This article undertakes an auto-critical analysis of the research team's ethnographic study of Cultural Enterprise Office (CEO), a Scottish creative business support agency. We discuss the team's composition and how this relates to other analyses of ethnographic teamwork. Our research is situated in the wider policy context of the "creative-economic" turn in the UK's research funding. This has been accompanied by increased emphasis on "knowledge exchange" and "impact" in the drive for greater accountability in higher education. The team's evolution in the course of undertaking research is illustrated by reference to four "pivotal moments," which illustrate how we "performed" knowledge exchange.

Why this book mattersThis book is about a cultural agency -Cultural Enterprise Office (CEO) -set up to help individuals and very small enterprises working in the 'creative economy'. CEO's central purpose is to make such 'creatives' become more business-like and thereby improve their chances of making a living over the longer term.CEO is based in Glasgow, a city richly endowed with a wide range of cultural life and a key location for those engaged in creative work in Scotland. In what follows, we have set out to analyse the web of relationships that CEO has with those it advises and assists -its 'clients' -as well as the wider world of government and support bodies -its 'stakeholders'. For the first time, to the best of our knowledge, we have provided a detailed account of the inside workings of this kind of cultural intermediary.

No abstract

This article examines the ultimately unsuccessful libel case brought by the novelist and BBC film critic E. Arnot Robertson against Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. The action followed a letter the film company sent to Robertson's employer in 1946, asserting she was 'out of touch' with public taste, excluding her from their press screenings and requested the broadcaster's assistance in preventing her from reviewing further MGM films on air. Robertson charged the film company with libelling her professional competence and imperilling her earnings. This article explores the origins and outcomes of the ensuing three-year legal dispute.Drawing on trade journals, law reports, press coverage and BBC records, the article considers the contrasting models of the 'audience' underpinning the wider conflict between the film trade and the 'quality' critics. It explores the role of BBC policy and 'broadcast style' in making radio criticism a flashpoint and traces the specific circumstances that led the two parties into court. Finally, it considers the lasting legal and cultural consequences of the case. Turner (Robertson) v. MGM redefined the legal meaning of 'fair comment,' it reshaped BBC policy on broadcast criticism, and shifted the consensus on what constituted responsible and professional criticism -making wit a less respectable critical tool.2

No abstract