Write an individual pre-assignment that is based on Leadership and Decision Making and the mentioned literature on visual methodologies. Focus of the assignment is to consider how you can enhance your research project—or another academic article project—by employing a specific visual research methodology and approach. Describe briefly the research project’s aims, objectives, analytical approach, data collection, and intended research plan. Consider in particular what would be the benefits but also the challenges and requirements of employing the visual research methods you have in mind. What kind of knowledge would be produced with the visual methodologies and approaches you consider? Important: study in advance the course readings to improve your research plan and focus accordingly. Pre-assignment report should be not more than 4 pages (Times New Roman, 12 pt. 1.5 line space, 2.5 cm margins on all sides)
Organization 2018, Vol. 25(3) 320 –334
© The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1350508417738572
Companion for the videography ‘Monstrous Organizing—The Dubstep Electronic Music Scene’
Joel Hietanen Aalto University, Finland; Stockholm University, Sweden
Joonas Rokka EMLYON Business School, France
Abstract This companion essay contributes to video-based organizational research by critically assessing conventional representational modes of videographic practice and conceptualizing an ‘expressive’ ontology for videographic research. We offer an image of thought that foregrounds the creative and powerfully affective potential of both videographic work and spectatorship. To advance this perspective and to inspire future research, we present our videography (length 30 minutes) that integrates various ‘expressive’ elements in montage form. We use the film to scrutinize the potential of video-based research and several methodological considerations tied to it. In doing so, we argue that video-based organizing of research activities can be seen as ‘monstrous’, an entire emergent mode of aesthetic storytelling that comes into being not in ‘capturing’ or ‘recording’, but rather as an affective production of potentialities.
Keywords Deleuze, expressive videography, monstrous organizing, music scenes, video
Prolegomenon What is opposed to fiction is not the real; it is not the truth which is always that of masters and colonizers; it is the story-telling function of the poor, in so far as it gives the false the power which makes it into a memory, a legend, a monster. (Deleuze, 1989: 150)
Corresponding author: Joel Hietanen, Department of Marketing, School of Business, Aalto University, P.O. Box 21230, 00076 Aalto, Helsinki, Finland. Email: [email protected]
738572ORG0010.1177/1350508417738572OrganizationHietanen and Rokka research-article2017
Hietanen and Rokka 321
Dear reader, before you continue any further, may we ask you to first watch our videography. Our video is a fast-paced story that traces the unfolding of the dubstep electronic music scene. It is an expressive account of a turbulent and instantly global social phenomenon, and follows the scene’s organizing as it grapples with emergence mediated by the immediacy of online connectivity. The videography, Monstrous Organizing—The Dubstep Electronic Music Scene, can be viewed at https://www.vimeo.com/117644344.
Attempting something that is not constitutive of extant organizing is always a tricky endeavor. Thus, we feel greatly humbled that the editors of Organization have chosen to take the bold step of publishing this work, one of the first fully fledged videographic studies in organization theory (see Salovaara, 2014; Wood and Brown, 2011, for more examples of video publications). This companion essay has four principle aims: (1) to clarify our motivation for this endeavor, (2) to produce a concrete link with video work and theorizing, (3) to draw parallels with different modes of video-based research, and (4) to conclude with a message of hope for creative academic work under the guise of ‘monstrously’ (see Thanem, 2006) ‘expressive’ videographic research (Hietanen et al., 2014).
While other disciplines such as visual anthropology (e.g. MacDougall, 2011; Pink, 2006, 2007) and consumer research have a comparatively long tradition with alternative modes of representation, includ- ing videographic research (Belk and Kozinets, 2005; Kozinets and Belk, 2006; Veer, 2014) that is regu- larly featured in premier conferences1 and also published in journal special issues (Caldwell and Henry, 2010; Rokka et al.,2017), organization theory has to date remained somewhat less inclined to explore video-based methods. Nevertheless, it seems that this discrepancy is, in light of recent developments in the field, on the cusp of being rectified. Not only is there a developing inclination toward the visual in studying organization and management (Bell and Davidson, 2013; Bell et al., 2014; Warren, 2002), an increasing focus on video-based analytical approaches and theorizing (Beyes and Steyaert, 2012; Cunliffe and Coupland, 2012; Gylfe et al., 2016; Heath et al., 2010; Wood and Brown, 2012), but also an exciting push toward new forms of researcher-made films (Bates, 2015; Lorimer, 2010; Salovaara, 2014; Smets et al., 2014; Vannini, 2015; Wood and Brown, 2011), and a recently published special issue on video-based research in Organizational Research Methods (Jarzabkowski et al., 2014).
It is now widely recognized that the diminishing costs of both equipment and broadband con- nectivity have turned virtually every citizen of a developed country into a potential videographer (Cubitt, 1993), and the same can be said for academicians alike (Belk and Kozinets, 2005; Kozinets and Belk, 2006; MacDougall, 2001; Petr et al., 2015). The availability of editing software now often offered pre-bundled into most operating systems and the computing power readily available to run them has also placed a mobile video studio in the hands of every laptop owner. However, the nature of the medium of video and how it relates to extant forms of reporting academic work has to date received less attention (Hietanen et al., 2014; Wood, 2015). While recent work has noted videogra- phy to be associated with ethnographic practice that entails filming in naturally unfolding cultural or organizational contexts (Whiting et al., 2018), the term has been used to refer to almost any form of academic film production including ethnographic film, researcher-made documentary, or video data source, making it difficult to evaluate their distinct ontological and epistemological underpinnings. Moreover, the video medium has generally been understood as a rather straightforward and trans- parent tool and often constructed to be ‘readable like text’, as a supplementary material (e.g. Wood and Brown, 2011), or as data that is seen to offer something akin to an objective mirror-of-nature (cf. Gylfe et al., 2016; Schembri and Boyle, 2013). To us, a recent review of video-based research appli- cations in organization theory by Christianson (2018) depicts clear tendencies of both implicit real- ism regarding the medium and also an ‘inward-orientation’, where the preoccupation is to produce increasingly ‘authentic’ video data by, for example, broadening its scope to include increasing amounts of video footage produced by the research participants themselves. While other recent scholarship has begun to increasingly recognize the threat of treating video as a straightforward and
322 Organization 25(3)
taken-for-granted medium that leads to an ‘illusion of objectivity’ (Toraldo et al., 2018: 12), which should rather be seen as a ‘mode of observation and reflection, providing new insights rather than objective recall’ (p. 15), this epistemological challenge has not received enough critical attention in organization theorizing. Working with ‘illusion’ and ‘creative artistic expression’ in video-based research has also been recognized (Belk and Kozinets, 2005; Kozinets and Belk, 2006; MacDougall, 2011; Vannini, 2015; Wood and Brown, 2012), but theorizing on such notions has not generally been of focal importance in the articles published on the medium to date.
Thus, for us, what seems to be at stake is the ontology of the videographic medium itself, or whether we are to understand it as either ‘representational’ (e.g. Pink, 2007; Schembri and Boyle, 2013; Tsoukas, 1998; Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001) or ‘expressive’ (Hietanen et al., 2014). Through our videographic project, we wish to argue for increasingly recognizing the potential of the latter, with- out necessarily claiming that other perspectives would not remain valid within their own frame- works. In addition, we wish to imagine future possibilities for videographic research in which it might stand on its own as a medium that is not immediately relegated to secondary positions, that is, in the sense that it can only be addressed in comparisons that privilege text and photography. To do so, we will follow the cinematography theory of Gilles Deleuze (1986, 1989) and also incorporate his joint work with Felix Guattari on the philosophy of emergence as it pertains to our videographic project (e.g. Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 2013; also Linstead and Thanem, 2007). In short, we con- ceive videography as the ‘entire methodology of the production of expression via moving image’ (Hietanen, 2012: 5). We will also discuss how videographic practice, in terms of fieldwork, editing and spectating can be seen as instances of ‘monstrous organizing’ (Thanem, 2006) par excellence. While the focus on expressivity denotes seeing videographic work particularly through the affective potential of the medium, it is a ‘monstrous’ undertaking when conceived as ongoing organizing that comes into being through instability and relationality: a disruptive tracer and participant in organ- izing that is simultaneously coming into being and unraveling. Instead of producing faithful repre- sentations of events in video form, we focus on how the entirety of a videographic endeavor comes into being as a relational assemblage rather than a separated reproduction of realities. This view attempts to disrupt established categorizations of how organizational research is conceived, con- ducted, disseminated and experienced. It evokes and assembles new forms of relations that are necessarily ‘open-ended matter of becoming’ (Thanem, 2006: 187). While a short companion essay such as this can naturally do only very limited justice to the complex matters at hand, we hope it can nevertheless serve as a conversation starter which adequately represents our perspective.
While the notion of the ‘monstrous’ is employed in our videography to explain how music scenes organize, in this companion essay, we expand this image of thought to equally entail how we come to fathom expressive videographic work from a methodological perspective. Expressive videography should thus not be seen as a creation of ‘wholes’ or states of stability and completion, but rather a ‘trembling organizing’ (Linstead and Thanem, 2007) or a ‘viscous becoming’ that seeks to rupture and reverberate rather than report and represent (Vannini, 2015). Following Deleuze, expressive videography thus becomes an inherently monstrous activity; it always moves on the edges of actualities it creates. It is composed of affective encounters assembled in various stages of conducting fieldwork, gathering footage, choosing and editing clips, organizing shots on the timeline, adding layers of sound, graphics and text, and screening the film. As a result, the film brings us into (and beyond) affective and disruptive relations with embodied, social, and techno- logical worlds. A videographic project is thus a ‘mashup’ of diverse eventifications mediated through our presence in the field, through our fetishistic camera-eye (Marks, 2000), and through our interpretative storytelling on the editing table (Hietanen et al., 2014).
Above all, we argue for expressive videography that deterritorializes video from a ‘mirror’ into a ‘crystal’ (Deleuze, 1989: 274) that is not a reflection of ‘realities’ but a pure generation of a possible
Hietanen and Rokka 323
or illusionary one (albeit underpinned by theorizing and empirical practice). Following Deleuze, we believe that only in striving to understand in this way we can seek to harness the potential of vide- ographic work as necessarily a powerful machine of desire and fiction (also Žižek, 2006). These fictions can be immensely powerful and emotionally moving. Next, we will elaborate our ontologi- cal stance and distinguish how expressive videography moves beyond ideas that maintain the repre- sentational veracity of video work. Finally, we illustrate how this understanding was translated into the ‘making-of’ process and methodological principles which guided our videography.
Ontological background—reading alongside Deleuze
Until relatively recently the audiovisual moving image remained an authentic representation of the world in the traditions of visual anthropology and ethnographic filmmaking. This view of the mov- ing image as a ‘verisimilitude-machine’ began to shatter with the ‘crisis of representation’ of the 1980s and pushed representation toward experimenting with a multitude of new perspectives des- tined to ‘evoke, animate, expose, impress, unsettle, and rapture reality, rather than “capture” it’ (Vannini, 2015: 231; also Ruby, 1999). Thereafter, the illusory and phantasmatic nature of the cinematographic image has been more readily recognized. The advent of digital forms of produc- ing video proposed another challenge, however. Due to its abstract nonmaterial nature, video media is notoriously difficult to define comprehensively (Cubitt, 1993). Video media cannot be concep- tualized as a ‘thing’ in a static state, but in a continuous transformation with respect to technical development that both manifests and drives it, or being ‘[e]mbedded in interactive multimedia, as it increasingly is, video becomes an even more active medium’ (Lemke, 2007: 40; also Bolter and Grusin, 2000), which is readily reworked into other expressions and ‘mashups’. What becomes recorded through the process of digitalization can be argued to be technically as much abstracted from (any type of) reality as a visually represented image of an atom. This abstracting of ‘reality’ into binary series of ones and zeros can be recorded onto data storage devices, and later reincar- nated with electronic impulses to reproduce an illusion of what was recorded, an illusion that simu- lates what was seen through the lens at the time of recording. The video medium has technically nothing in common with a ‘reality’—other than its software-mediated illusionary power of com- munication (Cubitt, 1993; Hietanen et al., 2014).
Through our almost decade-long preoccupation with video practice, we have increasingly noted that the obstacles in the way of academic videographies are not a lack of interest, poor production skills, difficulties in distribution, or even unacceptability. Rather, it is a problem of vocabulary, par- ticularly of vocabulary arising from video itself. Centuries of academic exchanges have allowed scholars to be relatively adept in interpreting, analyzing, and critiquing text. Yet, when showcasing videos to academic audiences or when submitting them to peer-review, what we often seem to expe- rience are reactions that tend toward emotional responses (whether exhilarated or repulsed) that avoid specifically discussing what was seen. Videography in the form of an academic research methodology is still in its infancy, and thus we often seem condemned to talk about academic videos in ways that immediately make comparisons to article manuscripts. Video is thus rarely thought of on its own terms, but rather always subjugated under other, more established orders such as text and photography. But let us now briefly turn to Deleuze’s (1986, 1989) work on cinema and its under- pinnings in the Deleuzoguattarian ontology of emergence (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, 2013).
One of Deleuze’s and Guattari’s primary projects was to imagine an ontology of change that would overturn the dominant mode of Western thought regarding representationalism (Olkowski, 1999; also Linstead and Thanem, 2007; Thanem, 2004). While this short companion can do little justice to the truly enormous conceptual inventiveness of Deleuze and Guattari, we hope it can nevertheless act as a sensitizing piece for an expressive approach to videography (see Hietanen
324 Organization 25(3)
et al., 2014). Deleuze has been referred to as the only philosopher who had a deep connection with and truly loved cinema. He wanted to create a conceptual space for cinema, which emerged purely from cinema alone without being a priori subordinated to text or photography (Bogue, 2003). In two written volumes, Cinema 1 (1986) and Cinema 2 (1989), Deleuze gives a truly exhausting array of concepts that construct a complex taxonomy of the various signs of audio- visual moving images. In what follows, we will focus only on a few key ideas that help define our perspective to expressive videography and enable us to connect it into a circuit with organi- zation theory.
To start with, we need to establish an ontological space for video. As noted before, extant research in video methods exemplified by fields of consumer research and management have often attempted to subsume video to be readable and analyzed as ‘text’ (see Schembri and Boyle, 2013), or as dissectible frames that offer their epistemological weight when frozen and drawn out of their successive movement (see Gylfe et al., 2016; also Hindmarsh and Llewellyn, 2018). In contrast, for Deleuze, the immanent ontology that makes cinema powerful and agentic is its char- acteristic of movement and its nonlinear relationship with chronological time (also Bogue, 2003). It is only in movement where video becomes truly agentic, and this immanence does not ‘cut’ the video outside of the events in the world, but rather makes the event of video as a part of the unfolding of the world, not a descriptive act that records, but a generative act that produces actu- alities in-the-making. The moving screen is thus not a passive plane awaiting its perception, but enters into a complex embodied relationship with the body and mind of the viewer (also Barker, 2009; Marks, 2000). For Deleuze (1994), thinking is not a harmonious activity, but rather some- thing forcefully surprising and even violent. Through its agency in the form of machinic move- ment, video can produce affective events that force us to think, not by simply decoding its meanings cognitively, but by forcing our whole bodies into an active encounter with it. Time is not a matter of logical and sequential succession in contemporary cinema either, for the flow of the cinematic image depends on a complex relationship with possible pasts and futures punctu- ated by images of multiple presents and the ‘virtuality’ of how images of the past and the future coincide with it. In this perspective, video thus must be experientially understood as a whole, and if constructed in an affectively powerful way, a whole that surges beyond itself in the shock to thought or how it forces the viewer to think of ‘impossible worlds’, or to think in new and unfore- seen ways (also Bogue, 2003; Massumi, 2002; Olkowski, 1999). Thus, an affective encounter with video is not contained within the frame, but produces sublime relationalities in its potential ‘overcodedness’ and ‘unbearability’. The potentiality of such ‘lines of flight’ in thought also maintains a potential of societal change (Wood and Brown, 2011).
If video, as a potentially affective medium (Wood, 2015), is taken seriously then what becomes epistemologically important are how it imparts its forces in movement (change in the intensities of our thoughts—how changing thought alters our unfolding material relations). When experiencing cinema, we are intertwined in its agentic and machinic movement (Deleuze, 1989: 156), as it does not wait for us to bring it closure, but has already moved on. We are affected by it bodily in a limi- nal fashion. We are no longer simply cognitive observers, but neither do we react fully corporeally with the moving image. Even from the perspective of neuroscience, the cinematographic image causes ‘action tendencies’ to arise in us (Grodal, 2009). The ontology of cinema is the thinking body’s relation to movement itself. For Deleuze (1986), semiology in this sense, thus, becomes the analysis of movement:
IMAGE=MOVEMENT […] There is no moving body [mobile] which is distinct from executed movement. There is nothing moved which is distinct from the received movement. Every thing, that is to say every image, is indistinguishable from its actions and reactions: this is universal variation. (p. 58)
Hietanen and Rokka 325
In Deleuze’s and Guattari’s philosophy, emergence can be conceptualized as a simultaneous unfolding of ‘content’ and ‘expression’, where systemic forms come into being from uniform mat- ter. Concisely, content denotes this form of stratification, and expression is its ‘movement’, change, coming-into-being, and decay. From this perspective, the same logic can be used for material forms (crystallization in Earth’s strata) or the emergence of thought itself (the formation of a shocking idea that changes one’s relations to both one’s past and future). In contrast to representational assumptions of stability and a concrete link with a signifier and signified, the relationality of change and becoming takes precedence. Applying this thought to videography, the audiovisual moving image is thus not concerned with any particular image (unlike photography, which aims to ‘reach a state of equilibrium at a certain instant’ (Deleuze, 1986: 24)), but a successive flow of changing intensities that produce an excess of meaning; overcoded relations between the screen and body/minds are external to their terms. ‘Space covered is past, movement is present, the act of covering […] movement is indivisible, or cannot be divided without changing quantitatively each time it is divided’ (p. 1). For Deleuze, time is the movement of changing relations and thus not to be thought of as an external variable, but the ontology of immanence, and thus,
We are no longer stable objects or identities external to the modulation of time, we are, rather, of the world, affective and affected nerves. Thus ‘the brain is nothing but this—an interval, a gap between action and reaction […] It constitutes a centre of indetermination in the acentred universe of images […] in the sense of organizing an unexpected response—because it perceives and has received the excitation on a privileged facet, eliminating the remainder’. (pp. 63–64)
This ontology of intensive relations thus does away with the meaning of stable objects, for the ‘being’ of things or ideas can only have meaning insofar as they relate to their surroundings as constitutive parts of space. On the contrary, being becomes movement and movement is expres- sion—the transformation of time in becoming as part of matter and thought. In this way, video is the very expression of incessant change, a constant movement of relational forces that is not simply contained in the screen.
In Cinema 1, Deleuze sets the stage by conceptualizing the cinematographic image to find its being not in a succession of images, but in the very mode of machinic movement itself. He then creates a taxonomy of how various images of the film connect creatively with the World beyond the frame in the forms of perception-image (the fetishistic gaze) and affection-image (typically the image of a face that shows changes in affective intensities by breaking down the sensory-motor coordination of the image). In cinematography, these images are then typically followed by action- image (the ‘realist’ image where events occur in a commonsensical world of agency). These differ- ent types of images in movement are then combined in various ways and sequences to produce encounters with the viewers.
Yet, it would seem that Deleuze’s true cinematographic project starts in Cinema 2, where he sheds his ties to images that can be approached commonsensically as signaletic material (Bogue, 2003). Here, he reconfigures the very notion of time itself and argues that contemporary cinema has dismantled its tendencies to depict a stable world. This happened when the ‘movement-image of the so-called classical gave away, in the post-war period, to a direct time-image’ (Deleuze, 1989: xi). In short, time-image denotes an aesthetic stance in filmmaking that problematizes representa- tional or ‘realist’ images. Such a mode of expression makes the screen a pure virtuality that con- nects to possible thought itself without attempting to produce an illusion on reality. For Deleuze, before the advent of cinema as the time-image, characters still retained agency over the world in a way that they remained primary to the flows of time and their surroundings. However, with time- image, the realization of the illusory nature of cinema burst out in full force, becoming ‘a cinema
326 Organization 25(3)
of the seer and no longer of the agent [on the screen]’ (Deleuze, 1989: 126). This meant that cine- matographic image was no longer confined to commonsensical worlds thus becoming increasingly expressive. Through time-image the interest shifted from depicting realist worlds into problematiz- ing the ‘reality’ of the world we live in by experimenting with ‘impossible worlds’ or new possibili- ties of thought itself. Time-images are not attempting for reality, but neither do they make the truth or falsity of the image indiscernible but rather ‘undecidable or inexplicable’ (Bogue, 2003: 147). These tensions work by forcing new thinking on the viewer, and they are in their fictions more ‘truthful’ than images that are presented in the guise of reality (Bogue, 2003). For us, all images are simulacra of the fetishistic camera-eye and the selective editing desk that have nothing to do with reproducing a reality—not even a gentle ‘refraction of the real’ nor a ‘halfway between the fic- tional and non-fictional’ suggested by Wood and Brown (2011: 523) regarding their documentary film. In this sense, there is no neutral or innocent image of representation, and thus all images are inherently intentional: political acts of habit and preference, especially if they thrust the viewer into unforeseen and unimagined thought. They show us, through montage, impossible ways of thinking about the world, thus forcing creative thought through this violent encounter; we come to think in new ways (Massumi, 2002; Olkowski, 1999).
It is exactly in this way that we wish to consider videography, not as a ‘mirror’ of representation but as a ‘crystal’ of expression (Deleuze, 1989: 274). But, how can academics construct such thought-provoking encounters through videography? We next turn to our expressive videography case and elaborate on how committing to the ontological stance described above played out in our entire filmmaking process.
Expressing videographic monstrous organizing
Our videography explores the organizing and emergent unfolding of the ‘dubstep’ electronic music scene. The film is based on our filmed ethnographic encounters with the scene and its participants in 2008–2012 that we have presented in more detail elsewhere (see Hietanen and Rokka, 2015). Following Thanem’s (2006) articulation of monstrous organizing, the film is our expression of how the rapidly evolving music scene and bass-driven minimalist electronic soundscape unfolds mon- strously as a result of the double articulation of content and expression. The point is that we do not see the formation of stable orders or structures, but rather the various coming-into-being and unfolding of desiring intensities. These organize in a flux of relations among underground DJ/ producers, commercial market intermediaries, technologies, and online connectivity. For the pur- poses of this companion essay, we detail five methodological considerations that help demonstrate how the expressive ontology described above guided and inspired our videography production. We must also mention that our application of Deleuzean immanent logics is at best partial and restrained, as we still wished to produce a videography that could be approached by viewers more accustomed to orthodox representational approaches. In effect, we have erected something haunted by structural orders, but these are already fully populated by the seeds of breakdown and disintegration.
Our aim was to craft a story from videotaped events and encounters that had the capacity to evoke ideas, new relations, and perspectives in the viewers. Thus, instead of trying to transparently show ‘what is’, we hoped to provoke the viewer to think about the tensions at play through the encoun- ters in our …
Recherche et Applications en Marketing 2018, Vol. 33(3) 106 –121
© l’Association Française du Marketing, 2018 Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/2051570718754762
When the Lumière brothers invented the moving image, the first question that emerged must have been: what can the film do? It was the time of silent cinema, where the image was exclusively based on visuality and movement. It was undoubtedly also the first time that worthy filmic topics and subjects were being considered and chosen. The first-known film screening by the Lumières took place at the Salon
Indien du Grand Café in Paris (December 28, 1895) and featured 10 short films. Interestingly, many of these early films focused on describing relatively mundane activities and flows of everyday life: work- ers exiting the factory, the gardener and blacksmith at work, people moving about a street corner, a baby eating, fishing and the sea. But already then, some of the films were seemingly much more ambitious in
On positioning videography as a tool for theorizing
Joonas Rokka EMLYON Business School, Lifestyle Research Centre, France
Joel Hietanen Aalto University School of Business, Finland and Stockholm Business School, University of Stockholm, Sweden
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
Need this assignment?
Order here and claim 25% off
Discount code SAVE25