Singer et al 1999 showed that online newsrooms are filled with young journalists with different educational backgrounds than their print counterparts and that their main activity is known as "shovelware": 'taking information generated originally for a paper's printed edition and deploying it virtually unchanged onto its website'.
However, Boczkowski says that this trend is being reverted and that there is more original material being produced by online newsrooms (is it true?). Moreover, he suggests that original material may be a more appropriate ground to examine changes in the technologies and practices of newspapers as it moves from the paper to the screen.
He also suggests that despite the great amount of work that has been done in investigating newspaper technological changes, the majority of this work "has remained confined to the familiar landscape of notions and models such as gatekeeping, agenda-settings", etc, commonly investigated in new media studies. He complements his reflection by saying that further research is needed that could lead to a multidisciplinary theory building about online newspapers, such as the fields of sociology and anthropology and contextual approaches to knowing, such as activity theory and distributed cognition (Horray!!)
Even better: he says that little attention has been paid to the role of technology in the actual work practices of editorial personnel -- something which is not surprising given the neglect of technology's role in most studies of news-making in print and broadcast media.
And gets better and better: "further research is needed to illuminate what goes on in the creation of original content, taking advantage of the the web's unique technical features...and more conceptually, examining the role of technology in news-making, a long-overdue theme in sociology of news production... Potential issues include (4) the changes in gathering, processing and delivery of news content in relation to having multiple media for storing ad conveying information" (this guy read my proposal... ) :)
Dammm!
Tuesday 29 April 2008
Journalists and the readers
Interesting chapter in "The Handbook of New Media" by Pablo Boczkowski (summary in a bit). Just a quick note to remember myself of including in the spectrum of my areas of interest to investigate is the journalists relationships with the readers.
Reseachers who have examined these relationships concluded that journalists are not very keen about it. Riley concluded that journalists were horrified of receiving an email from readers about a story they wrote and that the readers expected an answer! A study at The New York Times (Schultz, 2000:214) reports that 12 out of 19 journalists admitted they never visit the Times online forum.
Interesting thoughts: how is it now? Did they get used to it? Do novice journalists just take it for granted? How do they see the interactivity of the online edition? Is it a problem? Is it good? Is it more work? How do they perceive feedback to their story? Do they visit the online forums? if they do, why, because they want, because they are told to do so, because they perceive it as part of their job? If they don't, why? Do they get personal emails from readers? is it possible to contact a journalist (is their email address on the website? this I can find out by myself...)
Reseachers who have examined these relationships concluded that journalists are not very keen about it. Riley concluded that journalists were horrified of receiving an email from readers about a story they wrote and that the readers expected an answer! A study at The New York Times (Schultz, 2000:214) reports that 12 out of 19 journalists admitted they never visit the Times online forum.
Interesting thoughts: how is it now? Did they get used to it? Do novice journalists just take it for granted? How do they see the interactivity of the online edition? Is it a problem? Is it good? Is it more work? How do they perceive feedback to their story? Do they visit the online forums? if they do, why, because they want, because they are told to do so, because they perceive it as part of their job? If they don't, why? Do they get personal emails from readers? is it possible to contact a journalist (is their email address on the website? this I can find out by myself...)
Sunday 27 April 2008
Early-stage interview
"The aim of pre-fieldwork phase and in the early stages of data collection is to turn the foreshadowed problems into a set of questions to which an answer can be given, wether this be a narrative description of a sequence of events, a generalized account of the perspectives and practices of a particular group of actors, or a more abstract theoretical formulation. Sometimes in this process the original problems are transformed or even completely abandoned in favour of others". Hammersley and Atkinson (:28)
I hope that the latter is not my case.
The newspaper agreed on an early interview, to be held this month (May) with the manager with whom I talked to the first time I went there. I think this (Simon's brilliant idea) will cast away doubts and give me with some direction.
I am slightly nervous again, now I realize it is all happening in a month and I still didn't do half of the reading I wish I had done. Next reading, Strauss and Corbing on how to code for grounded theory.
I hope that the latter is not my case.
The newspaper agreed on an early interview, to be held this month (May) with the manager with whom I talked to the first time I went there. I think this (Simon's brilliant idea) will cast away doubts and give me with some direction.
I am slightly nervous again, now I realize it is all happening in a month and I still didn't do half of the reading I wish I had done. Next reading, Strauss and Corbing on how to code for grounded theory.
How we write reflects directly on what we write.
Hammersley on writing ethnography: (Chapter 9)
"It is not enough to prove 'evocative' or 'rich', in its descriptive detail... it is equally important that the ethnography should display and demonstrate the adequacy of its methodological and empirical claims".
Loflands criteria in evaluating qualitative research:
Criterion of use of generic conceptual framework, i.e., the extent to which the particular subject matter of the ethnography is located in wider conceptual frameworks? It is not enough to report particular stories or events. Successful interweaving of local and general.
Criterion of novelty: not that all ethnography seats on completely novel framework, but a successful text will show how ideas are being developed, tested, modified or extended. "The text will not be evaluated positively if it achieves no more than a chronicle of events in a particular setting.
It should be 'eventful', i.e. , endowed with concrete interactional events, incidents, occurrences, episodes, anecdotes, scenes and happenings in the real world. The analytical claims need to be 'grounded' or anchored in particularities of observed life. But it shouldn't be over eventful, though.
They also mention that, like any other text, the ethnographic report should be written with an audience in mind. They alert to the fact, however, that it is impossible to please all audiences.
"It is not enough to prove 'evocative' or 'rich', in its descriptive detail... it is equally important that the ethnography should display and demonstrate the adequacy of its methodological and empirical claims".
Loflands criteria in evaluating qualitative research:
Criterion of use of generic conceptual framework, i.e., the extent to which the particular subject matter of the ethnography is located in wider conceptual frameworks? It is not enough to report particular stories or events. Successful interweaving of local and general.
Criterion of novelty: not that all ethnography seats on completely novel framework, but a successful text will show how ideas are being developed, tested, modified or extended. "The text will not be evaluated positively if it achieves no more than a chronicle of events in a particular setting.
It should be 'eventful', i.e. , endowed with concrete interactional events, incidents, occurrences, episodes, anecdotes, scenes and happenings in the real world. The analytical claims need to be 'grounded' or anchored in particularities of observed life. But it shouldn't be over eventful, though.
They also mention that, like any other text, the ethnographic report should be written with an audience in mind. They alert to the fact, however, that it is impossible to please all audiences.
Bannon and Bodker
Another brilliant discussion about the limitations of the cognitive psychology approach to HCI.
"...It seems like we have to take the use process, and not the artefact, as the central object of our study. The way cognition is viewed in human activity theory is socially and historically situated, and it is tied to the physical conditions in which it takes place. Whatever action a human being makes in the world, this action is mediated by artefacts. In this view, the study of mediation becomes central to HCI".
Engerström (1987) look at change processes in organizational settings says that “the reason for someone to want a change is a contradiction between this person’s activity and the surrounding activities” (:244). He suggests studying contradictions between tools currently in use and the object created and the norms of the praxis and the division of work. He gives the example of a secretary who wants to do a better layout for a document and ends up using paper and glue, for the non existence or her lack of access to advanced designing tools.
These contradictions, he claims, may explain why the artefact may not work, which we wouldn’t have found out just by analysing the steps in the actual process (by doing a task analysis, for example). If we had just looked at the use of the word processor, nothing would have come up as “wrong”, because the processor would have been used anyway. What the AT framework provides is a wider look into the system. Engerström argues that “artefacts are used differently from original intentions, and that is why the need for new artefacts arise”:
"...It seems like we have to take the use process, and not the artefact, as the central object of our study. The way cognition is viewed in human activity theory is socially and historically situated, and it is tied to the physical conditions in which it takes place. Whatever action a human being makes in the world, this action is mediated by artefacts. In this view, the study of mediation becomes central to HCI".
Engerström (1987) look at change processes in organizational settings says that “the reason for someone to want a change is a contradiction between this person’s activity and the surrounding activities” (:244). He suggests studying contradictions between tools currently in use and the object created and the norms of the praxis and the division of work. He gives the example of a secretary who wants to do a better layout for a document and ends up using paper and glue, for the non existence or her lack of access to advanced designing tools.
These contradictions, he claims, may explain why the artefact may not work, which we wouldn’t have found out just by analysing the steps in the actual process (by doing a task analysis, for example). If we had just looked at the use of the word processor, nothing would have come up as “wrong”, because the processor would have been used anyway. What the AT framework provides is a wider look into the system. Engerström argues that “artefacts are used differently from original intentions, and that is why the need for new artefacts arise”:
Thursday 17 April 2008
Activity Theory - why we should all love it
So I resumed my readings about Activity Theory and had a nice chat with Ian about it. I was glad to read in a chapter of Nardi's Context and Consciousness one more of the main reasons why I am sympathetic to this theory: they way it views people.
(these are extracts from the notes I took when reading the text yesterday that I thought it would be nice to post here, just in case I forget in the future why I like AT so much)
"Another very important very important difference between DC and AT is in how they see the relation between people and artefacts. In AT, artefacts are seen as mediators of activity. The theory perceives humans as carriers of motive and consciousness, which objects and machines aren’t. Therefore people and artefacts can’t be seen as symmetrical or equivalent.
Conversely, DC treats both people and objects as “nodes in a system” and conceive a rather difficult to understand notion of artefacts as ‘cognizing entities’. However, a human can act in an unpredicted, unexpected, self-initiated way, according to social or personal motives. A machine or an object will always act in a foreseen, programmatic way. Therefore, a theory that posits equivalency between humans and machines damps out sources of systemic variation and contradiction that might have important ramifications for a system. So, the AT position would seem to hold greater potential for leading a more responsible technology design in which people are viewed as active beings in control of their tools for creative purposes rather than as automatons whose operations are to be automated away, or nodes whose rights to privacy and dignity are not guaranteed.
About the difference between AT and Situated Action (:44) about the three men that go nature walking: the bird watcher, the meteorologist and the entomologist. If the first two were only videoed, their behaviour would look exactly the same, but their goals are completely different: one looks for clouds, the other for birds. Now, suppose that the bird watcher is on a mission to create a list with all the birds in North America. This we would never learn only from observing these people. That is what AT brings to front: people’s motives. It gives us a vocabulary to talk about the walker’s activities in meaningful subjective terms and gives necessary attention to what a subject brings to a situation.
So if we want a world where technology is a means to an end, is a mediator that serves thinking, critical, active and reactive human beings, who are capable of planing and adapting to the circumstances, instead of just behaving as "nodes in a system", then AT is a good path to follow".
I find it strange the rejection it has in the academic melieu. I find it specially interesting how the lecturers from my course presented it to us with an almost deprecating way. The result, as expected, is that nobody from my course can hear about it and find me a weirdo for finding it interesting.
Apparently there is this guy Dan, who is working as a free lancer for Amberlight, who is interested in a commercial application of AT. I am curious to talk to him about it, specially, what does he think of the time span for an AT application. I am concerned about the time scale I would need in oder to, for example, see the historical changes in an environment. Or is it something that is possible to do at The Newspaper?
(these are extracts from the notes I took when reading the text yesterday that I thought it would be nice to post here, just in case I forget in the future why I like AT so much)
"Another very important very important difference between DC and AT is in how they see the relation between people and artefacts. In AT, artefacts are seen as mediators of activity. The theory perceives humans as carriers of motive and consciousness, which objects and machines aren’t. Therefore people and artefacts can’t be seen as symmetrical or equivalent.
Conversely, DC treats both people and objects as “nodes in a system” and conceive a rather difficult to understand notion of artefacts as ‘cognizing entities’. However, a human can act in an unpredicted, unexpected, self-initiated way, according to social or personal motives. A machine or an object will always act in a foreseen, programmatic way. Therefore, a theory that posits equivalency between humans and machines damps out sources of systemic variation and contradiction that might have important ramifications for a system. So, the AT position would seem to hold greater potential for leading a more responsible technology design in which people are viewed as active beings in control of their tools for creative purposes rather than as automatons whose operations are to be automated away, or nodes whose rights to privacy and dignity are not guaranteed.
About the difference between AT and Situated Action (:44) about the three men that go nature walking: the bird watcher, the meteorologist and the entomologist. If the first two were only videoed, their behaviour would look exactly the same, but their goals are completely different: one looks for clouds, the other for birds. Now, suppose that the bird watcher is on a mission to create a list with all the birds in North America. This we would never learn only from observing these people. That is what AT brings to front: people’s motives. It gives us a vocabulary to talk about the walker’s activities in meaningful subjective terms and gives necessary attention to what a subject brings to a situation.
So if we want a world where technology is a means to an end, is a mediator that serves thinking, critical, active and reactive human beings, who are capable of planing and adapting to the circumstances, instead of just behaving as "nodes in a system", then AT is a good path to follow".
I find it strange the rejection it has in the academic melieu. I find it specially interesting how the lecturers from my course presented it to us with an almost deprecating way. The result, as expected, is that nobody from my course can hear about it and find me a weirdo for finding it interesting.
Apparently there is this guy Dan, who is working as a free lancer for Amberlight, who is interested in a commercial application of AT. I am curious to talk to him about it, specially, what does he think of the time span for an AT application. I am concerned about the time scale I would need in oder to, for example, see the historical changes in an environment. Or is it something that is possible to do at The Newspaper?
Tuesday 15 April 2008
What it takes...
One general point about Hammersley and Atkinson: the general idea I get from this book about conducting ethnographic research is that there isn´t a formula or even a method to apply: the success of an interview or even of a whole field study counts as much on the state of things (circumstances) as it does on the researcher's savoir fair, on its ways with people and its means to get on with different situations, all based on ad hoc decisions.
Insider accounts
Hammersley and Atkinson Chapter 5: on insider accounts:
There are distinct advantages in combining participant observation with interviews, in particular the data from each can be used to illuminate the other. As Dexter notes from his research on the United States Congress, one's experience as a participant observer can have an important effect on how one interprets what people say in interviews. (: 131)
They also discuss the difficulties in selecting and having access to informants and people to interview. Also the problems in choosing the setting for an interview and deciding between an individual or group interview.
The advantages of the interview is that it can elicit different types of data, required by the changing demands of the research (:156)
As for the answers gathered, they shouldn't be treated as "the truth" about any phenomena, because they are only one person's account of that reality, but neither should be discharged, as they can be a valuable source of information about events and perspectives and practices of those who perform them. (:156)
About informants, they present Dean et al illustration of types: (:137)
(see book for details, it is pretty funny)
1. Informants that are specially sensitive to the area of concern
2. The more-willing-to-reveal informants
There are distinct advantages in combining participant observation with interviews, in particular the data from each can be used to illuminate the other. As Dexter notes from his research on the United States Congress, one's experience as a participant observer can have an important effect on how one interprets what people say in interviews. (: 131)
They also discuss the difficulties in selecting and having access to informants and people to interview. Also the problems in choosing the setting for an interview and deciding between an individual or group interview.
The advantages of the interview is that it can elicit different types of data, required by the changing demands of the research (:156)
As for the answers gathered, they shouldn't be treated as "the truth" about any phenomena, because they are only one person's account of that reality, but neither should be discharged, as they can be a valuable source of information about events and perspectives and practices of those who perform them. (:156)
About informants, they present Dean et al illustration of types: (:137)
(see book for details, it is pretty funny)
1. Informants that are specially sensitive to the area of concern
2. The more-willing-to-reveal informants
Friday 11 April 2008
Roles in the field
At the moment I am agonizing with the following doubt: should I tell the journalists at The Newspaper that I am a journalist as well or should I just be presented as an ethnographer.
I may sound overdramatic when I say “agonizing” but the questions has been a theme of an entire chapter (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983 chapter 4). When presenting what I consider a thorough account of “field relations”, the authors bounce back andd forwards with examples of advantages of the two options.
For example, Beynon (1983) explains that during his research at a school, telling the other teachers that he had taught for ten years worked out as a “bonus”. It and opened up the other teachers for more conversation as they considered Beynon to be “one of theirs”.
Hammersley and Atkinson go on saying that a problem that the ethnographer often faces is deciding “how much of self-disclosure” is appropriate or fruitful. They also quote Klatch (1988) whose investigative willingness to understand the social scene was confused with accordance with principles she was not particularly in agreement with. (The study was about women who are involved in right wing organizations).
The chapter also gives various examples of how personal characteristics of the researcher invariably influence the fieldwork: gender, ethnic group, religion, colour, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.
Other very interesting topic raised on this chapter is the variety of roles the ethnographer can adopt, the “theoretical social roles for field work”: complete participant, participant as observer, observant as participant and complete observer. Disregarding the detail about the theory, they do have one brilliant conclusion for this question:
“While ethnographers may adopt a variety of roles, the usual aim throughout is to maintain a more or less marginal position, thereby providing access to participant perspectives but at the same time minimizing the dangers of over-rapport. (…) The ethnographer needs to be intellectually poised between familiarity and strangeness, and (…) between stranger and friend. (…) the ethnographer is generally a marginal native”.
They also go about the stresses and strains of fieldwork, describing a variety of symptoms, from discomfort to physical pain, suffered by ethnographers in the past. They say that, however bad these feelings can be, the one thing to be avoided at all costs is the feeling of being at “home”: “the comfortable sense of being ‘at home’ is a danger signal. From the perspective of the marginal reflexive ethnographer there can thus be no feeling of ‘surrender’ or ‘becoming’. There must always be some intellectual distance – without that the ethnography can be transformed into an autobiographical account of a conversation. If the sense of being a stranger is lost, one might have lost the critical perspective.
So, what should I do? Should I tell the manager of the newsroom I would like to keep my background as a secret, take the role of the “acceptable incompetent” (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983: 103) and pretend all the time not to know what is “closure” and “lead” and all the journalistic jargon, or should I just let the truth out and tell them I had some experience as a journalist in the past?
I think that either way I will be misinterpreted. First because despite the fact I had some experience, I never have been to a newsroom except Reuters and other newspapers as a visitor. Second, I might know some jargon in Portuguese, but I’m certainly not fully acquainted with the English version of these, therefore it would be perfectly acceptable that, as a foreigner I ask silly questions about the language. Third, if I do decide to hide it, there is a possibility that I will slip that through a conversation as I get close to the people I will be conversing with.
So I think that my attitude is going to be the following:
- make sure I am introduced as a researcher from UCL, not a journalist
- reassure them I am no spy, no management “secret weapon” or consultant, that I am there to fulfil my own interest: writing my theses
- don’t lie about the fact that I have some experience as a journalist but don’t present it as a big deal, just mention it in the conversation
- feel entitled to ask questions about journalism practices and jargon I do know, but not in English
I may sound overdramatic when I say “agonizing” but the questions has been a theme of an entire chapter (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983 chapter 4). When presenting what I consider a thorough account of “field relations”, the authors bounce back andd forwards with examples of advantages of the two options.
For example, Beynon (1983) explains that during his research at a school, telling the other teachers that he had taught for ten years worked out as a “bonus”. It and opened up the other teachers for more conversation as they considered Beynon to be “one of theirs”.
Hammersley and Atkinson go on saying that a problem that the ethnographer often faces is deciding “how much of self-disclosure” is appropriate or fruitful. They also quote Klatch (1988) whose investigative willingness to understand the social scene was confused with accordance with principles she was not particularly in agreement with. (The study was about women who are involved in right wing organizations).
The chapter also gives various examples of how personal characteristics of the researcher invariably influence the fieldwork: gender, ethnic group, religion, colour, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.
Other very interesting topic raised on this chapter is the variety of roles the ethnographer can adopt, the “theoretical social roles for field work”: complete participant, participant as observer, observant as participant and complete observer. Disregarding the detail about the theory, they do have one brilliant conclusion for this question:
“While ethnographers may adopt a variety of roles, the usual aim throughout is to maintain a more or less marginal position, thereby providing access to participant perspectives but at the same time minimizing the dangers of over-rapport. (…) The ethnographer needs to be intellectually poised between familiarity and strangeness, and (…) between stranger and friend. (…) the ethnographer is generally a marginal native”.
They also go about the stresses and strains of fieldwork, describing a variety of symptoms, from discomfort to physical pain, suffered by ethnographers in the past. They say that, however bad these feelings can be, the one thing to be avoided at all costs is the feeling of being at “home”: “the comfortable sense of being ‘at home’ is a danger signal. From the perspective of the marginal reflexive ethnographer there can thus be no feeling of ‘surrender’ or ‘becoming’. There must always be some intellectual distance – without that the ethnography can be transformed into an autobiographical account of a conversation. If the sense of being a stranger is lost, one might have lost the critical perspective.
So, what should I do? Should I tell the manager of the newsroom I would like to keep my background as a secret, take the role of the “acceptable incompetent” (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983: 103) and pretend all the time not to know what is “closure” and “lead” and all the journalistic jargon, or should I just let the truth out and tell them I had some experience as a journalist in the past?
I think that either way I will be misinterpreted. First because despite the fact I had some experience, I never have been to a newsroom except Reuters and other newspapers as a visitor. Second, I might know some jargon in Portuguese, but I’m certainly not fully acquainted with the English version of these, therefore it would be perfectly acceptable that, as a foreigner I ask silly questions about the language. Third, if I do decide to hide it, there is a possibility that I will slip that through a conversation as I get close to the people I will be conversing with.
So I think that my attitude is going to be the following:
- make sure I am introduced as a researcher from UCL, not a journalist
- reassure them I am no spy, no management “secret weapon” or consultant, that I am there to fulfil my own interest: writing my theses
- don’t lie about the fact that I have some experience as a journalist but don’t present it as a big deal, just mention it in the conversation
- feel entitled to ask questions about journalism practices and jargon I do know, but not in English
This is my attempt to build a schedule for the days at The Newspaper
My objective with this is to see in a more graphical way what I have been thinking about lately. I need to make sure I observe the newsroom in different times and, if possible, at all times, in order to achieve a comprehensive combination of staff + time of the day + day of the week.
This way, if an event happens at a certain time in a certain day of the week I will be able to check not only if it happens also in other times of that same day, but also if it happens in other days of the week.
I am aware of the fact that it will be very difficult to follow this schedule by the line, since interviews and visits will be modulated by the process itself. But I found it important to have a plan that can guide me through it.
Maybe I am just a control freak. Maybe one cannot have such a plan when doing ethnography. Or maybe I just have to be good on it, which means being very adaptable to the circumstances and change the route halfway through the journey. I think I can do it.
Tuesday 8 April 2008
Bibliography
Again, no much news in this side of life.
Reading:
Crabtree, A. (2003) Designing collaborative systems: a practical guide to ethnography London: Springer.
“…the rationalist mentality embedded in methods of description so prevalent in the human sciences keeps us from looking at the essential issues in the workplace, which is to say that the rationalist methodologies gloss over and obscure the real world, real time character of work”. (p.46)
Dey, I. (2004) Grounded Theory. In Qualitative research practice edited by Clive Seale [et al.] London: SAGE p. 80-93
Good historical account of the origins of Grounded Theory, synthetic explanation of Strauss and Corbin's three phase coding system and sufficient critique of the method.
"Concepts can both reduce and enrich data: they reduce in the sense that they summarize a range of observations and they enrich because concepts convey connotations that facilitates connections with other concepts".
“Posing questions isn’t the same as presuming answers”
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson P. (1995) Ethnography:principles in practice 2nd ed.. London: Routledge.
Action
Replied Jirotka's email asking for an appointment
Reading:
Crabtree, A. (2003) Designing collaborative systems: a practical guide to ethnography London: Springer.
“…the rationalist mentality embedded in methods of description so prevalent in the human sciences keeps us from looking at the essential issues in the workplace, which is to say that the rationalist methodologies gloss over and obscure the real world, real time character of work”. (p.46)
Dey, I. (2004) Grounded Theory. In Qualitative research practice edited by Clive Seale [et al.] London: SAGE p. 80-93
Good historical account of the origins of Grounded Theory, synthetic explanation of Strauss and Corbin's three phase coding system and sufficient critique of the method.
"Concepts can both reduce and enrich data: they reduce in the sense that they summarize a range of observations and they enrich because concepts convey connotations that facilitates connections with other concepts".
“Posing questions isn’t the same as presuming answers”
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson P. (1995) Ethnography:principles in practice 2nd ed.. London: Routledge.
Action
Replied Jirotka's email asking for an appointment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)