Our conversations with journalists and academics have yielded a wide variety of proposals for how we can begin to bridge the research-practice gap. Some of these are more “small potatoes” or tactical fixes — not overnight successes, but projects that should be doable if the relevant stakeholders find the time, money and willpower to plan and implement change. For such changes, it might be possible to effect change by working with reporters, engagement editors and membership managers on the journalism side, or professors on the academic side.
On the other end we have the “big fish to fry” — more systemic reforms and sweeping changes to incentives. To accomplish these changes will require years of concerted collaboration as well as sustainable funding streams. In a way, what these changes require is a movement: people who are passionate about making evidence-based improvements to journalism, and able to regularly put aside even a small amount of time to collaborate, ideate and push forward such changes. People higher up the chain of command, such as higher-level editors, publishers, CEOs and journalism school deans, may need to be involved to make changes happen.
As we can see from the illustration above, the “small potatoes — big fish” delineation involves a rough spectrum. At the same time, we can understand most initiatives as addressing a particular part of the research-to-practice pipeline — whether enhancing cross-border conversations, easing collaboration, facilitating translation or laying the groundwork for implementation. Again, some initiatives will cross boundaries.
In rough order from “small potatoes” to “big fish to fry,” our suggested fixes are:
Engagement: Sometimes an impactful collaboration starts with a small gesture of outreach. News organizations should consider when they might fruitfully inform researchers of their initiatives — and if they already do so, look beyond the “usual suspect” researchers they always contact. Scholars are also usually happy to share copies of their papers or to translate them into plain-speak. Arguably, they can do more to show they’re available to do this work, and they should reach out more to reality-check their research questions. “Ask the journalists what would be useful to them,” an editor in the Journalism study said.
Conferences: Academics and practitioners both attend journalism conferences. They rarely attend the same ones. Conferences are, however, one promising avenue for in-person connection, through both informal networking and deliberate programming aimed at encouraging the exchange of ideas. Academic researchers seeking practical impact should target practitioner-oriented conferences like those of the Online News Association or Radio Television Digital News Association, or popular interdisciplinary media events like South by Southwest. Other conferences to consider include those of professional journalism associations such as the National Association of Black Journalists, and regional events, such as those run by state newspaper associations. Programming at conferences could include panels that mix scholars and journalists, summaries of research insights, and Reddit-style ask-me-anythings between journalists and researchers on key topics. In short, conferences work because there, journalists are “in a continuing education mode,” eager to consider new information, according to a reporter/producer in the Journalism study.
Different outputs for different audiences: Erica Perel describes how the Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media has worked to make its research accessible. On their website, the center documented trends on newsroom unionization via traditional research and analysis. But it also did an “editorial deep dive,” a more journalism-like piece that involved interviews with unionizing newsroom staff. Thinking about these kinds of multiple outputs can help researchers to inform journalists as well as their fellow academics. And publishing the non-peer reviewed piece earlier can help the researcher to make a practical impact — before their work is yesterday’s news.
Celebrating the good: Danielle Brown points out that when academics always act as critics, it can leave journalists frustrated. Sometimes, she says, researchers need to celebrate what’s been done right: “To me, that helps journalists understand that we aren’t here to simply critique you. We’re here to help you and your colleagues become better, because we have the time and obsession to do it.” Think of it as “solutions research”: Academics could write more case studies analyzing how news organizations have solved problems, to model what might be copied as well as to inspire hope.
Partnerships, early and often: Collaborations between researchers and newsrooms are crucial to producing practical research and encouraging its application. What’s clear is that journalism researchers should not approach these as “interventions,” as other fields refer to them. Instead, they should seek partnerships that are, as Andrea Wenzel says, “collaborative from the ground up.” Joy Mayer says partnerships need to start early in the research process, with researchers asking newsrooms “are these actually useful questions?”
How-tos: Mayer recalls how Trusting News worked with an academic to put together 125 slides of research on trust. While that offered a comprehensive look at the research at the time, for many busy newsroom staff, “it was just too much to keep up.” Instead, she urges that resources for journalists be written in a “how-to” style, to better align with the pressing problems newsrooms are trying to address in the moment.
Continuing education: Professional development workshops and seminars are natural connection points for scholars and practitioners, as seen in fields like medicine and education. While journalists do not have credentialing that requires continuing education, these opportunities can still be encouraged and incentivized by universities and news organizations. This can happen through workshops and learning communities.
Local collaborations: Universities can work with nearby newsrooms to address their issues through research. When researchers show up in person and observe, their understanding of newsroom pressures can arguably be deepened versus what’s capable in a few online meetings.
Ph.D. students working with newsrooms: As a researcher, working with newsrooms is a skill, Talia Stroud says. It’s not one commonly taught in journalism schools, either. Offering Ph.D. students a hands-on way to learn this skill “is a starting point,” she says.
User-friendly research databases: Medicine has UpToDate; education has RELs (see the Lessons from other fields section for more). Why not journalism? Perhaps we need a platform with practical guides, case studies and tools for integrating research into daily journalistic practices. In a similar vein, Erica Perel describes a meeting with colleagues where she imagined “Google for journalism resources.” Then ChatGPT hit the scene — so they built a custom AI interface that helps visitors search for tips on building an audience. A variety of stakeholders in this landscape could be in a position to build tools with a similar purpose: surfing the vast array of journalism papers out there, and surfacing easy-to-understand, actionable insights.
Sabbaticals: Stroud suggests that journalists could spend time on secondment in academia, while academics could work in newsrooms. “It would raise all boats… Anytime that you experience some other organizations which you’re not a part of, you learn so much. And there are things that can’t be communicated in any other way… the constraints, the opportunities, the reward structure, all of those things.”
More centers, similar incentive structures: Stroud says research that benefits newsrooms tends to happen when faculty and institutional interests are aligned. There are different ways of doing this, she suggests. “Whether that’s a center, whether that’s a really entrepreneurial dean or provost or president, that’s going to place a greater emphasis on practical work that transcends traditional theory/practice divides.”
Knowledge brokers: This term can encompass a variety of activities, but the key concept is that we may need a new class of professionals, one whose job is to link academia and newsrooms. As Matt Weber suggests, a key part of acting as a knowledge broker is simply ensuring that journalists and news organizations are aware of relevant, up-to-date knowledge. For example, in medicine, knowledge brokers organize conferences and workshops. Brokers might also translate collate research and translate it into practical recommendations. Or they could act as matchmakers, connecting a newsroom with a researcher who knows how to research the topic at hand. This role could be institutionalized within journalism schools or professional associations.
Reforming tenure expectations: Most universities place a higher premium on the number of peer-reviewed articles, and the prestige of the journal, than on the scholar’s engagement with newsrooms. While some journalism programs have begun to reimagine the place of public scholarship, professional work and community connection in their tenure and promotion guidelines, more must do so. Academics who wish to specialize in practical impact need a pathway to advancement. Associations in the field should consider providing journalism schools with guidelines to revise their tenure and promotion policies.
Reforming journal requirements: Journals in the field could place a higher value on practical implications and easily understood prose. Perhaps a “recommendations” section could be made open access, as abstracts are currently. Or journals could carve out a special type of open-access article that prioritizes solutions. Such a category might also be paired with faster peer review turnaround times, although journals may need to offer better incentives to make that happen.
Reforming journalism teaching: Professors can help bridge the gap by training the next generation of journalists to use research — and impressing upon them the importance of doing so. Journalism schools do teach about theories, methods, and how to understand research findings, but these skills are often treated separately from practical journalism skills such as writing, editing and photography. For example, many j-schools operate “theory” master’s programs that are siloed from “practice” master’s programs. Tenure-track professors and professors of the practice often have limited opportunities to collaborate on curricula or pedagogy. In contrast, we’d argue that research can and should inform skills classes, beginning with introductory reporting for undergraduates. Educational organizations such as the Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication could revise their competencies to include research comprehension, evaluation and application, helping to inform the curricula of accredited schools.
|
The role of funding We note funding as an important consideration that touches upon nearly every other suggestion in this report. As we’ve documented, much of the gap exists because of misaligned incentives. Creating new incentives may mean a financial outlay, at least initially; and instituting new systems and practices will similarly take financial resources. Some of the particular roles for funding that our interviewees highlighted:
|
