As journalism struggles through a now decades-long decline in economic stability and public trust, academics who study journalism have grown increasingly focused on finding ways to improve the profession.
The signs of this shift are everywhere. Academic conferences and groups focused on journalism research have recently launched awards meant to recognize scholars who successfully bring their research to the public. And a growing number of academic centers within journalism programs are explicitly focused on fostering opportunities to connect journalism research with practice — and just last week a collaboration of scholars and practitioners published a white paper exploring such efforts. It is safe to say that journalism studies is no longer solely concerned with the study of journalism, but with advocating for its improvement or, alternatively, its transformation, as well.
This shifting focus raises important questions. First, what mechanisms do journalism studies scholars draw upon to pursue the goal of improving journalism practice? Second, what barriers to success do journalism studies scholars encounter? Finally, what — if any — measures exist to demonstrate the extent to which journalism studies scholars are finding success?
We recently explored these questions in an article published by the academic journal Journalism that draws on a critical self-reflection on our own efforts to bridge the gap between journalism studies and practice. In addition to routinely writing up our research findings for public-facing outlets such as Nieman Journalism Lab, Columbia Journalism Review, and The Conversation, each of us has been running Engaged Journalism Exchange — an annual convening of journalism scholars and practitioners — since 2019. By critically examining this initiative specifically, as well as the steps we have taken in pursuit of greater impact of our own work within journalism more broadly, our article is intended as the start of an overdue conversation surrounding what works, what does not, and what we believe structurally needs to change within both academia and industry for this sort of work to become easier, more common, and more effective.
Our efforts at bridging journalism research and practice unfold along a spectrum that ranges from most common and least difficult to least common and most difficult. The “most common, least difficult” end of the spectrum includes preparing public-facing summaries of research articles, writing “white papers,” giving interviews to news media, and making presentations at industry conferences like ONA, ISOJ, and South by Southwest. Though this sort of work occasionally feels impactful, we find it mostly effective as a means to building our professional brands as public-facing scholars rather than as a means to improving journalism. We engage in this work despite this limitation because the cost is low — just the time to write and edit — and the benefits are considerable — recognition from our peers, colleagues, and our universities, and occasionally queries from other journalists.
At the other end of the spectrum — the “least common, most difficult” — are the more time-intensive, resource-dependent, and often behind-the-scenes efforts journalism studies scholars undertake to engage with the news industry. These include hosting events that seek to bring journalism scholars and practitioners together, collaborating on research directly with industry and/or communities, direct consultation with newsrooms facing specific challenges relevant to a scholar’s expertise, and simply maintaining close ties with journalism stakeholders not just during data collection but after the fact as well. There are a number of scholars who excel at doing exactly this sort of work. However, for journalism studies scholars on the tenure track, publishing and teaching requirements often present barriers to these efforts, as less hands-on research can often yield more publications in a short amount of time, which is required for tenure, while industry-facing research often doesn’t count at all toward tenure.
We understand these concerns from firsthand experience. For years, we have organized recurring events intended to bring journalists and journalism scholars together, a pursuit that has taken up a great deal of time with an outcome that we have not come close to empirically assessing.
In 2019, we began the Engaged Journalism Exchange, a “series of digital and in-person gatherings that seeks to bridge the divide between journalism scholars and journalism innovators and funders.” The first of these exchanges attracted about 50 researchers, journalists, and funders “to brainstorm how they could more effectively share lessons learned and establish shared expectations for collaborative research.” It was a success in the sense that it did appear that journalism studies scholars, professional journalists, and journalism intermediaries (e.g., consultants, funders, tools and services providers) found a rare opportunity to interact with and learn from one another. And there were some concrete outcomes, namely a special issue of an academic journal that comprised research that had received feedback from practicing journalists during our event.
Since 2019, our exchanges have continued as virtual and in-person events typically focused around a specific theme. One virtual event, for example, examined journalism studies scholars’ and journalists’ increasing ambivalence toward the role of objectivity in news production, and included journalists from the Associated Press and the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists, as well as journalism studies scholars who recently published a book challenging conventional beliefs about objectivity. In 2022, we brought together 40 researchers, journalists, and other media practitioners for a half-day event focused on how journalism scholars and journalists could improve their collaborations with communities. A year later, we organized an exchange focused on how journalism studies scholars and journalists could better collaborate on ways to improve journalism education. We held our 2024 exchange in August, focused explicitly on bridging the gap between journalism research and practice, and have just begun planning our next event, which will be held in August 2025 in San Francisco.
These past five years have made it clear just how labor-intensive it can be to bring people from journalism studies and practice together, and how challenging it can be to maintain the discussions between these sides. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing how, or even if, our efforts have impacted the journalists who chose to attend. Did any journalist who attended a discussion at an Engaged Journalism Exchange surrounding the limitations of objectivity reconsider its role as a professional value? We are in no position to even begin to answer this question, or any like it.
Our struggle to measure the impact of the Engaged Journalism Exchange raises a larger question for all scholars attempting to make journalism better. Does any of this work actually matter?
Do public-facing summaries of research in Nieman Journalism Lab or Columbia Journalism Review move the needle when it comes to empowering journalists to make better-informed decisions? Or do these pieces simply entitle those who have written them — we include ourselves in this group — to a false sense of self-satisfaction for having brought our findings from the least visible of venues (paywalled academic journal websites) to ones that are better known and easier to find? Those of us who have interviewed journalists for research know that they can be quite touchy and reluctant to hear hard truths from what they consider “outsider” perspectives. What should journalism studies scholars do to make these findings not just more visible to journalists, but more persuasive, more collaborative, and ultimately more valuable?
We think the path forward for improving this bond and, consequently, the impact of this work must begin with journalism studies and the institutional actors within it more explicitly grappling with what “engagement” in this sense can and should entail, and how it can and should be assessed and, equally important, supported. We believe leaders within journalism studies and practice must make resources available to those interested in embarking on this sort of work. On the industry side, professional organizations could create their own tracks that cater to academics, or have memberships and board positions dedicated to academics who study journalism. The National Association of Black Journalists, for instance, has had a board position dedicated to academics for the past decade.
Despite the challenges, limitations, and uncertainties, we intend to continue the Engaged Journalism Exchange, as well as our other efforts to improve the relationship between those who report the news and those who study it. We see it as the likeliest means by which we can make journalism better. Of course, we are far from certain. We aspire for more opportunities to do this work, as well as more opportunities to measure the value of this work.
Jacob L. Nelson is an associate professor at the University of Utah and the author of Imagined Audiences: How Journalists Perceive and Pursue the Public. Andrea Wenzel is an associate professor of journalism at Temple University’s Klein College and the author of Community-Centered Journalism: Engaging People, Exploring Solutions, and Building Trust and Antiracist Journalism: The Challenge of Creating Equitable Local News. Letrell Crittenden is director of inclusion and audience growth at the American Press Institute.
