Exchanges between researchers and journalists can go beyond interviews. They can also improve how journalism serves communities.

Most journalists interact with researchers and civil society leaders working to address social problems when they are writing a story and need a quote or to access a specific source of expertise.

Expert sources add context and insight to reported pieces on topics the American public may need to know about, whether that’s commenting on research or trends in mental health, the housing crisis, or political polarization.

The interaction between journalist and researcher is often transactional and usually without awareness or interest in how the trend or finding may affect the journalist’s work.

Many researchers’ findings, including on polarization (the main focus of this report), can help media and its leaders shape the journalism. The questions raised in research can help news leaders ask new questions about how journalism is done.

More in Common’s “Hidden Tribes”

For example, take findings from the nonprofit research organization More in Common. The group is well-known for its “Hidden Tribes” research, which helped illustrate how most Americans are not on the extremes of issues but instead make up the “Exhausted Majority.” They also have demonstrated the extent of the “perception gap” between Americans, or how Americans often overestimate how many people on the “other side” hold extreme positions.

These concepts of the Exhausted Majority and perception gaps can be reported on as findings, sure. But with more consideration and effort, they can transform the journalism. They can guide news leaders to consider:

• More relatable approaches to headlines. If most people do not sit squarely in engaged political camps, how might headlines appeal less to divides between party leaders and more to the issues this “Exhausted Majority” still cares about?
• Story choice and context. News leaders must still cover extreme positions, including when they pose real threats and cause real harm. But how can they be situated in an accurate picture of how common the view is or isn’t?
• Beats, products and engagement on topics that unite.  If research shows where common ground is, that can point to opportunities for uplifting or solutions-oriented coverage or engagement on issues where many people would find interest.

Researchers in the interview setting, too, may not consider how their work might aid or inform the reimagining of news.

We explored such ideas, including with More in Common, in a Q&A series: “How might journalists help communities overcome division in our digital world?”

Thankfully, interviews are not the only way news leaders and researchers can interact. Across the country, nonprofits supporting journalism, universities and other groups are finding ways to bring journalists and researchers together in different exchanges.

One researcher present at an API Local News Summit explains how this can feel. Rather than a one-directional interview, exchanges can be “more of a back and forth,” where the researcher is “certainly sharing with them expertise, but also hearing their experiences in the newsroom, and their experience working with communities,” he said. “That hearing about their experiences, I think, really helped me think more clearly about how research can solve these local problems.”

This project was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton World Charity Foundation (funder DOI 501100011730) to better understand how local news leaders and researchers can learn from the other to improve local journalism and limit polarization in their communities (TWCF-2023-32603). The opinions expressed in this report and its excerpt are those of the organizer(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton World Charity Foundation, Inc.