Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies Journalism ...

This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] On: 18 December 2014, At: 02:02 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recq20

Journalism research: Issues concerning theory, methodology and context Mark Deuze

a

a

Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) , University of Amsterdam , Oude Hoogstraat 24, 1012, Amsterdam, Netherlands Phone: +31 20 525 3750 +31 20 622 7589 Fax: +31 20 525 3750 +31 20 622 7589 Email: Published online: 01 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Mark Deuze (1999) Journalism research: Issues concerning theory, methodology and context, Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 20:2, 25-40 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02560054.1999.9653244

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any

Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ] at 02:02 18 December 2014

opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions

Deuze: Journalism research: Issues concerning theory, methodology and context 25

Ecquid Novi


ISSN 0256-0054 1998 20(l):25-40

M. Deuze

Journalism research: Issues concerning theory, methodology and context In recent years survey research among journalists around the world has blossomed. This corresponds with a seemingly world-wide concern about the role of the media and its professionals in society - a debate typified by CNN and the Gulf War, the hunt of the papparazzi for Princess Diana and of course 'Monicagate'. When planning a research project about and among journalists in contemporary society several factors have to be considered in detail. Issues such as the contextual and theoretical framework and the pitfalls of sampling and survey methodology have to be addressed accordingly. This article explores some of these issues, highlighting problems in earlier survey projects and presenting a research design with which a survey project will be undertaken among journalists in The Netherlands.

* Mark Deuze is research associate at the Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam. ASCoR,p/a Oude Hoogstraat 24,1012 CE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel: +31 20 525 3750 (w), +31 20 622 7589 (h); Fax: +31 20 525 3681; E-mail: [email protected].

26

Ecquid Novi - Research Section


INTRODUCTION The media and, more specifically, journalists are high on the public agenda these last few years. Global news services like the BBC and CNN and technological developments like the World Wide Web (WWW) facilitate a growing number of citizens world-wide participating in the public debate on the role of the media in society. This kind of public concern corresponds with academic interest - sparking a notable increase in survey studies among journalists, as well as resulting in several new theoretical perspectives on journalism and the media in society as such. Such perspectives focus much more on notions of interdependency between media and society, on the active and equal role of the public in the media and on journalists catering for the needs of the audience in general as in conflict with commercial objectives of the media (see, for example, McQuail, 1994;Dahlgren, 1995;Hallin, 1997). Survey research can serve as an empirical basis for such theoretical developments. Unfortunately, a characteristic of almost all recent survey studies among journalists is a general lack of explicit theoretical perspectives. In fact, the only survey project among journalists with an explicit theoretical framework seem to be one in Germany from 1994 and one in Austria in 1998-1999 (SchoU, 1997; Weischenberg&Scholl, 1998; Weber, 1998). In 1999 a nation-wide survey among a representative sample of Dutch journalists is undertaken. This project is not only intended to cover the basic, occupational and professional characteristics ofjournalists, but it also aims to serve as a basis for a theoretical perspective on journalism in contemporary society. Before the actual interviewing process, some theoretical and methodological observations will be made and some attention will be paid to the contextual analysis of the data findings. The mentioned survey project is about journalists and journalism in The Netherlands. Its purpose is twofold: • to describe and explain the basic, occupational and professional characteristics of journalists in the context of fundamental cultural, political, economical and technological changes in Dutch society; and • to analyse the specifics of Dutch journalists and journalism as such in comparison with other Western democracies, with particular respect to the globally replicated journalism survey design developed by Johnstone et al. (1976) in the USA and its fine-tuned version developed by Weaver & Wilhoit (1982-1983, 1992), which this project partially adopts. Following the theoretical, methodological and contextual considerations sections, five specific research questions are formulated. The assumption is that the combination of clearly formulated research questions, a thorough study of the (social-historical) context and an understanding of both new and established theoretical frameworks will help to develop an in-depth survey instrument - the questionnaire - that can stand the test of time.



The second underlying assumption of any such survey project has been formulated accurately by Weaver (1998) in his book covering studies among journalists in 21 countries: The major assumption is that journalists' backgrounds and ideas have some relationship to what is reported (and how it is covered) in the various news media around the world, in spite of various constraints, and that this news coverage matters in terms of world public opinion andpolicies (Weaver, 1998:456). THEORETICALOBSERVATIONS Survey research among media professionals has been used since the earliest journalism studies in the 1970s in the USA, the UK, The Netherlands and Germany (Tunstall, 1976; Johnstone etal, 1976; Kempers & Wieten, 1976; Donsbach, 1978; Kepplinger, 1979). These studies more than often came from a sociological perspective, intended to offer insights into the profession, the workplace and the industrial environment of the journalists. Many of these studies were critical of the profession they were covering, seeing the journalist as a tool in the hands of the political and economic structures of society, an individual shaped by the (in-)formal constraints of the workplace; a sender with a powerful message without the formal legitimacy that one would expect to support such a position in society (see Ruhl, 1980; McQuail, 1994; Schudson, 1997). Later studies into and about journalism as such were much more based on an outside perspective, offering empirical evidence to either support or challenge such normative theories as mentioned before or focusing on a specific issue in journalism such as reporting on minorities, the role of women in the media and the way journalists deal with 'objectivity' in theirprofession(seeVanDijk, 1983,1988,1991; Glasgow Media Group, 1976,1980;Diekerhof etal., 1986; Ferguson, 1983; Donsbach, 1983;amore general work on journalists from Germany and the UK was by Kocher, 1986). Yet in general the scholarly attention seemed to shift more towards issues related to the content of the media: content analyses, discourse analyses, media effects analyses. Recent years have seen a renewed focus on interviewing methods of gathering empirical data in journalism research, with established scholars like David Weaver and Cleveland Wilhoit in the USA, Klaus Schonbach in Germany and John Henningham in Australia conducting extensive surveys among journalists in their countries (Schonbach et al., 1994; Weaver & Wilhoit, 1996; Henningham, 1996). These and other survey projects, all of them loosely based on Edward Johnstone's original questionnaire of 1976, were finally brought together by Weaver (1998), offering a vast array of data findings and results from 21 countries across the globe. As noted earlier, much of the empirical studies among journalists throughout the years have


28


been done without an explicit theoretical framework. It was perhaps due to this trend that German scholar Rûhl (1980) attempted to bring together findings and theory of existing journalism research to the conclusion that journalism research often boils down to vorwissenschaftlichen BegriffsfoMore, non-scientific concept inflation (Rûhl, 1980:12; see also Bloebaum, 1994). This is true for the vast body of literature on journalism research, and at the same time, at the general lack of explicit theoretical foundation ofthe studies underpinning this literature. Specifically in The Netherlands general research into and among journalists has been virtually non-existent, save the three nation-wide survey projects in 1968,1976 and 1986, all of which with specific agendas but without explicit theoretical underpinnings (Muskens, 1968; Kempers & Wieten, 1976; Diekerhof et al., 1986). One reason for this lack of research could be the absence of journalism as an academic, that is, university graduate, discipline in The Netherlands. One could ask the question whether a theoretical framework is really a necessary element in an empirical journalism research project. An answertothis question would be that the literature following Weaver and Wilhoit-related survey studies shows the same characteristic: a lot of interesting and sometimes surprising data findings, but what do the findings mean? What does it mean, that practically all journalists world-wide have the feeling that their autonomy is threatened these days by the forces of commercialism (Weaver, 1998)? What does it mean, that the concept of 'entertaining the audience' has become an important role perception in the eyes of contemporary journalists? Such questions can of course partly be answered by social-historical contextual analysis. But to have a clear idea about where the journalist as an individual and a professional stands in the structure of the media and society landscape helps in interpreting data, facilitates testing and challenging existing ideas and serves as the basis for follow-up and long-term studies. All this is not to say that there is no such thing as journalism theory, or theory ofjournalism, the media and society. There are plenty of theories, although most of them were not used either as starting or ending points of survey research projects. Some attempts have been made in recent years to group the wide array of journalism and media research projects and theories. Examples are Schudson's (1997) and Dahlgren's (1997) chapters in books about mass media research with the societal context (see also Gurevitch et al., 1988 for an earlier attempt), or Blôbaum's (1994) book on journalism as a social system which featured a comprehensive theoretical overview of studies in German. These authors - although working from different angles - generally divide the most widely quoted titles in media and journalism research in three theoretically more or less consistent categories: (critical) political economy theoretical perspectives (e.g., Van Dijk, 1983,1988; Herman & Chomsky, 1988;Fowler, 1991), social-organisational theories (e.g., Breed, 1955; Tuchman, 1978; Gans, 1979) and cultural theories (e.g., Hall, 1978; Lichter etal., 1986; Dahlgren, 1995). Over the years the different categories and approaches have overlapped somewhat, leading



several authors to group the different studies along another, more general approach: that of a critical versus a consensual theoretical view on media (e.g., Curran et al, 1988; McQuail, 1994:92). A critical perspective implies a view on society and the media in terms of conflict and struggle between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' - and can mainly be found in studies with political economy and social-organisational theoretical frameworks. A consensual (or liberal-pluralist) perspective sees the relationship between media and society as self-governing, self-explanatory and dynamic - and this is the implicit framework in most journalism surveys. A fascinating aspect that should be noted here has to do with the suggested implicit perspectives in the literature. An example of this is the way authors deal with the unmistakable trend among journalists world-wide of taking their role as 'entertaining the public' more and more seriously (see Weaver, 1998). All the authors in Weaver (1998) consider this trend as a step down from 'good' journalism, as a threat to 'good' reporting, and so on. Why this is so or if this is so, is left unsaid. Another example like this deals with a topics like the use and impact of new technologies such as the Internet. A possible fourth way of theoretically approaching the media and society is taking journalism and the journalist as such to serve as the starting point (see Schudson, 1997; Weischenberg & Scholl, 1998). Journalists are seen as media actors with some degree of autonomy and not explicitly and solely 'governed' by either the state, their organisation, cultural heritage or the market, while at the same time they are considered to be working under the influence of a number of factors which can be translated into a tentative model for analysis to be used as a framework for interpreting the survey data. To view journalism as dynamic, dependent on all kinds of influences and as a open system of constantly changing values and interpretations seems to be the option closest to contemporary reality. Journalism is seen in the most recent theoretical definition in a survey design (in Germany) as a self-referential system in society, with the specific function of preparing and making available themes for public communication (Riihl, 1980: Cited in Weischenberg & Scholl, 1998). This system consists of several layers of influence on the behaviour of journalists, descriptions of which vary across the literature but are grouped hereafter and adapted to fit the contemporary situation and context ofjournalism in a hierarchy of macro, meso and micro levels of influence (the following model is taken and adaptedfromDimmick & Coit, 1982; Beam, 1990; Bloebaum, 1994; McQuail, 1994; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996; Scholl, 1996 and Van Zoonen, 1998). Influence is seen here as either normative (between hierarchical levels) or informative (within levels), following Dimmick & Coit's (1982) scheme. macro • international context and legislation • national legislation and media policy • national foundation in law, history and ideology • conditions of society, culture and community


30


meso • conditions of the media market (ownership, horizontal and vertical competition, concentration, co-operation and convergence) • internal imperatives of the media organisations (type, genre, technology, time, space, formal hierarchy and guidelines) micro • relationships with sources (audience, spokespersons, PR people) and colleagues (informal hierarchy) • occupational (reporting, presentation) routines • the individual journalist (basic, occupational and professional characteristics) Central to the micro-meso-macro construct is the consideration that these levels of the journalistic system are intertwined, dynamic and therefore their respective importance or predominance can vary accordingly (Blôbaum, 1994:62-63). The system components are interrelated and interdependent as such, but by grouping them in a hierarchical structure they become possible units of analysis, instead of remaining complex elements of behaviour (Dimmick&Coit, 1982:4-5). Thus, one could state that journalism can be approached contextually when it is seen as a dynamic, self-maintaining system in society interacting with society on all levels o/society. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS Earlier it was noted that even the more recent journalism surveys - as collected by David Weaver (1998) - were more or less based on the original questionnaire developed by Edward Johnstone and his colleagues in 1976 and its adapted version developed by David Weaver and Cleveland Wilhoit and used in 1982-1983 and 1992 surveys in the USA. Although such a method facilitates cross-national comparisons, it also poses a number of problems. How does one, for example, translate questions of the 1970s to the realities of today's newsroom? How does one translate an American questionnaire in order for it to make sense for African, European or Asian media professionals? Where do new questions fit in and how will they influence the answers on the 'older' questions? In fact, it could be argued that the development of a whole new survey instrument is called for as we enter a new millennium in which with the media environment will be different in all aspects from the one 30 years, even 10 years ago. The design of the research project in The Netherlands will follow that of David Weaver and Cleveland Wilhoit but it will also address a number of problematic issues directly related to sample survey research and the operationalisation of the analytical model as presented above. The sampling issue is discussed in some detail here, but issues like the choice of interviewing method is only mentioned in brief. First, some terms used in the instrument to answer both questions concerning theory and the



research questions as formulated explicitly at the end of this article should be operationalised: die survey, journalism and journalists. The survey in itself is not the perfect and, therefore, not the sole design to be used when one attempts to paint a broader picture. It serves as a starting point only, an exercise in establishing the status quo of a certain group of people. Survey data generally tend not to explain anything. When one tests hypotheses or notions from a theory, or when one is looking for answers to specific trends and research questions, one needs more information through, for example, in-depth interviews (with focus groups), a (preferably long-term) content analysis to relate statements with practice, and experiments measuring editorial choices in hypothetical news situations (Patterson & Donsbach, 1996). But this is no reason to use the survey design too lightly or easily, as the case is in The Netherlands. Where a clear picture of the status quo in journalism is lacking, the nation-wide representative survey is seen as a valid starting point of the project. The first difficult step of a survey project is establishing and operationalising a sample that will meet the needs of the project. The sample issue in journalism is a difficult one by nature; in fact, few people even agree on the notion that journalism is a profession which could be clearly defined. A working definition of journalists in The Netherlands is adopted from the aforementioned most recent survey study among German journalists and is sensitive towards calls in the literature for a broader and wider notion ofjournalism: a call for a more 'catholic' definition of journalism (Sparks, 1991:67). Such a definition would adopt the hierarchical elements ofjournalism varying from the micro level of the communicator and the meso level of his professional environment (i.e. the workplace) to the macro level of (inter-)national economics, politics and culture influencing the individual media professional. At the same time a wider definition would include a horizontal view on journalism, looking at the range of different genres, niches and specialisation's for which contemporary journalists work. This means that journalists are those individuals working within an editorial board or newsroom (be it full-time or freelance) who perform one of four core journalistic tasks: selecting, researching (or gathering), writing (or processing) and editing news.1 In short, this refers to editors and reporters working within a newsroom of a specifically Dutch media outlet and/or organisation, therefore discounting the many (both Dutch and foreign) journalists working for foreign media outlets, services and organisations in The Netherlands. An editorial board or newsroom is an independent working unit within a media organisation - whereas a media organisation can be referred to at two levels, as broadcast, print or cable (including on-line) media outlet and as a media organisation incorporating more than one media outlet. Following this working definition ofjournalists, operationalising the population into a workable sample boils down to a four-step approach.2 First, one separates journalism on a functional levelfromother related areas in society (such as public relations, art, lay media and alternative media). Secondly, one can further define journalism according to organisational segmentation, in which one divides up journalism into media organisations (such as print, broadcast and on-line media, news agencies and media services). The third step is in fact the first one where

32



the journalist as an individual person comes in, where one looks at the journalistic roles performed within the media organisations - which boils down to identifying newsrooms and/ or editorial departments and specifying 'who does what'. The final step is to narrow down journalistic roles by looking at who performs certain journalistic core activities, that is, research (or recherché), selection, writing and editing.3 Journalism can be viewed as an autonomous system in society which performs certain and specific functions for society and which can be distinguished from other systems with other functions. From this view, the main function of journalism is to prepare and make available themes for public communication (Ruhl, 1980:342; see also Bloebaum, 1994). Although journalism can be seen to perform a specifically different function in society than a number of other systems such as politics, medicine or law, the boundaries of the system are blurred by public relations (PR), art and lay and alternative media. PR can be differentiated from journalism in terms of its goal, which is to prepare and make available those messages which the employer/ client orders for or wishes. Therefore, PR-related media can be identified as such. Although one could argue that someone working for a corporate production is in fact performing certain journalistic tasks, within the functional framework ofjournalism he is not. Formulated like this, the functional aspect of the operational definition of journalism and journalists is determined by the concept of autonomy, guaranteed by, for example, law and formal editorial regulations. Art and media go hand in hand as well, in terms of both fictional and nonfictional content. Although the argument that the media offer nothing more than yet another construct of reality instead of reality as such has been widely accepted in the literature, it can be argued as well that this construct is not perceived as 'pure' fiction by the audience.4 This distinction is not getting any clearer when looking at the so-called lay and alternative offerings in the media such as underground, autonomous magazines, pirate broadcasters and interest group organs. A selection criterion on the basis of income seems useful.5 Other possible criteria in this respect are periodicity and actuality: A publication should be available at set times, at least once a month and its focus should be on news, as in events and developments related to current affairs. The second step of a survey project is to take the organisational segmentation of journalism into account. Literature shows that traditionally, segmentation has been done along lines of genre, dividing up journalism into print and broadcast media, news agencies and media services. Until now no study into general journalism has explicitly incorporated on-line newsmedia into the research framework. Following assumptions made earlier on - where online journalism is regarded as a new and independent form ofjournalism - this argumentation leads to a model of media segmentation separating print media (newspapers and magazines), broadcast media (radio and television), media services (news agencies) and cable media (Internet media and teletext services). In the Dutch sample media covering infotainment genres such as popular talk shows of



broadcast media, tabloid and life-style pages of print media, and a mix of these on-line media will be included. Specific on-line media such as e-zines (at the time of writing there are 17 electronic magazines) are also explicitly incorporated, as well as special interest media catering for the various ethnic communities in The Netherlands.6 Within these media formats one can identify newsrooms and editorial departments. The point of departure here is the condition that these newsrooms and editorial departments operate more or less without direct content control by their superiors or structures elsewhere within the media organisation of which they are part. In the literature sometimes an extra subdivision is made along lines of (minimum) circulation and the size of editorial staff.7 This has not so much to do with being part of the journalistic system, as with being economically successful or at least being able to reach a large audience or pay a large enough staff. Therefore this criterion will not be used here. Newspapers to be selected should have a complete editorial staff of their own. Local editions of newspapers are not considered to be separate units. Freesheets with editorial content are also included in the sample. With respect to magazines general interest magazines and newspaper supplements with an editorial staff of their own are included in the sample, as well as special interest magazines under the condition that they belong to the specified infotainment genre or if they explicitly cater for the migrant groups in society. All radio and television stations are included. Within these stations the criterion is the independent editorial working unit, either categorised by program or by organisational identity (dependent upon how each station is organised). Also all media services are included - as long as they are not PR organs or burros - as well as the cable television information and news services (in Dutch kabelkrant) and teletext news services as long as they have an editorial staff of their own. For on-line media this means that all editors and journalists working for the on-line editions of Dutch newspapers are included (six national dailies, eight regional dailies and seven news magazines), as well as one general interest magazine and five special interest magazines. The next step is to look at the individual actors within these selected newsrooms and editorial departments and ask 'who does what'. First, one has to establish a criterion for incorporating freelancers into the population, even though they do not physically form part of newsrooms. Both in the literature and in the statutes of the Dutch Journalists' Union the consensus is that a freelancer can be considered as a journalist when he or she gets more than half of the monthly income from journalistic work. Then one has to determine the nature ofthis journalistic work, which has become quite a complicated task due to the differentiation and introduction of new and diverse roles and work practices in the occupation. The several possible journalistic roles within newsrooms and editorial boards - freelancers included according to their linkage with the boards through their publications and (contributions to) programmes - can be summarised into professional descriptions. For print the roles are publisher, managing editor, editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief, section or desk editor, chief sub-editor, sub-editor, assignment editor, feature writer, freelancer, (beat) reporter, correspondent, photojournalist


34


and trainee. For broadcast the roles are news director, news producer, section or desk editor, news editor, reporter, freelancer, correspondent, moderator or anchor, technician and trainee (cf. Delano &Henningham, 1995:15; Weaver AWilhoit, 1996:56-60; Scholl, 1997:479). Some remarks should be made on this list. The categories in print and broadcast media correlate with each other, as well as with those in media services and cable/wire and on-line media, insofar as the profiles are comparable in nature and terminology. Of the positions above, the first markline (editors to publishers) spend most of their time on news management tasks.8 The second grouping used here is in a general 'reporting' section and the third could be referred to as the 'photojournalist' section. Trainees can cover both sections two and three, as well as work among the assistant staff of section one. It should, however, be pointed out that from the general journalism survey in Germany (held in 1993) it follows that tasks both from within and throughout the three sections can crossover (Weischenberg et al., 1994). Any stratification or correlation of the eventual sample and the resulting data findings should take this understanding into account. The last step towards translating the population into a coherent sample is rather a rhetorical one, arguing that a news profile can only then be called 'journalistic', when it corresponds withjournalistic activity (Weischenberg et al., 1994:157; Scholl, 1997:479). These journalistic core activities can be defined as research, selection, writing and editing, whereas organisation, production and moderation as well as editing texts of others (sub-editing), lay-out, archiving, recording (audio/visual), cutting and mixing are categorised as non-journalistic activities. To prevent the exclusion of, for example, those photojournalists who write their own by-lines, the precondition for 'journalistic membership' so to speak is for someone to fulfil at least one of the four mentioned journalistic core activities. This sampling step would be taken by asking the respondents to indicate which activities they perform on a day-to-day basis (choices from a list) which allows checking the sample for errors. Such a check in the German study revealed that the numbers ofjournalists who were included in the sample but eventually were not performing one of the four core tasks were negligible. One more remark should be made on the issue of statistically comparable subgroups in the sample. Subgroups can, for example, be journalists from the various migrant groups, women, journalists working for outlets in the infotainment genre, on-line editors and reporters. Following the methodology adopted by Weaver and Wilhoit which was made explicit by Weischenberg and Scholl, the guideline for oversampling will be a size of at least 5% of the total sample (Scholl, 1996:337). This will ensure that all important population subgroups are represented, which would in turn increase the sampling net efficiency. The choice of the interview method is also an important factor when attempting to answer research questions in a way that can be considered valid. It has been noted in the literature that interviewing journalists is problematic in terms of validity - since reporters are aware of interview techniques (Van Cuilenburg, 1992:238). Most contemporary survey studies have



opted for interviews by phone, for example, in Australia, the UK and the USA, although the most recent survey conducted face-to-face interviews only in Germany, whereas the mentioned 'Media and democracy' cross-national journalism survey project used interviews via regular mail. A journalism survey project in Australia (ofMay 1998) used interviews via an electronic mailing list9 The project at hand will use phone interviews as the basis for the general survey. The main advantage of the phone is the relatively short span a large number of interviews can be held, which means that the danger of events causing drastic differences in the answers is minimised. A phone interview also reduces the danger of social desirable answers to specific questions on sensitive issues such as those related to the multicultural society. There are some problems, though, which occur particularly when the questionnaire is too long or carries too many open-ended questions. The questionnaire has to be clear, to the point and has to allow for an interview length of, ideally, twenty to thirty minutes. It is usually taken for granted that the interviews by mail method is problematic, though cheap. It is problematic because of the high non-response rate but it is cheap because it only involves sending letters (and sometimes collecting them). Since the rising popularity of the Internet a second written method is possible: interview through electronic mail. As noted earlier, one can notice that this method is gaining popularity on, for example, newsgroups and e-mail discussion lists on and among journalists.10 Since research shows that practically all journalists in the USA, for example, use e-mail these days, another approach could be to conduct a survey completely through e-mail, provided all addresses of reporters within the sample can be obtained. ' ' This is by far the cheapest yet interactive method available. However, there could be a problem, and that is, in relation to the representativeness of the respondents. It is likely that only those journalists who are already active and familiar with the on-line environment will actively co-operate with a computer-based survey. JOURNALISME^ THE NETHERLANDS: CONTEXT Journalists, like other people and - in terms of performing 'on the job' - professionals in society, operate in the context of society. The relationship between journalism and its environment is crucial for understanding the function and position of the communicators in society - especially when one considers the traditional view on journalists as a cornerstone of democratic societies (Patterson & Donsbach, 1994; see for example Van Dusseldorp, 1998 on recent EU-policy concerns). The interdependency between media and society cannot be understood without an analyses of the social and historical context of the journalist. Such an understanding should follow two parameters: the elements of the micro-meso-macro model for analysis as described earlier and the more or less 'traditional' argument in terms of four contextual cornerstones of the

36



relationship between the media and society: culture, politics, economy and technology. These arguments logically raise specific research questions in addition to the general one as formulated in the beginning of this article, namely; what are the basic, occupational and professional characteristics ofjournalists in the Netherlands and by which variables can the characteristics be explained? RESEARCH QUESTIONS The theoretical, methodological and contextual considerations as briefly described here bring to the fore five themes and related research questions for this project, which can be summarised as follows: On the main topic ofjournalism in contemporary Dutch society in general: • What are the basic, occupational and professional characteristics ofjournalists in The Netherlands and by which variables can the characteristics be explained? Looking at Dutch journalists as compared to other Western democracies: • What are the specifically Dutch characteristics as compared to their colleagues in other Western democracies and how can the differences and commonalities be explained? On a typical contextual issue currently on the top of the national agenda in The Netherlands (and, arguably, in most EU nations), the articulation of the multicultural society among Dutch journalists: • How is the multicultural society articulated with journalism in The Netherlands, in particular with respect to the basic, occupational and professional characteristics of journalists coming from the migrant groups and the professional knowledge and views of all Dutch journalists on issues concerning the multicultural society? On the aforementioned trend among journalists and the media to incorporate entertainment roles, genres and elements into journalism, the articulation of popularisation among Dutch journalists: • What is the meaning and relevance of infotainment in Dutch journalism with respect to the professional characteristics of Dutch journalists and the basic, occupational and professional characteristics ofjournalists working for infotainment genres? On Dutch journalists and the use and impact of new information and communication technologies: • What is the meaning and relevance of new information and communication technologies in Dutch journalism, particularly with respect to the use of electronic resources and the basic, occupational and professional characteristics of on-line journalists?



CONCLUSION In this article some issues concerning journalism research in general, survey studies among journalists in particular and the status ofjournalism research in The Netherlands were briefly examined. The article should be seen as a report, forming part of a research project which aims to address several questions at the same time, such as how to link journalism theory with the empirical instrument, how to link the social-historical context with research questions and how to put survey data to the test in a research design that is both empirical and theoretical. The main argument of the article is that the concept of journalism research is not yet fully adequate for dealing with the information and communication overload we are experiencing and the corresponding high demands for clarity and understanding. The considerations and observations in this article are, therefore, to be read as discussion pieces, the groundwork for rethinking the survey design in a research project among journalists and an exercise in bringing together various problems, traditions and ideas in the (admittedly highly Westernised) scholarly arena concerning journalism theory and research. Further theoretical work and studies could emphasise these issues, focus on offering alternatives and (empirically) explore new ways of collecting, interpreting and explaining survey data. REFHŒNCES Beam, R.A. 1990. Journalism professionalism as an organizational-level concept. Columbia: Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Blôbaum, B. 1994. Journalismus als soziales System: Geschichte, Ausdifferenzierung und Verselbstândigung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Breed, W. 1955. Social control in the newsroom: a functional analysis. Social Forces, 33: 326-355. Curran, J., Gurevitch, M , Woollacott, J. 1988. The study of the media: theoretical approaches. In: Gurevitch, M., Bennett, T., Curran, J. & Woollacott, J., eds. Culture, society and the media. London: Routledge. p. 1129. Dahlgren, P. 1995. Television and the public sphere: citizenship, democracy and the media. London: Sage. Dahlgren, P. 1997. Cultural studies as a research perspective: themes and tensions. In: Corner, J., Schlesinger, P. & Silverstone, R. eds. International media research: a critical survey. London: Routledge. p. 48-64. Delano, A. & Henningham, J. 1995. The news breed: British journalists in the 1990s. London: School of Media, London College of Printing and Distributive Trades. Delano, A. & Henningham, J. 1996. A fin de siècle forecast. British journalism review, 7(1):55-61. Diekerhof, E., Elias, M. & Sax, M. 1986. Voor zover plaats aan de perstafel. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff. Dimmick, J. & Coit, P. 1982. Levels of analysis in mass media decision-making. Communication Research, 9(l):3-32. Donsbach, W. & Klett, B. 1993. Subjective objectivity. How journalists in four countries define a key term of their profession. Gazette, 51:53-83. Donsbach, W. 1982. Legitimationsprobleme des Journalismus: Gesellschafiliche Rolle der Massenmedien und berufliche Einstellung von Joumalisten. Freiburg: Karl Alber.

38


Donsbach, W. 1983. Journalists' conceptions of their audience: Comparative indicators for the way British and German journalists define their relations to the public. Gazette, 32:19-36. Ferguson, M. 1983. Forever feminine: Women's magazines and the cult offemininity. London: Heinemann.


Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge. Gans, H. 1979. Deciding what's news. New York: Vintage. Glasgow Media Group. 1976. Bad news. London: Routledge. Glasgow Media Group. 1980. More bad news. London: Routledge. Gurevitch, M., Bennett, T., Curran, J. & Woollacott, J., eds. 1988. Culture, society and the media. London: Routledge. Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A. & Willis, P., eds. 1980. Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972-79. London: Hutchinson. Hallin, D. 1997. Commercialism and professionalism in American news media. In: Curran, J. & Gurevitch, M., eds. Mass media and society. London: Arnold, p. 243-264. Henningham, J. 1996. Australian journalists' professional and ethical values. Journalism Communication Quarterly, 73(1):206-218.

& Mass

Herman, E.S. & Chomsky, N. 1988. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon. Johnstone, J.W.C, Slawski, E.J. & Bowman, W.W. 1976. The news people: A sociological portrait of American journalists and their work. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. {tempers, F. & Wieten, J. 1976. Journalisten en persconcentratie: Rapport van de werkgroep gevolgen van persconcentratie voor journalisten. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Kepplinger, H.M., 1979. Angepasste Aussenseiter: Was Journalisten denken und wie sie arbeiten. Mûnchen: Alber. Kôcher, R. 1986. Bloodhounds or missionaries: role définirions of German and British journalists. European Journal of Communication, 1:43-64. Lichter, S.R., Rothman, S. & Lichter, L.S. 1986. 77ie media elite: America's new powerbrokers. Bethesda: Adler & Adler. McQuail, D. 1992. Mass communication theory: An introduction. London: Sage. Patterson, T.E. & Donsbach, W. 1996. News decisions: Journalists as partisan actors. Political Communication, 13(4):455-468. Ruhl, M. 1980. Joumalismus und Gesellschaft: Bestandsaufnahme und Theorienentwurf. Mainz :Hase & Kôhler. Schneider, B., Schônbach, K. & Stûrzebecher, D. 1993a. Westdeutsche Journalisten im Vergleich: Jung, professionell und mit SpaB an der Arbeit. Publizistik, 38(l):5-30. Schneider, B., Schônbach, K. & Stûrzebecher, D. 1993b. Journalisten im vereinigten Deutschland: Strukturen, Arbeitsweisen und Einstellungen im Ost-West Vergleich. Publizistik, 38(3):353-382. Scholl, A. 1996. Sampling journalists. Communications, 21(3):331-343. Scholl, A. 1997. Joumalismus als Gegenstand empirischer Forschung: Ein Definitionsvorschlag. Publizistik, 42(4):468-486. Schônbach, K.., Stûrzebecher, D. & Schneider, B. 1994. Oberlehrer oder Missionare? Das Selbstverstandnis


deutscher Journalisten. In: Neidhardt, F., éd. ôffentlichkeit, ôffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen. Kôllner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Sonderheft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. p. 139-161.


Schudson, M. 1997. The sociology of news production revisited. In: Curran, J. & Gurevitch, M , eds., Mass media and society. London: Arnold, p. 141-159. Shoemaker, P.J. & Reese, S.D. 1996. Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. New York: Longman. Sparks, C. 1991. Goodbye, Hildy Johnson: The vanishing 'serious press'. In: Dahlgren, P. & Sparks, C , eds., Communication and citizenship: Journalism and the public sphere in the new media age. London: Routledge. p. 58-74. Tuchman, G. 1978. Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press. Tunstall, J. 1972. News organisation goals and specialist newsgathering journalists. In: McQuail, D., ed. Sociology of mass communications. Harmondsworth: Penguin, p. 259-280. Van Cuilenburg, JJ., Scholten, O. & Noomen, G.W. 1992. Communicatiewetenschap. Muiderberg: Coutinho. Van Dijk, T.A. 1983. Minderheden in de media: Een analyse van de berichtgeving over etnische minderheden in de dagbladpers. Amsterdam: SUA. Van Dijk, T.A. 1988. News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Van Dijk, T.A. 1991. Racism and the press. New York: Routledge. Van Dusseldorp, M. 1998. The future of the printed press: Challenges in a digital world [on-line]. European Journalism Centre publication. Available: http://www.ejc.nl/hp/fpp/contents.html [June 19, 1998]. Van Zoonen, L. 1998. A professional, unreliable, heroic marionette (M/F): structure, agency and subjectivity in contemporary journalisms. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 1(1):123-143. Weaver, D.H. & Wilhoit, G.C. 1986 The American journalist: A portrait of US news people and their work. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Weaver, D.H. & Wilhoit, G.C. 1991 The American journalist: A portrait of US news people and their work Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Weaver, D.H. & Wilhoit, G.C. 1996. The American journalist in the 1990s: US news people at the end of an era. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Weaver, D.H., ed. 1998. The global journalist: News people around the world. New Jersey, NJ: Hampton Press. Weber, S. 1998. Autopoiesis & Joumalismus [on-line]. Universitat Salzburg. Available: http://www.sbg.ac.at/ autojourlprojekt.htm [13 October, 1998]. Weischenberg, S., Altraeppen, K. & Lôffelholz, M. 1994. Die Zukunft des Joumalismus: ôkonomische und redaktionelle Trends. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Technologische,

Weischenberg, S., Lôffelholz, M. & Scholl, A. 1994. Merkmale und Einstellungen von Journalisten. Media Perspektiven, 4:154-166. Weischenberg, S., Lôffelholz, M. & Scholl, A. 1998. Journalism in Germany. In: Weaver, D.H., ed., The global journalist: Studies of news people around the world. New Jersey, NJ: Hampton Press, p. 229-256.

40

Ëcquid Novi - Research Section

Notes 1

See Scholl, 1996:335; 1997:480 (my translation).

I

The sampling method is following the approach of Weischenberg & Scholl, see Scholl (1996, 1997).


3

For a historical view on these activities, see for example Blôbaum's (1994: In Weischenberg et al., 1994:157) elaboration adding to these four organisation, production and moderation. The argument is that (German) journalists in the 1990s are getting more involved in the managerial and organisational aspects of the profession, a development which the authors refer to as professional rationalisation or 'editorial cybernetisation'. 4

This would mean that an editorial magazine or a broadcast programme with topics concerning forms of art is part of journalism, whereas radio shows with just music and announcements, satire magazines, elements of publications and programmes which are meant to be entertainment and columns are regarded as not being part of the functional system of journalism. Formal criteria for separating journalistic from fictional content are not available as such. 5 Income as selection criterion is also part of the definition of journalists offered by the Dutch union of journalists, the NVJ (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Joumalisten), where it is specified (for freelancers) that at least 51% of one's income should be derived from journalistic work or, more in general, one can only become a member if journalism as such is the main profession (i.e., source of income). 6 According to various listings there are six print media outlets and one broadcast organisation in The Netherlands explicitly for and by various migrant groups, though there is a variety of media active in this field for which these topics are only part of their regular content. Such media will also be included in the sample. 7

This was not the case in the Weaver & Wilhoit studies or related studies. Weischenberg et al. chose to do so, as did Schônbach et al., using a cumulative statistical sampling technique as presented by Schulz (1968). 8

For a further subdivision between upper and lower level management see Weaver & Wilhoit (1996:58).

' Survey by Kim Griggs of MacQuarie University, Sydney, using the On-line News-list moderated by Steve Outing of Editor & Publisher Interactive. 10 The author recorded at least five formal attempts by US, Chinese and Brazilian researchers to conduct email based surveys on the e-mail discussion lists CARR-L (on computer-assisted reporting), On-line News (moderated by Editor & Publisher-columnist Steve Outing) and SPJ-L (the list of the American Society of Professional Journalists) during March, 1998. II See the results of Middleberg & Ross (1997). These scholars report mat at least 93% of US journalists use e-mail (and other on-line tools) at least once a day. Although comparable research has not been conducted in The Netherlands, a recent survey among all students of the School for Journalism in Tilburg, The Netherlands, reveals that 100% of journalism students use the Internet as a reporting and researching tool whilst between 61% and 84% of students use e-mail on a daily basis as well (Opspraak, 1998). For a discussion of the advantages of e-mail interviews see Reddick & King (1997:55-56). 12 Indigenous peoples comprise 47% of Ecuador's population - the second highest in Latin America - and hold 58% of the nation's land.