“People want better”: a qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ views on introducing well-being coordinators in the screen industry

ABSTRACT

Purpose

There are several factors that negatively impact the well-being of those working in the screen industry. Consequently, the need to introduce Well-being Coordinators has been identified. This study explored the experiences of participants who undertook a Well-being Coordination course tailored for the screen sector. Additionally, it sought to delve into perspectives regarding well-being within the screen industry.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted. The study was guided by an interpretive descriptive approach. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse data.

Findings

Five themes were identified: Opportunities and challenges working in the screen industry, co-existing with harassment, the need for change: importance of wellbeing, becoming a well-being co-ordinator: learning from the course, and the future of the well-being co-ordinator role: opportunities and challenges. The reality that cast and crew co-exist with several forms of harassment within the industry was noted. Despite this, there is hope for the future of the screen sector, particularly the positive impact the role of the Well-being Coordinator could have.

Conclusions

The experiences of professionals across the screen industry vary; however, a pervasive culture of bullying and harassment is commonplace. Through the introduction of Well-being Coordinators, there is the potential to enact positive change.

KEYWORDS:

• Creative industry
• film
• TV
• interpretive description
• mental health
• qualitative
• screen industry
• well-being

Introduction

Society’s consumption of media has grown exponentially in the last decade with a proliferation of new forms of content (Van Hemet & Ellison, 2022). The global screen production sector is supported by an estimated 14.2 million jobs (4.4 million direct and 9.8 million indirect) generated by screen production spend and other parts of the sector value chain (Screen Guilds of Ireland, 2022). As well as traditional forms of film, television (TV) and animation, the industry also comprises diverse businesses ranging from self-casting vloggers with low overheads who profit by growing their fan base at one end of the spectrum, to horizontally and vertically integrated international studios and production houses that can aggregate, curate, and market content at the other end (Sørensen, 2018). As consumption grows, the sector needs to meet the new demands of streaming services alongside more traditional forms of production. This has proven a challenge due to global skills gaps, and in many cases, a deficit of professional crew available to meet new demand. While many national screen agencies are working to promote creative careers to young people, problematic working conditions have led to a haemorrhaging of experienced working professionals (Wilkes et al., 2020).

Wilkes et al. (2020) documented a mental health crisis in the UK screen sector in 2019, finding that 84–90% of those working in film and TV had experienced a mental health challenge in comparison with 65% across the rest of the population. It also reported that 55% of those surveyed had considered taking their own life. These stark findings were attributed to challenging working conditions, a negative workplace culture, and a lack of support capability across the industry. While this report acknowledged that the sector was capable of supportive change, 83% of those surveyed believed that industry culture had a negative effect on their well-being.

There are several factors that negatively impact the well-being of those working in the screen industry, and there have been recent examples where inappropriate practices and behaviours have been called out. Notably, the 2023 Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) and Writers Guild of America (WGA) strikes highlighted issues with unfair pair and smaller residual payments for workers (Khomami et al., 2023). It is evident that gender pay inequalities persist, with women not only finding it more difficult to enter and succeed in creative industry roles, but also benefiting less from working in such positions. There is similar underrepresentation of workers from ethnic minorities within the screen industry, with minority ethnic workers making up only 5.4% of its workforce in the UK (Eikhof, 2017). In addition, in 2017, Ronan Farrow’s Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalism highlighted the presence of sexual violence within the screen industry (Farrow, 2019). The #MeToo movement brought to light the frequency and severity of past and present abuse, harassment, and discrimination in the entertainment sector, not just for women in the industry but for all (Sørensen, 2022). Of note, Kim (2018) highlights that such issues are not unique to the Hollywood context: these issues extend outside of the western world and represent global challenges for the screen industry.

Despite these challenges, Banks and O’Connor (2017) are optimistic that the rapidly developing screen sector might encourage new forms of engagements that tend to be more inclusive, non-hierarchical, ethical, and just. The development of the role of Intimacy Coordinator has addressed sexual harassment and power imbalances on set. The Intimacy Coordinator’s role is to plan and direct sequences involving sex, intimacy, and nudity. The actors, crew, director, and producer, under the direction of the intimacy coordinator, are all involved in the practical, physical, and psychological preparations for the performance of these moments, and Intimacy Coordinators negotiate and oversee their filming. In addition to a concentration on the cast and crew’s safety, dignity, and wellness, the Intimacy Coordinator’s presence aims to foster a professional work atmosphere where procedures, practices, and actions are open and pre-rehearsed (Coetzee & Groves, 2023; Sørensen, 2022; Ward, 2023). Moreover, the screen industry’s poor record in sustainability is currently being addressed through new initiatives such as the widespread use of the carbon calculator on productions and the emergency of the new crew role of the Sustainability Manager (Kääpä & Vaughan, 2022). Given these progressive developments, there may also be scope to address challenges related to health and well-being within the screen sector.

Heimburg et al. (2022) define well-being as a multidimensional concept that includes emotional, functional, and structural components that are consistent with leading a good life and making a full contribution to society. More specifically, Heimburg et al. (2022) argue that well-being is associated with worthiness, freedom, mastery, functioning, having a sense of purpose and meaning in life, having positive emotions and social relationships, having acceptable living conditions, being an active member of society, and living a long, healthy life. Furthermore, the value of well-being increases when individuals recognize the positive effects of mind-body coherence and can see how an intentional effort to improve well-being, through evidence-based methods, genuinely affects the body’s “hardwiring” and neurophysiology (Vella-Brodrick et al., 2022). There is also a fundamental connection between well-being and mental health (Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, 2020), further highlighting the need to protect the well-being of those working in the screen industry. Consequently, the need to introduce Well-being Coordinators for the screen industry was identified.

The Well-being for the Screen Industry course was developed and overseen by individuals with backgrounds in mental health, film studies, disability studies, and autism studies. Course participants were recruited through Screen Ireland, the development agency for the Irish Film Industry. The course was advertised on Screen Ireland’s social media channels, and information was included on their website, and sent out via mailing lists. In order to be accepted onto the course, participants had to be screen professionals, over 21 years of age, and have access to the technology necessary to access online materials. It was piloted (i.e., course participants were not formally assessed) over a 10-week period in a university context in Ireland. Sessions were delivered online (three hours, once a week), using a blend of synchronous and asynchronous approaches. The course content focused on several key areas related to well-being. Owing to the connection between mental health and well-being (Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, 2020), common mental health challenges those in the screen industry experience, such as depression and anxiety (Wilkes et al., 2020), were addressed. High levels of bullying and harassment are often reported in the industry (Van Raalte et al., 2023; Wilkes et al., 2020), and so sessions were devised to address these areas. There was also a focus on disability and neurodivergence, as it has been estimated that 12% of the people working in the visual effects, animation, and post-production industries have disabilities, and nearly 80% of these are neurodivergent (UK Screen Alliance, 2019). Course participants were also introduced to legal aspects of the Well-being Coordinator role, relevant documentation, and well-being plans. It was acknowledged that Well-being Coordinators may not be always able to address mental health and well-being challenges they encounter; in such instances, the importance of professional help-seeking and signposting (Goodwin et al., 2023) was emphasized, and participants were educated on professional and voluntary mental health organizations they may need to consult or recommend.

The aim of this study was to explore perspectives on well-being in the screen industry, and to evaluate participants’ perspectives of the Well-being Coordination for the Screen Sector course.

Methods

Design

This study was guided by an interpretive descriptive approach (Thorne et al., 1997), which facilitates the progression of knowledge of phenomena, without a need to limit oneself theoretically, while maintaining methodological integrity (Thompson Burdine et al., 2021; Thorne et al., 1997). Our approach was guided by an ontology of relativism (the assumption of multiple realities) and an epistemology of interpretivism (analytic conclusions are based on a complex, interdependent interplay between the researcher and participant data) (Otoo, 2020).

Data collection

A purposive sampling approach was used. Upon completion of the pilot “Well-being Coordination for the Screen Sector” course, participants were informed about the study through the course’s virtual learning environment, and through an email from Screen Ireland. These individuals were provided with the lead researcher’s contact details and to volunteer to participate, if interested. Three reminder notifications were issued, in order to maximize the sample.

Data were collected through individual interviews, using a semi-structured interview guide (see Table 1). Interviews were conducted by four members of the research team, who had no role in delivering the content of the course.

Table 1. Semi-structured interview guide.

Thinking about on your experiences working in the screen industry, do you think that wellbeing coordinators are needed on set? (Prompts: If so, why? If not, why not) What was it that initially attracted you to the wellbeing coordinator for the screen industry course? Tell me about the aspects of the course you most enjoyed? How do you think this course could be improved? Would you recommend that others undertake this course? (Prompts: If so, why? If not, why not?) Having taken the course, what is your vision for the future of the screen industry in terms of wellbeing? What’s one key learning or experience you have taken away from this course?

These were conducted online via Microsoft Teams. Transcripts were checked against the audio for accuracy, and then recordings were deleted. Interviews lasted 37 minutes on average.

Data analysis

Braun and Clarke’s (2021) approach to reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse data. Analysis was facilitated by NVivo 20.

Transcripts were read repeatedly to aid immersion; initial thoughts and reflections were documented at this stage (Goodall et al., 2021). Transcripts were coded by JG and cross-checked by RG, with disagreements resolved through debate and consensus. The relationship between codes was reviewed by JG, leading to the generation of initial themes. These were presented to the entire research team, debated, and refined. Once agreement about themes was reached, these were written up, with participant quotations used to support interpretations (Braun & Clarke, 2021).

To maintain rigour, we adhered to the principles outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Credibility was maintained through multiple researchers overseeing data analysis (Strøm Rönnquist et al., 2023), with regular meetings and debating of interpretations ensuring confirmability. These researchers came from different professional backgrounds and brought diverse perspectives to the analysis process. Three researchers had backgrounds in mental health nursing, and two had backgrounds working in the screen industry. The lead researcher (JG) holds a PhD in mental health nursing and a Master’s Degree in film studies. Dependability is demonstrated by providing a detailed description of each step of the research process (Salemonsen et al., 2022). Transferability was maintained by providing quotations from every participant (Goodwin et al., 2022; Lincoln & Guba, 1985), in addition to contextual demographic details (Salemonsen et al., 2022).

Ethics

Ethical approval was granted by the Social Research Ethics Committee, approval number: 2023–056. All participants participated voluntarily, thus adhering to autonomy, and were treated equitably, thus adhering to justice. We adhered to beneficence by providing participants with information about support services in the event of experiencing distress during the interview (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013; Cuesta et al., 2020).

Results

Fourteen participants took part in the study (see Table 2). Five themes were identified (see Figure 1). In an effort to protect the identity of participants, pseudonyms are used throughout.

Figure 1. Thematic map.

Table 2. Demographics.

			Number (n)	Percent (%)
Age	18–29		1	7%
	30–39		4	29%
	40–49		5	36%
	50–59		4	29%
Gender	Female		12	86%
	Other/prefer not to say		2	14%
Race/ethnicity	White
		Irish	13	93%
		Any other white background	1	7%
Profession	Actor/Freelance Crew Hand		1	7%
	Actor/Intimacy Coordinator		1	7%
	Company Director		1	7%
	Family Support		1	7%
	Filmmaker		1	7%
	Nurse		1	7%
	Producer		1	7%
	Production Co-ordinator		2	14%
	Production Engineer		1	7%
	Production Secretary		1	7%
	Skills Development Executive		1	7%
	Script Editor		1	7%
	Prefer not to say		1	7%
Years of experience working in the screen industry	0–5		5	36%
	6–10		2	14%
	11–15		2	14%
	21+		5	36%

Theme 1: opportunities and challenges working in the screen industry

The first theme comprises four sub-themes: Opportunities within the Industry; A Difficult Working Environment; Unreasonable Hours, Unreasonable Pay; and A Lack of Support for People’s Careers.

Sub-theme 1: opportunities within the industry

Participants spoke about the screen industry as an interesting, fun, place to work in. The opportunity to be creative facilitated a dynamic, exciting workplace, where no two days are ever the same:

First of all, you know, on one hand it’s an amazing industry to be a part of because no two days are the same: you never know what’s gonna happen. (Erin)

Being creative and being given the chance to tell stories gave participants a sense of pride in their work. Consequently, a sense of dedication to the industry was communicated, with several participants commenting that they often worked outside of “traditional” working hours:

I really love the job as well. I’m a script editor and you love the job. You don’t care if it’s bank holidays or Christmas or whichever, you love the job. (Ava)

The opportunity to constantly learn more within the industry was also highlighted. Owing to the dynamic nature of the screen industry, there was always the possibility to learn from other people and develop new skills:

So, people management skills are really important, you know, as well as the knowledge of the industry. I’m learning the industry. I’m still learning. I will continue to learn, however, if I can, if I can keep going with what I’ve started. (Sarah)

Sub-theme 2: a difficult working environment

Working in the screen industry was also described as tense and high-pressured. On set working conditions were considered to be poor and sometimes unsafe, while a lack of job security left people feeling exhausted and destabilized. There was a sense that people entered the industry excited and enthusiastic, but very quickly became disillusioned:

When I joined the industry two years ago, I was horrified of conditions and circumstances that I found. (Sarah)

These conditions were perceived to be sub-standard in comparison to other industries; indeed, it was acknowledged that such conditions would not be tolerated elsewhere. However, participants suggested that many of the issues they faced were seldom openly discussed, indicating a clandestine culture where people suffered in silence:

And I could talk. Even now, as I’m talking, I’m afraid to say what I’ve seen. […] It goes far beyond any other industry that my friends are involved with, and I don’t speak openly about that. (Erin)

Participants described a hierarchy, or a very unequal imbalance of power, composed of “very wealthy top-level executives” at the top, and people who do “grunt work” at the bottom. It was stated that those in a position of authority often abused their perceived power, meaning crew members were frequently the victims of bullying and harassment. It was common for participants to view and experience episodes of inappropriate verbal abuse on set:

The director and the first AD [assistant director] and the cinematographer, so, they would have been the heads of their respective departments. They were monsters. That’s the best way to describe them. They just they would scream at crew. They would yell at crew. They were just always so angry. (Sophia)

Sub-theme 3: unreasonable hours, unreasonable pay

Every participant spoke about challenges with long working hours. Owing to international time differences or the limited availability of cast members, crew members were often required to work antisocial hours and very lengthy days, sometimes without the possibility of taking an adequate lunchbreak:

It is shocking for people who … who aren’t used to not having a break, not used to standing for 11–12 hours in the rain, you know, you know, I think not used to maybe being spoken to in certain ways, you know. (Maggie)

These long hours took their toll on participants. They described an absence of a work/life balance which negatively impacted on their family commitments. Participants’ accounts of their circumstances indicated a lack of respect for personal boundaries and welfare. There was an expectation of devotion to the industry, meaning people would need to present to work no matter what personal circumstances they were experiencing:

I’ve never in all the years I worked in film, I never took a day sick. Just it just, it just couldn’t do it. […] You’d have to be knocked down by a car, you know? (Carmel)

Despite working long hours, participants felt that they were not sufficiently remunerated. It was stated that only those working “above the line” (e.g., directors, assistant directors) are paid appropriate over-time wages, whereas other crew members were expected to work beyond their contracted hours and were not in a position to negotiate for overtime. Consequently, participants felt taken advantage of:

But what they’re doing is squeezing more work out of people where they should maybe hire two people. Or and have two units, you know. That’s just pure making money, like, it’s … it’s horrendous. That’s just pure squeezing people for all their work. (Ava)

I think the problem we have at the moment is we’re fighting to get up to the minimum […] We just need people paid properly paid on appropriate contracts that need to be negotiated. (Wendy)

Sub-theme 4: a lack of support for people’s careers

Participants felt very unsupported in their positions. They noted that, unlike other industries, the screen industry lacks a formal Human Resources pathway. Moreover, they spoke about the fear of joining a union, as they believed this would impact negatively on their career prospects. One participant acknowledged that line producers were the common designated support person, but these staff members were frequently the sourse of conflict:

I’ve been on loads of shows … . It’s all the same. If you have any issues, approach your designated person, which is the line producer. No, 9 times out of 10, the line producer is the one causing the issues, especially if it’s lack of overtime pay, you know, too many shoot hours. (Sophia)

Owing to the stress participants experienced, many referred to the concept of “burnout” and a desire to leave the screen industry. Furthermore, they acknowledged their reluctance to encourage others to pursue a career in the sector:

I mean it’s a tough industry and everybody knows that. I mean, I don’t know if I would encourage people to go into it, you know? And you know, I’ve trained up coordinators and I’ve said to them, “look hard at the way I work. Do you want to have a lifestyle like I do?” And a lot of them say, “no”. I know there’s a big skills drain and shortage at the moment, particularly in production management, and that’s probably why. And, so, it’s not gonna happen overnight that it becomes, you know, a nicer, safer industry. (Maggie)

Theme 2: co-existing with harassment

Participants provided some context as to why they co-existed with harassment in an industry they perceived as hostile. Despite acknowledging the relative infancy of the industry, it was felt that certain negative cultures have emerged, which are difficult to change. Because the world of entertainment is considered “glamorous”, participants stated that there was an expectation that people should be grateful to be working in the sector, and that sense of privilege prevents them from addressing the culture:

Like, why specifically is the screen industry this way? Tradition? A sense of calling that you’re making art or entertainment, and that you’re lucky to be there? (Cameron)

There was a passion among participants to create art and to tell stories, meaning they felt a sense of belonging within the sector. However, they also recognized the irony that the only industry where they belonged was often not respectful of their talents. In this regard, participants felt their passion was often exploited:

It is my heart and soul and I love storytelling and we tell such beautiful stories about so many deep-hearted beautiful things that I would love the industry itself to just reflect some of that, you know, rather than being the hardest place in the world to work. (Olive)

Despite realizing they were being exploited, there was trepidation about addressing issues of bullying and harassment. There were concerns that calling out poor behaviour would impact negatively on their own future job prospects, meaning participants tolerated a perpetual cycle of harassment with each production:

The likes of bullying, harassment, sexual misconduct, like it goes across the board but I think people don’t speak up enough in the screen because they’re afraid they’re not gonna get the next job. I mean, there’s a lot of reasons why people don’t speak up. (Mia)

However, several participants indicated a sense of optimism for the future of the screen industry, and a belief that the culture is about to experience radical positive changes. They commented that younger generations are more educated, more attuned to discourses concerning inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. While this generation may enter the industry with hope and enthusiasm, when confronted with harassment, they will have the acumen to leave and adapt their skillset to another industry:

I think people will take an opportunity to work on a film or TV show. But, like, the trainees I worked with, they won’t stay in it. That’s the skills gap. They get a taste and go, “No, that’s no life”, […] and they don’t want to stay in the business. (Erin)

Theme 3: the need for change: the importance of well-being

The COVID-19 pandemic was cited as a catalyst for change. It was suggested that society in general, including those working in the screen industry, developed more of an appreciation for the importance of good mental health and well-being:

COVID has happened. People are paying more attention to their mental health. (Erin)

Upon returning to film and TV sets post-pandemic, participants described experiencing a wake-up call, and a need for more supportive working environments where they felt empowered and safe, rather than vulnerable and isolated. Among participants, there was a clear sense that something was wrong in the industry and significant change was warranted:

People want better. People want to have someone there that will support them. They want to be able to have conversations. They want to look after the health and well-being of their colleagues and themselves. (Stacy)

Participants commented that production companies need to take better care of people’s mental health and well-being, with a focus on encouraging people to thrive in the workplace. Such a focus was emphasized as universal—mental health and well-being were regarded to affect everybody in the screen industry:

You need to create such a safe space for actors to thrive, […] it’s not just actors, it’s crew. It’s everyone. Every single person on a set. We just deserve to have a safe - every single person deserves to have a safe and happy workplace and we’ll all do our best and we’ll all, you know, make beautiful work and have a happy time doing it if it’s, if it’s possible. (Olive)

With happier staff on set, ultimately, productions would be more successful, meaning good mental health was viewed as a “win-win” scenario. However, such productions were regarded to be rarities, with consistent on-set challenges leading to less favourable outputs. There was unanimous support for breaking the cycle and for enhancing the well-being of crew/cast:

If you don’t have a great environment, you’re not going to have a great quality show. You’re not going to have the camaraderie and the, everybody working towards the same thing. (Ava)

In order to advance the well-being of crew and cast members, participants commented on the importance of introducing Well-being Coordinators on set. It was acknowledged that there was widespread support for such a position from those working in the screen industry:

I did say it to people on the last production that I was interested [in the course] and there was a really good set level of interest coming back that people are like, “Oh yes”, and then a few people said, “I’d love to do that”. (Zoe)

Theme 4: becoming a well-being coordinator: learning from the course

Participants spoke about the knowledge they had gained due to undertaking the course on “Well-being Coordination for the Screen Sector”. Positive aspects of the course included the strong evidence-base underpinning content, the focus on neurodiversity, the very clear guidelines on the role of the Well-being Coordinator, and the introduction to relevant policies they would use in practice:

It was good to have really good guidelines on how to do [the role] because it will vary depending on everyone’s personality and, you know, everyone has a different way. But I think just the … the guidelines and the policies are really, really helpful. (Jane)

The practical nature of the course was commended. Participants spoke about new materials and resources they were introduced to which they planned to use on set to enhance people’s well-being. Several participants commented that they were building up their own library of resources, creating a “Well-being Toolkit” that they would always have at hand:

The Well-being Toolkit I thought was phenomenal. Having the structure […] because if you get lost, you can just find that back and be, like, OK, this is where I am, these are the steps I need. (Olive)

The use of virtual breakout rooms to facilitate small group interactions was very positively perceived. Participants benefited from networking with each other and had an opportunity to engage with people from a range of professional backgrounds. Through sharing of information and forming connections with others, participants’ knowledge of well-being in the screen industry was augmented:

There was an openness to the conversation and there was … there was learning in that hearing other people’s experiences in the industry, getting to get a small insight into their story. (Stacy)

That sense of connection was lost during the final few weeks, during the asynchronous sessions. Participants continued to value the knowledge being imparted, but they lamented the absence of peers and the opportunity to share information and foster relationships:

I guess the people were missing. So yeah, we had a lecturer and we had the content, but the people aspect was missing. (Pearl)

Although participants were highly complimentary about the quality of the lecturing staff and their vast knowledge about mental health and well-being, their lack of experience with the screen industry was evident. It was noted that these lecturers were taken aback by the lack of supportive processes in place within the industry. While this validated concerns raised by participants, they felt lecturers should have a better working knowledge about the industry, its associated problems, and the lack of support available to staff:

Some of the lecturers who are brought on for this course seemed surprised about, uh, some of these working traditions we’re talking about. […] So, it is amusing in ways to actually … to see some people’s responses to it in that regard, because you’re like, “yeah, it’s insane”. (Cameron)

However, the challenges with securing an individual with expertise in both the screen industry and mental health/well-being was acknowledged—not many would straddle both worlds. One suggestion was to bring back current course participants as guest speakers once they had embraced the Well-being Coordinator role in practice:

I think we could have done with hearing from more people who are who are doing it, and I appreciate it’s an emerging field. […] I think the cohort that have just gone through […] I think in the next couple of years it’ll be invaluable to bring them back and just see how it fits. (Stacy)

Theme 5: The future of the well-being coordinator role: opportunities and challenges

Participants spoke about the important roles Well-being Coordinators should have on set. This included early identification of when people might start struggling with their mental health, provision of information about relevant supports, ensuring appropriate working hours are maintained, and generally acting in an advocacy role:

I hope that that will lead to people, you know, having better working conditions where they feel happier within their jobs and stay in their jobs and don’t reach these levels of kind of … where it all becomes too much, or the stress, or you know, which might lead people to just throwing in the towel or leaving. (Pearl)

However, the enthusiasm for the role was underscored with a sense of frustration and a realization that there would be inevitable resistance from those “above the line”. Participants expressed concern that securing “buy in” from heads of department and producers would be challenging, particularly owing to increases in budgets to fund the role of the Well-being Coordinator:

And then another conversation I had with a director, […] I told him I was doing this course and he said, “Ah [dismissive hand gesture], I can’t ever see that happening”. (Mia)

Anything that adds […] as a line item into your budget, there’s going to be pushback on. (Carmel)

There were also concerns that scapegoating could become a problem, with fingers pointed at Well-being Coordinators when cast/crew experienced poor well-being. It was acknowledged that the current problematic culture could maintain, with those “above the line” exonerating themselves by having a named person whose responsibility was maintaining well-being, whether or not they truly fulfilled that role:

I suppose one has to be prudent and make sure that it’s not the producers and the production manager there putting that person in place to make their life easier, because this role could be abused. (Erin)

Nevertheless, participants believed that, similar to the introduction of Intimacy Coordinators and Sustainability Managers, in time, the presence of Well-being Coordinators on set would become “the norm”. Participants described an inevitable “chain reaction” of systemic good practice, where people will develop their understanding around the importance of respectful social behaviours and communication:

I think when people are aware of what good behaviour and good well-being looks like then they will be less inclined to participate in bad behaviour, […] the more they will know, “well, actually this is unacceptable and I really should do something about this”. (Carmel)

Indeed, one participant opined that the future of the Well-being Coordinator role would transition from an individual responsibility to a team effort, comprising several people with the skillsets to enhance and maintain well-being on set:

There will probably end up being teams of people on big productions rather than just one person in a while. I think it’ll take a while for it to be really brought on board, but I think this course really has equipped us and to be ahead of the game, which is great. (Zoe)

Discussion

The aim of this qualitative study was to explore perspectives on well-being in the screen industry as the Well-being Coordinator role is introduced. Findings from this study indicate an inappropriate work/life balance as a consequence of unreasonable working hours, which negatively impacted on well-being. This corresponds with international research on working hours in the screen industry, adding qualitative context to the previous quantitative research conducted. A 2021 global survey of working hours in the screen sector found that the standard working day was 12 to 13 hours on average, with very little turnaround time for rest between working days; 62% of the respondents felt that this negatively impacted their mental well-being (Uni Global Union, 2021). Screen Guilds of Ireland (2022) found that 80% of respondents believed that working hours negatively impacted their health and well-being, with 95% stating that they experienced difficulties with childcare arrangements, making the industry particularly family unfriendly. A similar report in the UK found that 80% of those surveyed believed that they had witnessed mistakes on set due to fatigue with 90% feeling unsafe on set or travelling to and from work because of tiredness. Up to 75% of respondents believed that their line managers required more training in people and management skills and this knowledge gap, compounded by long working hours, has led to a culture of bullying and a poorer quality of life (Evans & Green, 2017). Given the significance of this issue, and the impact on that long working hours can have on physical (Fadel et al., 2023) and mental health (Baek et al., 2023), advocating for a more appropriate working schedule needs to become central to the well-being coordinator role. There is also a need to conduct further qualitative research following the introduction of well-being co-ordinators, in order to determine if this new addition can enhance people’s working lives.

Another key challenge raised was the experience of a hostile and sometimes unsafe work environment, with power imbalances in place owing to historical hierarchical structures. A recent study indicated that over 93% of people working in the screen industry had either experienced or witnessed bullying or harassment at work, with inadequate communication structures and challenging hierarchical relationships often identified at the root (Van Raalte et al., 2023). Many organizations have dignity at work policies in place, and there has been a global call to encourage the screen industry to adopt such policies (Uni Global Union, 2021). Moreover, it has been recommended that conflicting hierarchies and opaque organizational structures are eliminated from the screen industry’s working practices (Van Raalte et al., 2023). The current qualitative study has added further context to previous quantitative research, highlighting the specific areas which needs to be addressed by well-being coordinators. Well-being Coordinators should review and implement such policies and structures, preserving the dignity of employees, enhancing communication between individuals and departments.

Such enhanced communication may yield benefits for all stakeholders. It was clear from participants’ accounts that their mental health/well-being was not always prioritized by those “above the line”. Indeed, this research illuminated the harmful impact that the hierarchical system in place within the industry has on mental health. It is worth noting that there is a growing recognition that poor mental health and well-being in the workplace can have detrimental effects on productivity (Bubonya et al., 2017; Stepanek et al., 2019). Empirical literature consistently underscores the relationship between good emotional well-being and workplace productivity, even though organizational management does not always acknowledge this connection (Johns, 2010; Neto et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2016). Presenteeism, a term used to describe reduced productivity when employees are not performing at their best due to various factors like illness or injury, can often be attributed to the neglect of emotional well-being in the workplace (Zhou et al., 2016). Neglecting the promotion of emotional well-being in the workplace carries significant consequences, including diminished job satisfaction and increased presenteeism. Recognising and promoting emotional well-being, on the other hand, can yield benefits, such as enhanced job satisfaction and productivity, which, in turn, can lead to reduced presenteeism (Neto et al., 2017). It is recommended that those in positions of authority within the industry make greater efforts to promote the well-being of all staff members. These improvements could also have economic benefits by boosting overall workforce productivity and potentially reducing the incidence of labour strikes in the screen industry.

In relation to the course itself, one of the issues identified by participants was that lecturing staff were not au-fait with some of the subtleties of the screen industry, given their psychotherapy backgrounds. As Well-being Coordinators embed themselves in the screen industry and learn to navigate the nuances of the role, it is recommended that they share their knowledge and experiences with future students. This unique, specialized insight into both the screen industry and the importance of well-being will be invaluable to students, but it may also benefit the Well-being Coordinators themselves, as it is well established that people enhance their own learning by engaging in teaching activities (Zhang et al., 2023). The interactive nature of this teaching should also be considered. Although there is evidence to suggest that asynchronous teaching allows for flexible learning (Sodeify et al., 2022), it has also been reported that such approaches limit important social interactions (Goodwin et al., 2022; Timm et al., 2023). Given participants in the current study also voiced concerns about asynchronous approaches, where possible, it is recommended that educating Well-being Coordinators is largely conducted live, with provisions made for an interactive learning experience.

In addition to the knowledge participants gained from lecturers, an emphasis was placed on peer learning. These networks should be maintained and enhanced, particularly as the Well-being Coordinator role is in its infancy. Recent studies have addressed the success of “peer group supervision”, which facilitates increased confidence in roles (Davis et al., 2022), relationship development in a safe space, increased adaptability (McCarthy et al., 2021), stress reduction, and enhanced problem-solving skills (Saab et al., 2021; Toros & Falch-Eriksen, 2022). It is recommended that similar fora are set up so that Well-being Coordinators can meet to support each other, share information and resources, and address challenges they confront as they adapt to their new role.

The results of this study must be viewed in the context of its limitations. A lack of male-identifying participants limits the transferability of the results presented. Diversity of ethnicity was also lacking, with all participants identifying as white. Also, the potential for self-selection bias, where those who agreed to partake in interviews may have had personal reasons for doing so (Walsh et al., 2022) needs to be acknowledged.

Conclusion

The screen industry is described as a high-intensity, challenging environment in which bullying and harassment are systemically pervasive. Insecure job opportunities and historical cultural factors impact individuals’ willingness to report these incidents. Hope, however, endures within the industry, particularly as young professionals, more attuned to inappropriate behaviours enter the workplace. COVID-19 highlighted the need to enhance mental health supports for staff in the screen industry, with the Well-being Coordinator role identified as having the potential to enact positive change. Although there will likely be some initial resistance to the introduction of Well-being Coordinators on sets, the continued rollout of this position is recommended, with a vision that such positions will become commonplace in the industry, leading to enhanced well-being, improved mental health and well-being, and overall, a more supportive industry.

These initial qualitative findings are encouraging and demonstrate a sense of enthusiasm for the role. It is recommended that further research is conducted with Well-being Coordinators as they become embedded in the sector. It is also recommended that longitudinal studies on well-being are conducted within the screen industry, which will provide insights into the impact Well-being Coordinators have for cast and crew.

Ethics approval statement

Ethical approval was granted by the Social Research Ethics Committee, University College Cork; approval number: Log-2023–056.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Summer Undergraduate Research Experience Award from the College of Medicine and Health, UCC.

Notes on contributors

John Goodwin

John Goodwin is a lecturer in mental health nursing and programme lead for the undergraduate mental health nursing programme, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Brookfield Health Sciences Complex, University College Cork, T12 AK54, Ireland; email: [email protected]. His research interests include mental health help-seeking, media depictions of mental illness, public perceptions of mental health care environments, the use of the arts and creativity in mental health, young people’s mental health, and mental health stigma

Eleanor McSherry

Eleanor McSherry is a lecturer, head of autism studies, programme designer, and coordinator in Adult Continuing Education, The Laurels, University College Cork, Western Road, Cork, T12 EH31; email: [email protected]. Her research interests include mental health and autism, autism and policy, practice and the law, intellectual disability and autism in the Irish educational system, representation of autism and neurodiversity in the screen industry, wellbeing in the screen and creative industries, the processes of scriptwriting, the models of disability and advocacy.

Ryan Goulding

Ryan Goulding is a lecturer in the mental health nursing programme in the School of Nursing & Midwifery, Brookfield Health Sciences Complex, University College Cork, T12 AK54, Ireland; email: [email protected]. Their research interests include the health disparities that exist across healthcare services for transgender and gender diverse youth. They also have an interest in the mental health of minority groupings and their experiences of the healthcare system, with a focus on intervention development to combat these health disparities and negative experiences

James O’Mahony

James O’Mahony is a lecturer and Programme Lead for the MSc/ Pg Diploma in Cognitive & Behavioural Psychotherapy in the School of Nursing & Midwifery, Brookfield Health Sciences Complex, University College Cork, T12 AK54, Ireland; email: [email protected]

Rachael O’Callaghan

Rachael O’Callaghan is a student at the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Brookfield Health Sciences Complex, University College Cork, T12 AK54, Ireland; email: [email protected]

Ciara Chambers

Ciara Chambers is Head of the Department of Film & Screen Media, O’Rahilly Building, University College Cork, T12 K8AF, Ireland; email: [email protected]. Her research interests include film history and education, newsreels, amateur cinema, archival appropriation and creative reuse, documentary production, archiving and digitisation.