Researching journalism- Why bother?

Harcup discusses the prominent tensions between journalism research and practice, concluding that the theoretical research of ‘why’ journalists do what they do is just as significant as understanding ‘how’. Harcup’s article suggest that academics are ought to be teaching bleeding obvious aspects of journalism practice, however, his findings from his methodology prove this is not the reality.

Harcup conducted two interviews and questionnaires, using a sample size of 65 ‘Hackademics’. The term ‘Hackademic’ refers to a teacher who was previously a journalist. Harcup found that 61 Hackademics agreed that we should bother with journalistic research, however, the personal experience of journalism practice was a hindrance. Consequently, the scholars’ sense of familiarity made them feel as though they were stating the “bleeding obvious” (Harcup, 2012) all the time; assuming that students already comprehend the basic knowledge of practical journalism. This is a key point of the reading as it allows me to understand that both journalism theory and practice are equally significant in understanding the context. Both aspects are equally as important in journalism.

Harcup’s quantitative methodology has allowed him to gather detailed responses in an efficient way as the format is quite simple for the respondents, resulting in an easy analysis of answers. Questionnaires also permit respondents to remain anonymous, meaning Harcup can gain truthful data which make his findings reliable and valid. The choice of methodologies also raise several issues. A disadvantage of using these quantitative methodologies is that it is difficult to obtain an adequate total of responses. This is illustrated by Harcup’s findings as 2 respondents chose not to answer.

Hugh de Burgh found that only 7 percent of employers interviewed, seek journalists with knowledge. However, De Burgh agrees with Harcup and draws on the benefits of studying journalism as an academic course. He found that employers are more concerned about characteristic qualities over someone’s skills and knowledge. De Burgh’s work suggests that the most respected aspect of journalistic courses is the “professional socialisation” (de Burgh, 2003: 109) because it gives students the necessary quality traits and attitudes. These attributes combined with the practical skills taught in a journalistic course are key for employers and Channel 4’s investigative journalism programme requirements could be said to be an example of this. On Channel 4’s website they outline that they’re looking for applicants who can use their “investigative skills to achieve results” but experience in the TV industry is not necessary. They list lawyers, doctors, police officers and accountants as people suitable for the job, suggesting that they value their skill sets and knowledge over journalistic experience.

In conclusion, I agree with both Harcup and de Burgh in regards to research in journalism being significant. I understand that although the vocationalism side to journalism gives an individual a comfortable place in the media industry, it is not directly what employers ask for. In the modern media society, personality traits are important as a skill set can easily be defined and developed. This makes me question the necessary balance between the two.

Bibliography:

Channel4 (2017) Training schemes. Available at: https://careers.channel4.com/4talent/training-schemes

[Accessed 5 October 2017]

de Burgh, H. (2003) Skills are not enough: The case for journalism as an academic discipline. [pdf] London: Sage Publications. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1464884903004001484

[Accessed 5 October 2017]

Harcup, T. (2012) Questioning the ‘bleeding obvious’: What’s the point of researching journalism? Journalism, Vol 13, No 1, pp. 21-37.