The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
‘Subterranean Worksick Blues’: Humour as Subversion in Two Call Centres
Abstract
This article engages in debates stimulated by previous work published in Organization Studies, and more widely, on the purpose and effects of workers’ humour and joking practices. The authors emphasize the subversive character of humour in the workplace, rejecting perspectives which see humour as inevitably contributing to organizational harmony. Drawing on methodologies, including ethnography, which permitted the authors to penetrate the organizational surface of two call centres, rich evidence of satire and joking practices were uncovered. While long-acknowledged motives were revealed, particularly relief from boredom and routine, workers’ use of humour took novel, call centre specific forms. Overwhelmingly, though, humour contributed to the development of vigorous countercultures in both locations, which conflicted with corporate aims and priorities. However, the particular combinations of managerial culture, attitudes to trade unionism and dissent, and the nature of oppositional groupings helped impart a different character to humour between the two call centres. At Excell, the presence of a group of activists seeking to build workplace trade unionism in circumstances of employer hostility was a crucial contrast. These activists were instrumental in their use of humour, aware that it helped make the union popular and served to weaken managerial authority. This evidence, that subversive satire can be allied to a wider collective union organizing campaign at workplace level, makes a distinctive contribution to the recent literature on organizational humour.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Entrapped by the ‘electronic panopticon’? Worker resistance in the call centre
Bain, P., & Taylor, P. (2000) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/1468-005x.00061 · Cited by 546
Self-citation
Cited by
In critical defence of ‘emotional labour’: refuting Bolton’s critique of Hochschild’s concept
Brook, P. (2009) · Work, Employment and Society · doi:10.1177/0950017009337071 · Cited by 118
Pope, C., Halford, S., Turnbull, J., Prichard, J., Calestani, M., & May, C. (2013) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-111 · Cited by 101
Group Pleasures: Collaborative Commitments, Shared Narrative, and the Sociology of Fun
Fine, G. A., & Corte, U. (2017) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1177/0735275117692836 · Cited by 94
Brook, P. (2013) · Culture and Organization · doi:10.1080/14759551.2013.827423 · Cited by 30
“…common experience of having to execute supervised service norms, as part of a larger group of workers, to being part of an informal, supportive co-worker culture (Korczynski 2003) or even one that is formally oppositional in nature, such as a trade union organising campaign (Taylor and Bain 2003).”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, P., & Bain, P.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1487-1509
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W1995869786
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ‘Subterranean Worksick Blues’: Humour as Subversion in Two Call Centres. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0170840603249008
- The paper
- Taylor, P., & Bain, P. (2003). ‘Subterranean Worksick Blues’: Humour as Subversion in Two Call Centres. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603249008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.