What is academic explanatory journalism? Highlights from the CCA Conference

Explanatory Journalism Project (XJO) researchers took to the virtual stage at the Canadian Communication Association Conference 2022 to present their findings, and engaged in a broader discussion around the boundaries of journalism and academia - and where explanatory journalism lies within that debate.

Several of the talks by XJO researchers centred around The Conversation, an online outlet where articles are written by academics, but edited by journalists. As Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) professor and XJO researcher Dr. Charles Davis explained, The Conversation uses a “hybrid” model, bringing together academia and journalism to yield new capabilities. That combination is “academic explanatory journalism.”

But as Michelle Bartleman, a PhD student at the University of Ottawa, noted, the term “academic explanatory journalism” yields less than ten results in a Google search, and lacks published definitions altogether. That lack of a clear definition can be problematic and lead to friction. 

“The corollary of hybridity is that we blend things together,” she said, including different ethics, motivations, and principles, agendas, and procedures. Clashes and gaps can result when things don’t align, and without a clear idea of what the format is trying to achieve, it can be hard to evaluate success. Clarifying these differences, she said, can help “tear down the wall” between journalism and the academic world. 

Perhaps academic explanatory journalism’s distinction is right in its name: it explains. In a presentation on the history of the form, TMU professor emeritus of journalism Dr. Gene Allan borrowed a page from Peter Burke’s history of knowledge, noting that while information is raw, knowledge is cooked: it includes interpretation and context, providing meaning to the facts. In explanatory journalism, writers go beyond providing mere facts to providing knowledge, explaining what it all means, and they’ve been doing this for over 100 years.

Other talks, however, suggested explanatory journalism hardly has a monopoly on this practice. Researchers from the Journalistic Role Performance (external link)  study (JRP) investigated the degree to which journalists across the world exhibit various roles in their work. One indicator of the interventionist role is interpretation, where a writer, for example, describes cause and effect without quoting a source. A content analysis of more than 3700 stories from a variety of media showed Canadian journalists do this frequently. Explanations in journalism are not limited to explanatory journalism. 

These fuzzy boundaries have real world impacts. In one spirited talk, XJO researcher Nicole Blanchett acted as the discussant in a debate over whether journalism should be considered a profession. In favour was Ivor Shapiro, professor emeritus of journalism at TMU. Against was Christopher Waddell, professor emeritus of journalism from Carleton University. The question of whether journalism should count as a profession - alongside doctors, and lawyers - has become increasingly relevant as governments seek to financially support journalism organisations, and in doing so, consider who counts as a journalist. 

As discussed in another panel, it’s a matter that’s relevant to academic explanatory journalism as well, and for similar reasons. Dr. Isabel Macdonald pointed out that when Australia passed its recent law mandating technology giants to pay news outlets for content shared on their platforms, The Conversation Australia was unable to sign a deal (external link)  with Facebook. Academic explanatory journalism, therefore, seems to be in need of recognition. 

There were also ethical issues raised. In a roundtable discussion, concern was expressed over academics writing one-sided stories that can promote a rose-colored view. Simon Fraser University PhD student Alice Fleerackers noted the concept of “science cheerleaders,” researchers who engage with the media in order to promote their work. “Perhaps that’s the value of retaining a journalism that is separate from academia,” she said. “Someone needs to be checking that academia is not tearing down society.”

Other findings suggested that such cheerleading may have infiltrated The Conversation. XJO researchers Lauren Dwyer and Justine Woods applied sentiment analysis to 432 articles written in The Conversation on the topic of AI, and found that articles were more likely to use positive language than negative when discussing the technology. This worried Dwyer. 

“People frame [AI] as this beautiful solution to all of our problems, without critiquing all of the really major issues with it, and the biases that go along with these,” she said. As academics, “We have an opportunity to actually offer critique. And to not see that happening and to not see negative language as much, that’s alarming.” Without providing space for critique of hyped-up concepts, academic explanatory journalism may fail to live up to its name.

It's debatable whether Conversation authors consider themselves to be doing journalism, or if their work becomes journalism due to the efforts of Conversation editors, who are journalists. However, several of the speakers were happy to use the J-word to describe The Conversation, and readers who see the standard layout of its articles – with titles, subtitles, and by lines – may reasonably assume that they are reading “news.” 

Perhaps this is where the answer to academic explanatory journalism’s identity really lies: if the ordinary folks who open the article and read it think it’s journalism, then maybe it is.