683554
research-article2016
JOU0010.1177/1464884916683554JournalismColeman et al.
Article
Why be a journalist? US students’ motivations and role conceptions in the new age of journalism
Journalism 1–20 © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884916683554 DOI: 10.1177/1464884916683554 journals.sagepub.com/home/jou
Renita Coleman
The University of Texas at Austin, USA
Joon Yea Lee
University of Alabama, USA
Carolyn Yaschur Augustana College, USA
Aimee Pavia Meader Winthrop University, USA
Kathleen McElroy
The University of Texas at Austin, USA
Abstract This mixed-methods study using a national, random sample of journalism students explores their motivations for majoring in journalism and conceptions of the roles of journalists. It showed many similarities among students today and yesterday and some differences between students and professionals. Students’ ranking of the importance of roles compared to professionals showed no significant correlation. They still recognize the same four main roles of journalists, but rank them in a different order and define them differently. These future journalists see ‘soft news’ as being on equal footing, if not more important, than traditional ‘hard news’. They consider it fair game for journalists Corresponding author: Renita Coleman, School of Journalism, The University of Texas at Austin, 300 W. Dean Keeton, A1000, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Email:
[email protected]
2 Journalism to join the conversation about important issues of the day. They see citizen journalists as not only taking over more of the adversarial duties of journalists but also increasing the amount of information and opinion that people have access to, making the interpretive role of journalists more necessary as someone needs to sift through all this information and let people know what is valid. Suggestions for educators are discussed. Keywords Focus groups, journalism education, journalism students, mixed-methods, motivations, professional journalists, role conceptions, survey
The Daily Beast (2012) named journalism one of the 13 most useless degrees in America in the same year that print newsrooms had shrunk to one-third the staffing of 2000, with employment at its lowest since 1978 (Edmonds, 2013). While the job market improved for most recent college graduates, journalism was the only group to post increasingly higher unemployment rates (Carnevale and Cheah, 2015). The job market rebounded slightly in 2012 and then stalled in 2013 (Becker et al., 2014), prompting the insight that journalism and mass communication are ‘clearly not a growth segment’ (Becker et al., 2012: 16). Yet student interest in journalism hasn’t plummeted at the same rate. The number of journalism and mass communication majors in 2012 was only 2.9 percent lower than the previous year (Vlad et al., 2013). In 2013, the most recent available enrollment was down another 1 percent for undergraduates and 1.2 percent for graduate students (Becker et al., 2014). At a time when job competition is great, audiences shrinking, and compensation low, this mixed-methods study uses focus groups and a national, random sample survey to uncover motivations of US students to major in journalism, a field which seemingly cannot provide them jobs or an attractive salary. It analyzes the demographics that predict each of the motivation factors and explores students’ conceptions of the role of journalists in a democratic society. Additionally, it compares students’ role conceptions with those of professional journalists from a large-scale random sample (Weaver et al., 2007). It is unique in that it employs a national random sample of US journalism students rather than the typical convenience samples, giving us more confidence in its generalizability. There is endless interest in determining the motivations of budding journalists around the globe, with studies in Spain (Humanes and Roses, 2014), Poland, Russia, and the Nordic countries (Bjørnsen et al., 2007; Hopmann et al., 2010; Nygren and Degtereva, 2012; Nygren and Stigbrand, 2014), Great Britain (Hanna and Sanders, 2007, 2012; Sanders et al., 2008), and China (Wu, 2000; Wu and Weaver, 1998; Yang and Arant, 2014), among others. Comparative studies find important differences between US students and those in other countries (Hanusch et al., 2015),1 yet student motivation research has languished in the United States. Comparative studies confirm that journalistic cultures vary across countries and explain differences in professional roles (Mellado et al., 2016), yet less is known about role conceptions of US future journalists than those in most other countries.
Coleman et al.
3
Further compounding the problem, recent studies of US journalism majors have used convenience samples (Clark and Monserrate, 2011; Crawford et al., 2013) or are confined to print majors (Adams et al., 2008), or one school (Starck and Soloski, 1977; Tandoc, 2014; Wiltse, 2006), thus limiting our ability to generalize. Likewise, research on role conceptions of US journalism students is not large-scale or generalizable (Tandoc, 2014). No studies in the last 20 years could be found that used a random, national sample, explored more than one motive for choosing journalism as a major, or looked at role conceptions.2 Journalism curricula should not be grounded in ideas and functions from other media systems or political frameworks (Rodny-Gumede, 2015), and that is as true for the United States as for other countries. The study reported here is unique because it employs a random sample survey of journalism schools nationwide to provide up-to-date information on why US students continue to major in journalism, what demographics best predict their motivations, and whether their role conceptions match those of professional journalists (Weaver et al., 2007).3 Knowing their motivations would help US educators better understand their students and shape a pedagogical approach to match expectations with industry realities. Because no large-scale random sample of US journalism students exploring motives and role conceptions has been conducted since 1995 (Becker and Graf), it is unknown whether the motives in previous studies still move students in the United States, especially given the enormous changes in technology and their increased interest in seeking fame (Kohut et al., 2010). Nor do we have any generalizable, updated information about whether their role conceptions have changed or how they compare with professional journalists. This study will update knowledge about today’s US J-school students and help elucidate why many hope to join this industry.
Literature Debunking the myth of All The President’s Men as inspiration for future journalists (Becker and Graf, 1995), Bowers’ (1974) study of University of North Carolina students found students wanted to be journalists for the profession’s ‘interesting’ and ‘creative work’, and they perceived themselves as competent in writing (Adams et al., 2008; Clark and Monserrate, 2011; Fischman et al., 2004). In general, past research indicates that American journalism students wanted to write, be creative, and meet new people (Smith, 1987). Another common finding is that US students have little interest in material success (Bowers, 1974; Endres and Wearden, 1990; Smith, 1987). In a convenience sample survey, US journalism majors placed more emphasis on altruism, while strategic communication majors emphasized financial gain (Crawford et al., 2013). Although low pay did not originally deter journalism students, poor salary is one of the main reasons why journalists leave their profession (Weaver et al., 2007). Having worked on a high school newspaper or yearbook has consistently been one of the top reasons for majoring in journalism (Adams et al., 2008; Becker and Park, 1993; Becker et al., 2014; Brinkman and Jugenheimer, 1977; Dvorak and Choi, 2009). Because American research is out of date and not generalizable, it is unknown whether these factors still motivate students in the United States. Thus, this study asks the first research question, to be answered by focus groups and a national survey:
4 Journalism RQ1. What are the motivations of today’s US students to become journalists? The typical American journalist is White, protestant, and male, with a third (36%) having majored in journalism (Weaver et al., 2007). Women have made small increases in the workforce, but the industry remains largely male (Splichal and Sparks, 1994; Weaver et al., 2007). In 2007, one-third of full-time US journalists were women – roughly the same since 1982 (Weaver et al., 2007). Yet more American women have chosen to major in journalism since the 1970s, and gender was a significant predictor of wanting to be a journalist (Becker and Graf, 1995; Bowers, 1974). Technology and generational differences mark today’s US college students, who are considered a part of the ‘Look at Me’ generation (Kohut et al., 2010). Social media sites like Facebook or Twitter let them post personal profiles and updates, and garner friends and followers. When asked about their goals, about 80 percent say they hope to be famous (Kohut et al., 2010). This motivation of the youngest generation in general contradicts the motivations of past US journalism students (Bowers, 1974), indicating a need to determine in a generalizable way if and how motivations have changed. Unlike other media, broadcasting offers the potential for fame. Local and national reporters often achieve celebrity status; thus, students who are interested in broadcasting may have different motivations than students interested in print or online journalism. Motivations for fame may include self-glorification, recognition, and generativity – the idea of passing knowledge and experience on to future generations (Giles and Mrowicki, 2005). But little is known of how these might have changed motivations. Thus we ask the next question: RQ2. How are student motivations predicted by demographic factors, including gender, major, and race? There is compelling research on how journalists conceive of their roles, most notably the long-running American Journalist survey series by Weaver et al. (2007). For decades, they have identified how US journalists regard their professional duties by using four broad categories: the interpretive/investigative function includes analyzing and interpreting complex issues, discussing national policy, and investigating government claims; the disseminator is marked by quickly getting information to a broad audience and providing entertainment; the adversarial consists of being skeptical of actions by public officials and businesses; and the populist mobilizer is charged with setting the political agenda and developing intellectual and cultural interests but also includes giving voice to average people, motivating them to get involved in discussions. In 1982, more journalists embraced the interpretative and disseminator role than the adversarial function despite the post-Watergate era. By 1992, the adversarial role received only modest support, with the disseminator and interpretive/investigative functions more prevalent. Populist mobilizer was added, although it received the least support. In 2002, in the midst of a seismic geopolitical climate, the interpretive function was the most popular. Five years later, it remained the top role (Weaver et al., 2007). Another line of inquiry involves the relationship between how journalists see their roles and the content they produce, called role performance (Mellado et al., 2016).
Coleman et al.
5
Because role conceptions define journalists’ identities, there is the expectation that these attitudes will affect their behavior and how they implement the objectivity norm (Skovsgaard et al., 2013). Some studies have shown a relationship, including one on US students (Starck and Soloski, 1977). But other research with professionals has not borne this out (Hellmueller and Mellado, 2015; Mellado and Van Dalen, 2013; Tandoc et al., 2013). Additional research has shown that citizen journalists view their roles similarly to professional journalists (Chung and Nah, 2013) and that there is little difference in role conceptions between men and women journalists (Cassidy, 2008), but online and print journalists differ (Cassidy, 2005). Except for one older study (Starck and Soloski, 1977), all this research was conducted on professional journalists. The only recent work we could find that explored role conceptions of journalism students was a convenience sample of students at one school in two sections of a particular class (Tandoc, 2014). We find a dearth of work that compares the role conceptions of students to those of professionals in more than a cursory fashion. For example, Tandoc (2014) notes that the students in his convenience sample and professionals (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1986, 1996) said the same function was most important, but no statistical analysis was done. In contrast, this study uses data from the latest study in the American Journalist series (Weaver et al., 2007) and our own data on students from a random sample of journalism schools and performs rank-order correlations; thus, we have more than a general sense of the similarities and differences in role conceptions held by the two groups. This information is important because these journalism students will be the US professionals of the future; if they hold significantly different beliefs about the role of journalists in US society, that will likely be reflected in the changing news media ecosystem. New standards by which the media are evaluated may be formed. Thus, US educators might enlighten students on the importance of other duties journalists perform that they may not consider or take for granted. Our final research question, answered with both methods used in this study, is as follows: RQ3. How do US students’ conceptualization of journalistic roles correlate with those of working journalists?
Methods – Focus groups This mixed-methods study began with focus groups at a large Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC)-accredited journalism school in the Southwest, which was used to inform a nationwide random sample survey. As this study was interested in understanding the shared norms of a group (McCracken, 1988), rather than in documenting individual experiences (Saint-Germain et al., 1993), focus groups were most appropriate. We used saturation (Corbin and Strauss, 2008) to determine the sample size, concluding saturation was reached when the categories had been fully developed and well explained with no new concepts or explanations emerging. This was achieved after three groups of 4– 8 students each, for a total of 19
6 Journalism participants. None of the participants were students of the focus group facilitators (two of the authors). Groups were held outside the educational setting and were served pizza.
Methods – Survey Following the methods of Becker et al. (2013), we used a probability sample of schools so that those chosen represent the population of schools listed by the ACEJMC. We randomly sampled 10 percent, stratified by region, and ended up with 11 schools, including one historically Black university and a Top 10 school from the latest U.S. News & World Report rankings. We obtained email lists of journalism students from each school. The census consisted of 6009 email addresses. We determined we needed to send the survey to 70 percent of the population in order to have approximately 400 responses (assuming a 10% response rate). However, we knew we would have to eliminate some students who were not journalism majors (advertising, public relations (PR), etc.), so we decided to oversample, using 80 percent, which should net us 480 respondents and allow us to purge some without going below 400. Because we were using random sampling, the respondents should represent the population at the 95-percent confidence level with a margin of error of 5 percent, regardless of the percentage sampled. We sent invitations to 4807 emails across four mailings (Becker et al., 2013). Incentive was a drawing for 50 US$10 gift cards at a coffee chain. We received 678 responses for a rate of 14 percent, which is low but fairly normal for online surveys in journalism (Kopp and Schönhagen, 2008). Some recent studies have even had 4.3 percent (Ornebring and Mellado, 2016) to 1 percent response rates (Frohlich et al., 2012). Because our questions pertained specifically to journalism, majors in advertising, PR, and other affiliated fields might not have completed the questionnaire because it did not apply to them, but we had no way to know how many fit this category in order to eliminate them initially. Response rates are steadily declining, especially in email surveys (Cook et al., 2000). However, there is little relation between response rates and nonresponse errors, which have been shown to produce less error than other kinds of bias such as measurement and sampling error (Keeter et al., 2000). Response rate alone is not a good predictor of bias, and low response does not mean bias will automatically occur; in fact, many question the value of response rates (American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), 2016). Factors that make us more confident in these results despite the response rate are several features known to produce less bias, including surveys of specific populations, such as this one of journalism majors (Groves and Peytcheva, 2008). Another way to evaluate the potential for nonresponse bias is to compare respondents to other, similar data (AAPOR, 2016). We used the most recently available annual survey of journalism and mass communication enrollments (Becker et al., 2013), whose response rate was also low at 19.8 percent. Our survey respondents were 80 percent female, compared to 73.3 percent in theirs; our sample was 20 percent minorities, and theirs was 20.6 percent. Thus, the demographics we could compare were similar. In addition, their survey included a question on why students studied journalism. As with our findings, the top reason was a love of writing, and the least cited reason was the same as ours, interest in a particular specialization (Becker et al., 2013). While these similarities give us more
Coleman et al.
7
confidence that the response rate does not invalidate this study, these results should still be interpreted with caution.
Questions To measure the motivations for pursuing a journalism degree for RQ1, we used questions from the literature and the focus groups that began, ‘How much do you agree with the following as to why you chose journalism’. All questions’ response set was 1 to 7 (strongly disagree to strongly agree) (Table 1). To answer RQ2, about how demographics predict motivations, we asked gender, race (White, Black, Asian, American Indian, Pacific Islander, Other), and major (journalism, print, photojournalism, TV/radio/broadcast, multimedia, communication/mass communication; advertising, PR; and other; the last three were purged) as predictors in a regression with the four motivations factors. To answer RQ3, how students’ role conceptions compare with those of working journalists, we used the questions from the American Journalist survey (Weaver et al., 2007). Disseminator (α = .705): Get information to the public quickly, Provide entertainment and relaxation, Analysis and interpretation of international developments, Avoid stories where factual content cannot be verified, Concentrate on news that’s of interest to the widest possible audience; Interpretive/Investigative (α = .744): Provide analysis and interpretation of complex problems, Investigate claims and statements by the government, Discuss national policy while it is being developed; Populist Mobilizer (α = .806): Develop intellectual and cultural interests of the public, Set the political agenda, Give ordinary people a chance to express their views, Motivate people to get involved in public discussions, Point people toward possible solutions to problems; and the Adversarial (α = .953): Be an adversary of public officials, and businesses. We compared students’ with professionals’ role conceptions by using Spearman’s rank-order correlation.
Results This national random sample of accredited journalism schools, stratified by region, resulted in responses from 678 students, 80 percent women and 20 percent men. Whites made up 80 percent of the sample, with 6 percent Hispanic, 4 percent each African American and Asian American, 1.6 percent Native American, and 0.2 percent Pacific Islanders. Seniors made up 34 percent of the sample, juniors 31 percent, sophomores 22 percent, and 13 percent were freshmen. Majors in journalism or mass communication made up 54 percent, advertising 17 percent, PR 25 percent, and others 5 percent, which were excluded. The three focus groups consisted of 4–8 students each, for total of 19 participants. Of these, 13 were women and 6 were men; 10 were White and 9 were of another ethnicity including Hispanic, Asian American, or another nationality. To answer RQ1, regarding the motivations of today’s American students, we conducted factor analysis with Varimax rotation on the survey sample, which resulted in four factors accounting for 57 percent of the variance. These were named the Extroverted Writer, the Altruist, the Fame Seeker, and the News Worker. The Extroverted Writer, 17 items,
8 Journalism Table 1. Factor loadings of US students’ motivations for becoming a journalist. Extroverted Writer I like engaging with people I like to meet people I like adventure I like to socialize I like to be creative I’m a people person I like to express myself I like to make something original I want a job with freedom Journalism is exciting I like to travel I care about society I like to get involved with the community I want to be kept in the know I like to write Journalism is versatile I want to be a jack-of-all-trades I want to make a difference in the world I want to improve the world I want a job with independence I want to inspire others to better the world I want a job with respect I want a job others admire I want a job that allows me autonomy I want a job that impresses others I want to work for myself I like to look at photographs I like to read magazines I want to be famous I want to be a celebrity I want to be on TV I want to report a wide range of news I have worked in journalism before and liked it I worked for my high school newspaper I want to work for a newspaper/magazine/TV I want to work for a website
Altruist
Fame Seeker
.824 .802 .794 .792 .767 .751 .746 .741 .735 .725 .719 .680 .675 .671 .624 .610 .493 .758 .742 .719 .717 .644 .625 .578 .571 .539 .527 .449 .841 .832 .757
News Worker .687 .651 .634 .589 .492
Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization.
mirrored Bowers’ (1974) primary reason that students were interested in journalism – they were outgoing, social, creative, liked freedom, adventure and excitement, and writing. The Altruist, 11 items, was similar to Crawford et al.’s (2013) altruistic journalist, wanting
Coleman et al.
9
to make a difference in the world but also seeking respect and autonomy. The Fame motive – three variables, wanting to be famous, to be a celebrity, and to be on TV (Kohut et al., 2010) – has been increasing with time (Bowers, 1974). The News Worker consisted of, 5 items, wanting to do news work, work for various types of media (newspaper, website, TV, magazine), and having worked in news before or had an early experience with journalism (Table 1). Statements about pay and financial concerns did not load highly onto any of the factors. The focus group students echoed these motivations, adding the importance of soft news, and also gave us some insights into their reasons behind them. They listed personal interests as their main reason. Almost all said they liked writing. Several had gotten involved in journalism at an early age in school. One recalled having made a ‘magazine’ as a child on paper that was stapled together. Many grew up reading newspapers and magazines and watching news on TV. For broadcast students, being in plays and theater in high school was another common denominator: After the experience I had with the crew (in high school media) … even at a young age, I thought this is fun.
A number said they liked journalism for its intrinsic and societal values: I really enjoy – as corny as it sounds – making a difference for people, even with the smallest stories and I feel that that’s really fulfilling.
The pay was mentioned, but most said it did not dissuade them: I think that as long as you’re passionate and you work hard at it and you’re persistent then everything will fall into place, including finances.
If they were concerned about the pay, they typically expressed ways to earn more while still doing journalism; for example, some broadcast majors said they considered producing jobs. For some, it was their parents who were worried about the pay. One motive that was frequently mentioned was their love for entertainment or softer news: I’ve always really enjoyed a lifestyle or entertainment kind of show, like a morning show, I’d love to be on the show or be a producer for that because, after doing reporting and stuff I just realized it can get a little bit, I don’t know, dark.
Another echoed that ‘dark’ sentiment: (Hard news) is just very stressful and kind of depressing sometimes. I think that with lifestyle shows, for me I like it because it’s more creative and I like the stories a little bit more, they’re a little bit more uplifting.
They expressed concern that more classes were not focused on soft news:
10 Journalism Part of the disappointment the first few years of being in this school is where they’re telling you to write crime stories, write court stories. And you know they have a specific option for sports journalists, so I feel like that’s the only area of journalism where you get to say that’s what I want to do.
Most of the comments mirrored motivations that had already been reported in other studies; the exception were the comments about soft news. Analysis for RQ2, which looked at how the demographics of gender, race, and major predict student motivations, used only the survey data and consisted of hierarchical regressions for each motivation factor. Gender (1 = male) was entered in the first block and dummy variables for Black, Asian American, White, and Hispanic races in the second. Dummy codes for majors (print, photo, broadcast, multimedia, communication/ mass communication) were entered in the third block. There were no significant predictors for the Extroverted Writer. The Altruist was significantly predicted by White students being less likely to be motivated by this than students of other races (Adj. R2 = .041; Beta = −.198, p
