Forskningsbaseret og empirisk testet journalistik

Analytisk journalistik er et forskningsprojekt, der undersøger, hvad der skal til for at journalister producerer viden om centrale relationer og mekanismer i samfund og dagligliv frem for at reproducere og formidle andres viden. Projektet er både idebåret og empirisk.

Flemming Tait Svith vil med forskingsprojektet "Analytisk journalistik" undersøge hvordan journalisters videnpåstande fremsættes og begrundes. 

Det udforsker for det første hvilken viden om verden, journalistikken bør give borgerne, så den forbedrer grundlaget for diskussioner og planlægning, og for det det andet hvordan sådan en viden opnås, formidles og begrundes. Det er en intellektuel ambitiøs journalistik, der baserer sig på anvendelse og afprøvning af eksisterende forskning på aktuelle emner.

Projektet indskriver sig i øget international forskerinteresse i journalistik og epistemologi. Forskningen beskæftiger sig med journalistik som en særlig form for viden, og hvilke normer og metoder den retfærdiggøres med. Den handler om hvordan journalister ved, hvad de ved, og hvordan videnpåstande fremsættes og begrundes. Interessen begrundes af en række eksterne forhold, som forandrer og udfordrer den traditionelle journalistik. Det er blandt andet sociale medier, data-drevne processer, professionalisering af organisationers kommunikation, borgerdeltagelse, hyppigere deadlines, færre journalister og økonomisk pres, som påvirker vilkårene for journalistikken og dens rolle i samfundet.

Projektet munder ud i en i international sammenhæng unik bog om tilgange og fremgangsmåder til forskningsbaserede og journalistisk testede historier.

Engelsk version:

Research based and empirical tested journalism
The research is about a form of intellectually ambitious journalism that I call analytical journalism, discussing how to create research-based stories. It calls for rethinking the quality of journalism as part of a public knowledge base on current issues, rather than solely in terms of quotidian novelty. It shows how journalists go about creating explanations of current phenomena by combining first-hand knowledge with state of the art scientific research. Analytical journalists find, make applicable, and justify existing scientific knowledge, integrating it into explanations of current issues, and presenting perspectives that are not yet common in the existing coverage. The analytical journalist adheres to the ideal of explanatory pluralism, recognizing the dialogic nature of the public knowledge base on current issues. The project draws on the meta theories of critical realism and pragmatic realism and elaborates the methodology of abduction and applies it to a journalistic practice, one which supposes a coherent approach of metatheory, methodology, methods and techniques.

The study of analytical journalism is organised into three distinct parts. The first part is deliberative: here the emphasis is on how to convert a surprising observation into a question of causality; how to identify and categorise the dominating ways of explaining the observed phenomenon in the mass media and finally, how to use the dominating issue frames to present the deliberative journalist role and to enhance journalistic expertise. The second part is explanatory: here the emphasis is on how to create a divergent issue frame. The main news value of analytical journalism arises from showing the difference between the divergent issue frame and the dominating issue frames that shape the public knowledge base on current issues. The third part is narrative: here the book teaches the journalist how to combine rhetorical and narrative elements to deliver expertise-generated information on a level that the interested layperson can understand, while doing justice to the divergent issue frame (the epistemic core of the story), and the experience of the individuals involved (the narrative core of the story).

The effect of Journalistic Socialization on the Development of the Mental News Criteria of the Mind.
Exemplars - i.e. case stories that put a specific face on the issue – are a fundamental part of news reporting (e.g., Hinnant et al. 2013; Iyengar 1991). However, little is known about why journalists focus on exemplars. Integrating insights from journalism studies (e.g., Capella & Jamieson 1997) and psychology (e.g., Boyer 2001; Mesoudi et al. 2006; Tooby & Cosmides 2006; Aarøe & Petersen 2018), we test different hypotheses related to examplers. The hypotheses are tested with comparative surveys with embedded experiments among Journalism students in Denmark and a representative sample of Danes. The survey will be conducted in 2020. We will use the survey of the journalism students to assess the development of the strength of their cognitive biases for in political news communication. The project brings together collaborators from both the DMJX in Aarhus and Centre for Journalism at University of Southern Denmark, allowing us to cover the population of BA students in Journalism in Denmark. To provide a baseline of comparison, we will equally field a survey to a nationally representative sample of Danish citizens to assess whether journalism students’ use and selection of exemplars are already different from the average citizen when they enter their education, or whether these biases develop as a product of socialization and training in the journalism programs.

 

Prefooter web-form

Foreslå indhold til underskoven

Underskoven

Instagram