10. sept-power

Rules and power in organizations

• Our view of formal rules should go beyond seeing them as simply "official" instructions that make organizations more efficient. Rules are also connected to power and politics. They can be used to legitimize the authority of managers or other groups, because rules make certain decisions and behaviors appear official and legitimate.

• Rules can also benefit some groups more than others. Different groups within an organization may have different or even opposing interests, and they can try to influence which rules are created and how they are applied. Therefore, rules are not always neutral. They can help organize the workplace, but they can also maintain existing power relationships.

Some Dare Call It Power

• Power often has a negative meaning in organizations because we tend to connect it with control, domination, inequality and forcing people to do things. However, power is not necessarily only "the dark side." Power can also help people organize, cooperate, achieve goals and challenge existing systems.

• Power is difficult to research because it has many different dimensions. It can be very visible, such as a manager giving an order, but it can also be hidden in rules, organizational structures, culture, beliefs and people's understanding of themselves.

Steven Lukes

• Lukes argues that power is a potentiality, not necessarily an actuality. This means that someone can have the ability to influence or control something even if they never actually use that power.

• For example, a manager may have the authority to fire an employee even if they never threaten to fire them. The manager therefore has a potential power that may never need to be used.

• Lukes also helps move the study of power from visible, identifiable actions toward more hidden and systemic forms of influence. Instead of only asking, "Who made this decision?", we can also ask how institutions, values, beliefs and social structures influence what people think and do.

Dimensions or "Faces" of Power — Fleming and Spicer

• Fleming and Spicer describe four faces of power. The first two are mainly episodic, meaning that we can identify particular acts of influence. The last two are mainly systemic, meaning that power is built into wider structures, norms and ways of thinking and is therefore harder to identify.

Episodic forms of power

• These involve identifiable acts where one person or group influences another. It is often possible to point to a particular decision, interaction, or attempt to influence someone.

1. Coercion

2. Manipulation

Systemic forms of power

• These operate through structures, norms, institutions, beliefs and ideas, so there may not be one clear person using power. Domination and subjectification are less likely to depend on one clearly identifiable act because they become part of everyday life.

3. Domination

4. Subjectification

The main difference is how power operates. Coercion and manipulation focus on what someone does to influence others. Domination and subjectification focus more on how systems shape what people accept as normal and how they understand themselves.

The First Dimension — Coercion

• The first dimension is the most visible and direct form of power. Power is seen through decision-making, where one person or group is able to influence the outcome of a decision.

• Robert Dahl's view of power focuses on situations where there is an observable conflict of interests. We can see that one person wants A, another person wants B, and one person has enough power to make A happen.

• Power can be studied by looking at the outcomes of decisions. We examine who gets what they want, who wins a disagreement, and whose interests are reflected in the final decision.

• There is an observable conflict of interests. This means that the people involved openly disagree about an issue, and the person or group with greater power can influence the outcome.

One-dimensional view of power

• The one-dimensional view focuses on observable behavior and decision-making.

• Power is connected to authority and access to resources. Managers may have the formal authority to assign tasks, control budgets, evaluate performance, and decide who receives promotions. These responsibilities give them more influence than employees who cannot make the same decisions.

• Different groups may have different levels of power. Employees in different departments may have unequal access to information, resources, or decision-makers. Differences in age, education, experience, professional status, and organizational position can also influence whose opinions carry the most weight.

• For example, a manager decides that employees must work overtime even though employees do not want to. We can clearly see who made the decision and who was affected, so this is a visible form of power.

• Power can also become important when people are competing for promotion, status, resources or influence. These situations can create observable conflicts between individuals or groups.

• The limitation of the first dimension is that it mainly focuses on visible conflict. It can explain who wins a disagreement, but it may overlook situations where people never raise an issue because they expect to lose or believe that challenging authority is pointless.

The Second Dimension — Manipulation

• The second dimension goes beyond visible decision-making. Here, power can be used to prevent an issue from being raised in the first place or to control which issues are discussed.

• This means that power does not only determine what decision is made. It can also determine which decisions are allowed to become issues that need to be discussed.

• This is why it is often called hidden or covert power.

• For example, imagine employees want to discuss poor working conditions at a meeting. Management makes sure the topic is never put on the agenda. There is no obvious vote where management says "no," but the issue never gets discussed.

• This is manipulation because someone is controlling the agenda and shaping what can be discussed

• A cover-up culture is an environment where problems or uncomfortable information are hidden instead of being openly discussed. A cover-up culture can protect powerful people. In organizations where employees are discouraged from reporting misconduct, problems may remain hidden because people fear punishment, damage to their careers, or social exclusion.

• "Old boys' networks" are informal networks, often made up of powerful men, where decisions and opportunities can be discussed privately outside official organizational processes. These networks can make it difficult for outsiders to have influence.

Example: Employees know that a senior manager is bullying staff, but complaints are repeatedly ignored because the manager is close to the CEO. The CEO does not need to openly defend the bullying for power to operate. By preventing the issue from being properly addressed, the organization protects the manager.

Whistleblowers

• A whistleblower is someone who reports wrongdoing or misconduct within an organization, often to people outside the immediate chain of authority. Whistleblowers can reveal problems that powerful people would prefer to keep hidden.

• Whistleblowers can make hidden power visible. By sharing evidence of misconduct, they can force an organization to discuss issues that were previously ignored or excluded from the agenda.

• Reporting wrongdoing can be risky. Whistleblowers may face retaliation, isolation, damage to their reputation, or threats to their employment. These risks can discourage other employees from speaking up.

• Cover-up cultures can be exposed through independent investigations, documentation, media attention, and protection for people who report misconduct. However, the organization must also be willing to examine the structures that allowed the problem to remain hidden.

The Third Dimension — Domination

• The third dimension of power is when power works without obvious conflict. This is sometimes called non-decision-making, because people may not challenge something in the first place.

• Power can shape people’s values, beliefs, preferences, and ways of thinking, making existing arrangements seem natural, fair, or unavoidable. Language and framing also matter because the way an issue is described affects how people understand it. Discourses can make certain ideas seem normal, such as treating constant productivity as more important than rest.

• Over time, these expectations can become everyday habits that people follow without questioning them. This makes the third dimension of power difficult to see because there may be no direct order or open conflict. Researchers therefore look at language, assumptions, routines, culture, and behaviour to understand how power operates.

Example: Employees accept unpaid overtime because they believe that successful people must always work harder than everyone else. Management may not need to order them to work extra hours because the belief itself encourages the behaviour.

Important connection: The third dimension of Lukes and the concept of domination in Fleming and Spicer overlap because both help explain power that works through accepted beliefs and social arrangements. However, the theories are not identical: Lukes describes a dimension of power, while Fleming and Spicer organize different approaches to power into four broader faces.

Connection to Gideon Kunda

• This connects to Kunda's study of organizational culture and normative control. Employees can become influenced by organizational values and expectations without being directly ordered to behave in a certain way.

• For example, if an organization constantly presents the "ideal employee" as someone who is highly committed and always willing to work harder, employees may start seeing this as normal.

• Employees may begin to regulate their own behaviour. If the organization defines a committed employee as someone who is always enthusiastic, flexible, and willing to work extra hours, employees may pressure themselves to meet that ideal.

• There is a difference between following a rule and believing in it. An employee who stays late because a manager orders them to is responding to direct power. An employee who stays late because they believe a good worker should always put the organization first may be influenced by deeper cultural expectations

Hegemonic Power

• Hegemony refers to a situation where a particular system of values, beliefs and ideas becomes so widely accepted that it supports the existing order.

• Instead of people being constantly forced to accept the status quo, they may accept it as normal and natural.

• Hegemony is reinforced through socialization. Families, schools, workplaces, media, and other institutions can pass on beliefs about success, authority, gender roles, and appropriate behaviour. Over time, these beliefs can seem like obvious truths rather than ideas shaped by society.

• Hegemony does not mean that everyone agrees completely. People may question certain aspects of the dominant worldview while continuing to accept other parts. Dominant ideas can be challenged, negotiated, and changed.

Cultural hegemony

Counter-hegemony

Cultural hegemony

• Cultural hegemony makes the existing social order appear natural. When dominant beliefs become part of common sense, people may accept inequalities without questioning how they developed or who benefits from them.

• For example, if society repeatedly presents certain groups as naturally better suited for leadership, people may eventually accept this idea without questioning where it came from.

Counter-hegemony

• Counter-hegemony means challenging these dominant beliefs and creating alternative ways of understanding society.

• Protests, social movements and other forms of resistance can therefore challenge political or cultural hegemony.

Example: If a society treats extreme wealth as proof that someone is more hardworking or deserving than others, people may overlook structural advantages and inequalities. Challenging this belief by emphasizing unequal opportunities can be a form of counter-hegemonic action.

Institutional Racism

• Institutional racism occurs when organizational rules, routines, policies, or established practices contribute to racial inequalities. It can happen even when individuals do not openly express racist beliefs or intend to discriminate.

• Institutional racism connects especially well to the third dimension of power. Racial assumptions can become embedded in what organizations treat as normal, professional, or appropriate. These assumptions may influence decisions without anyone explicitly stating a racist intention.

• Apparently neutral rules can have unequal effects. For example, a recruitment process that relies heavily on informal recommendations may favour people who already have access to influential networks. If those networks are unequal along racial lines, the process can reproduce existing disadvantages.

• The important point is to examine systems and outcomes, not only individual intentions. Addressing institutional racism therefore requires looking at everyday practices, decision-making criteria, access to opportunities, and the assumptions behind organizational policies.

Example: A company repeatedly recruits senior employees through personal networks that mainly include white candidates. Even if recruiters claim to choose the best people, the system may continue to disadvantage qualified candidates from other racial backgrounds.

Visible power

• Visible power is relatively easy to identify because it appears in clear decisions, actions, or conflicts. We can often identify who exercised power, what they did, and how the outcome was affected.

• Agential visible power operates through direct actions by people. Examples include a manager giving orders, threatening punishment, or making a decision that affects employees.

• Structural visible power operates through material arrangements and dependence on resources. For example, a company may have greater influence over a political decision because it controls major investments or has significant financial resources.

• The main focus is on observable decisions and actions. This connects closely to the first dimension of power, where researchers examine who wins when people openly disagree.

Hidden power

• Hidden power operates by controlling which issues are discussed and which decisions are considered. It can be difficult to identify because the influence happens before a visible decision is made.

• Agential hidden power works through relationships and agenda-setting. For example, a manager may prevent an employee's proposal from reaching senior management because the manager does not want the proposal to be considered.

• Structural hidden power operates through institutional arrangements and decision-making procedures. For example, an organization might design meetings so that only senior managers can suggest agenda items, preventing other employees from raising important concerns.

• Hidden power connects closely to the second dimension of power. Both approaches show that people can exercise power by preventing certain issues from being discussed.

Invisible power

• Invisible power works through beliefs, values, and assumptions that people may not consciously question. It is difficult to recognize because the existing way of doing things feels natural or simply makes sense.

• Agential invisible power can operate through the use of beliefs, values, and persuasive messages. For example, a leader may repeatedly describe personal sacrifice as the highest form of loyalty, encouraging employees to accept unreasonable demands.

• Structural invisible power operates through deeply established ideas and social expectations. For example, a workplace may treat masculine behaviour as the natural model of leadership, making women appear less suitable for leadership without anyone openly stating that belief.

• Invisible power connects to the third dimension of power and the concept of hegemony. Both help explain how dominant values shape people's understanding of the world and can reproduce inequality without obvious conflict.

The Fourth Dimension — Subjectification

• The fourth dimension of power is strongly connected to Michel Foucault. It focuses on how power shapes people's identities, desires, habits and ideas about what is normal or acceptable.

• Foucault argues that power is not just held by powerful people. It operates through everyday relationships, institutions, knowledge and rules. Power is also productive, meaning it does not only restrict behaviour but also shapes the kinds of people we become.

• Subjectification is the process through which people learn how to understand themselves and how they are expected to behave. For example, an employee may learn to see themselves as someone who should always work hard and put work first.

• Power also works through normalization, where people learn what counts as normal, professional or successful and adjust their behaviour to fit these expectations. Power exists throughout society, and even people who exercise power are shaped by the same rules and expectations.

• Unlike Lukes, who focuses on how power can shape people's preferences and prevent conflict, Foucault focuses on how power creates particular identities through everyday practices and social norms.

Normalization

• Normalization is the process through which standards of acceptable behaviour become established and accepted. People learn what is considered normal and may feel pressure to bring their behaviour in line with these expectations.

• Norms influence people even when nobody directly enforces them. Employees may dress, speak, or behave in certain ways because they want to appear professional and avoid being judged negatively.

• Normalization can encourage self-monitoring. People compare their behaviour with expected standards and correct themselves when they believe they are falling short.

• Normalization is not always harmful. Shared standards can help people cooperate and understand what is expected. However, they can also exclude people who do not fit the dominant expectations or make unequal arrangements appear natural.

Disciplining

• Discipline is a form of social control that trains people to behave in certain ways through observation, rules, routines and evaluation.

• Foucault argues that institutions train people to follow schedules, meet standards and perform tasks in specific ways.

• This creates skilled and controllable individuals whose behaviour is easier to manage.

• People may eventually follow the rules automatically and monitor themselves without needing constant punishment.

• Discipline can develop useful skills, but it also makes people easier to control.

Panoptic Design

• The Panopticon was a prison design proposed by Jeremy Bentham. It placed a central observation tower where a guard could potentially watch prisoners in surrounding cells. The prisoners could not know exactly when they were being watched.

• Foucault uses the Panopticon to explain how surveillance can influence behaviour. When people believe they might be observed at any time, they may begin to control their own behaviour, even when nobody is actively watching them.

• Power comes from the arrangement, not only from the person watching. The system is designed so that individuals know they could be observed but cannot be certain when observation takes place.

• The possibility of surveillance encourages self-discipline. People may follow the rules because they want to avoid punishment or because they have learned to monitor themselves.

• The Panopticon is a model of power, not just a prison design. Similar principles can operate in workplaces through cameras, computer monitoring, performance dashboards, and systems that record employees' activities.

• The Panopticon connects to subjectification because people may internalize the expectation of being watched. Instead of waiting for a manager to correct them, they may regulate their own behaviour.

• An employee knows that their computer activity is being monitored. Even when their manager is absent, the employee may continue working at the expected pace because they believe their performance could be checked later.

Agency, Actor and Structure

• Agency refers to a person's capacity to act and make choices. It includes the ability to make decisions, respond to situations, and sometimes challenge existing expectations. However, agency does not mean that people have unlimited freedom.

• An actor is an individual who acts within a social setting. Actors make decisions and interact with others, but their actions are influenced by the rules, relationships, resources, and expectations around them.

• Structure refers to the established rules, norms, relationships, and arrangements that shape social life. In organizations, structures include hierarchies, formal procedures, job roles, cultural expectations, and systems of authority.

• The agency–structure debate asks how much freedom people have to act and how much their behaviour is shaped by existing structures. Some approaches emphasize people's ability to make choices, while others focus on how institutions and social expectations limit those choices.

Socialization and Taken-for-Granted Structures

• Socialization is the process through which people learn a group's norms, values and expected behaviours. In organizations, employees learn how to work and what behaviour is considered acceptable.

• People often copy colleagues and follow routines without questioning them. Over time, these practices become normal and are taken for granted. This can reproduce existing power relations, such as the belief that managers should always have the final say.

• It can be difficult to question these norms because people see them as natural. However, when someone breaks a routine or a crisis disrupts normal work, hidden assumptions may become visible and people may start questioning them. Still, this does not always lead to change. People may return to their old habits.

Social breaching

• Social breaching means deliberately breaking an everyday social rule or routine in order to make people notice something that they normally take for granted.

• For example, if everyone in an organization normally behaves according to an unwritten rule, deliberately breaking that rule can make people suddenly realize that the rule exists.

• It often takes a crisis or disruption for people to question structures that normally feel natural.

Discipline

• Discipline helps explain how we learn how to behave correctly.

• Foucault argues that modern institutions developed systems for:

  • observing people

  • training them

  • organizing their bodies

  • measuring their performance

  • controlling their behavior

• This created a new type of individual who could perform specific tasks efficiently.

• For example, military organizations need individuals who know exactly how to behave, when to act, how to move and how to follow instructions.

• Schools, hospitals, prisons and workplaces can also use disciplinary practices to organize people's behavior.

• The important point is that discipline does not only punish people. It trains and produces certain types of behavior.

Total Institution

• Erving Goffman defines a total institution as a setting where many areas of a person's life take place under the same authority and are organized according to the institution's rules. Examples include prisons, some psychiatric institutions, and certain military settings.

• Life in a total institution is separated from the outside world to varying degrees. The institution may control when people sleep, eat, work, interact with others, and perform daily activities.

• Total institutions reduce individual freedom. People have less control over their routines and personal choices because much of their everyday life is organized by the institution.

• Goffman focuses on how institutional life affects people's identities and everyday experiences. He examines how institutional rules and practices can reshape how people see themselves and how they interact with others.

• Foucault is interested in the wider principles of discipline that operate within institutions. He examines how observation, training, routines, classification, and correction make people more predictable and easier to control.

• The main distinction is that Goffman examines the total institution as a particular type of setting, while Foucault uses disciplinary practices to explain how power operates more widely. Foucault's ideas can therefore be applied to ordinary workplaces and schools, even when they are not total institutions.

1) According to Fleming and Spicer, power often has a negative connotation in the context of organizations. Why is that the case, and what could be an alternative perspective?

Power often has a negative meaning in organizations because we usually connect it with control, domination, inequality and forcing people to do things they do not want to do. We often think about managers having power over employees, for example by giving orders or controlling their work. This makes power seem like something that one person or group has and uses against another. However, Fleming and Spicer say that we can also look at power in a more positive or neutral way. Power can help people work together, organize themselves and achieve things they could not achieve alone. It can also be used by employees to challenge unfair treatment or change an organization. So, power is not automatically good or bad. We need to look at how power is used and what it produces.

2) The authors note that in the literature an enduring distinction is made between ‘episodic theories of power’ and ‘systemic forms of influence’. Briefly describe this distinction. Which form of power is less visible and why?

Episodic power is power that happens through specific actions between people. It is usually easier to see because we can identify who is using power and who is being affected. For example, a manager tells an employee to work overtime, and the employee does it because the manager has the authority to punish them or affect their job. Systemic power, on the other hand, is built into the wider organization and its structures, rules, norms and ways of thinking. It does not necessarily involve one person directly telling another person what to do. Systemic power is therefore less visible because it can become a normal part of everyday organizational life. People may follow certain rules or behave in certain ways without even thinking about why they are doing it. For example, employees may believe that a "good worker" should always be productive and work hard, so they push themselves without their manager having to tell them to do so.

3) What is the difference between coercion and manipulation?

The main difference is that coercion is more direct, while manipulation is more indirect. With coercion, someone uses their power to make another person do something they would not normally choose to do. For example, a manager says, "Work this weekend or you could lose your job." The employee is being directly forced through the threat of punishment. With manipulation, the person is not directly forced. Instead, someone shapes their choices or the situation so that they are more likely to choose a certain option. For example, a manager might say that employees who volunteer to work weekends show greater commitment and are more likely to get promoted. The employee still technically chooses whether to work, but their decision has been influenced. So, coercion forces behaviour, while manipulation influences choices.

4) Domination as a form of power is rarely questioned by organizational members. Why is that the case?

Domination is rarely questioned because it becomes built into the normal structure of the organization. People get used to certain inequalities and start seeing them as natural or necessary. For example, employees may accept that managers make the important decisions and employees simply follow them because that is "how organizations work." They may not even think of this as a form of power anymore. The rules, hierarchy and structures of the organization make the unequal relationship seem normal. Because people accept these arrangements as part of everyday life, there does not need to be constant direct pressure from managers. This is what makes domination powerful: people may follow the existing system without questioning it.

5) Subjectification describes the process of how people become composed as “subjects of power” (p. 245). Why is this arguably the deepest form of power?

Subjectification can be seen as the deepest form of power because people begin to control themselves. Instead of a manager constantly telling them what to do, organizational ideas become part of how they see themselves. For example, if an organization creates the idea that a "good employee" is someone who is hardworking, ambitious and always available, employees may start judging themselves according to these standards. They might think, "I should work harder" or "I'm not doing enough" even when nobody is telling them to work more. The power has therefore moved from something outside the person to something inside the person. People begin to shape their own behaviour according to organizational expectations. This makes subjectification especially powerful because you do not necessarily feel like you are being controlled—you may feel that you are simply choosing how to behave or trying to become a better employee.

6) Fleming and Spicer also differentiate four different sites of organizational power, namely in, through, over and against the organization. Could you give an example of each?

Power "in" the organization means power that takes place inside the organization, usually between different people or groups. For example, a manager uses their authority to decide what employees should work on. This is power within the organization.

Power "through" the organization means using the organization as a way of exercising power somewhere else. For example, a large company might use its money and influence to lobby the government and try to influence new laws. The organization becomes a tool for exercising power.

Power "over" the organization comes from outside the organization. For example, the government could introduce a new law that forces a company to change how it operates. The government therefore has power over the organization.

Finally, power "against" the organization means people or groups using power to challenge or resist the organization. For example, employees could organize a strike because they believe their working conditions are unfair. Trade unions, activists or social movements could also use power against an organization.

1) What is often the perceived obstacle for gender equality interventions in organizations? How do to the authors of the article aim to challenge this view?

A common view is that resistance from employees is the main obstacle to gender equality interventions. When an organization tries to introduce more women or create more gender equality, people who disagree with the change are often seen as the problem because they slow down or prevent the change. Resistance is therefore usually understood as something negative that needs to be overcome. The authors challenge this view by saying that resistance is more complicated than that. They want to look at what resistance actually does, rather than simply seeing it as something that blocks change. They argue that resistance can sometimes also create opportunities for change because, when people explain why they resist, they may reveal contradictions in the existing gender norms. In this way, resistance can sometimes weaken the very ideas that people are trying to protect.

2) How is resistance to changing the organizational status quo explained in the literature? How does this apply in the context of the military?

In the literature, resistance is often explained as a reaction to a threat to the existing way of doing things. People may resist because they are comfortable with the current system, because they fear losing their position or privileges, or because a change challenges their identity and beliefs. In other words, people may resist when they feel that something familiar and important is being taken away from them.

This can be seen clearly in the military. The Dutch Marine Corps had a strong male identity and was traditionally seen as a very tough and masculine organization. The introduction of women therefore challenged the existing idea of what a "real marine" should be. Some male marines worried that women would not be physically or mentally strong enough, would affect the close relationships between male marines, or would reduce the special status of the Marine Corps as a male and "badass" organization. Their resistance can therefore be understood as an attempt to protect the existing organizational culture and masculine identity.

3) Why can resistance practices be considered ambiguous and contradictory?

Resistance can be ambiguous and contradictory because people can resist a change while also saying things that support parts of that change. The marines, for example, sometimes argued that women were generally not physically strong enough to be marines. At the same time, they could say that if a woman passed the same physical tests as a man, she should be accepted. So they were defending the idea that women were different from men, while also accepting that an individual woman could become a marine.

The same thing happened with the idea of male bonding. Some marines worried that women would disturb the close relationships between men. But they also recognized that not all male marines get along and that what really matters is being able to work professionally together. This means that their resistance was not completely one-sided. Their arguments contained contradictions, and these contradictions made the traditional ideas about gender less fixed than they first appeared.

4) According to the authors, how can resistance also be ‘productive’? How convincing do you find this argument in the context of the study which they conducted?

The authors call resistance productive because it can unintentionally help create change. When the marines resisted women entering the organization, they had to explain what makes someone a "real marine." This made their normally taken-for-granted ideas about masculinity and gender more visible. For example, they might say that women are too weak, but then admit that a woman who can pass the same physical tests should be accepted. This creates a small opening for women because being a marine starts to become more about what someone can do rather than simply being a man.

I find this argument convincing in this study because the researchers show several examples where the marines' own arguments contained these contradictions. However, I would not say that resistance automatically creates positive change. The marines were still often defending masculine standards, and women were expected to prove that they could fit into the existing culture. So resistance was productive only in a limited way. It created small cracks in the old system, but it did not completely remove the gender inequality.

5) What can you learn from this study concerning the role and positionality of the researcher in a particular research context?

The study shows that the researcher is also part of the research situation. The first author was a young woman researching a strongly male and masculine environment. Her gender and position could affect how the marines behaved and what they said during the interviews. For example, some of the men may have been more aware of what they were saying about women because they were speaking to a female researcher.

At the same time, her position as an outsider could actually be useful. Because she was not a marine and did not share the same background as the participants, the marines sometimes had to explain their beliefs and practices to her. This allowed the researchers to see ideas that might otherwise have remained unspoken or taken for granted. So the study teaches us that the researcher's position can influence the data, but this does not necessarily make the research worse. The researcher's position can actually help reveal important things about the organization, as long as the researcher is aware of how their own identity and position affect the research.