1992) and Swidler (1986, 2001). In looking at contexts over-laden with subjective, aesthetic/artistic assessment carried out in situated intimate interpersonal interaction, the more social-psychological work of Fine (1984), Joas (1996), Ridgeway (2003), Strasser & Dietz-Uhler (2003) and Turner (2002) is applied to analyse the creation of criteria of evaluation, negotiated orders and group dynamics.

Thus, the CINEMA project will contribute to an enhanced understanding of the interrelationship between the artistic and commercial issues involved in organizing and managing creative enterprises in general and filmmaking in particular. Also the project will reinforce the importance of sociological perspectives and methods for understanding the phenomena under investigation.

________________________________