University of Groningen
Diversifying Diversity in Digital Journalism Studies
Tandoc, Edson; Hess, Kristy; Eldridge, Scott; Westlund, Oscar
Published in:Digital Journalism DOI:
10.1080/21670811.2020.1738949
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date: 2020
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Tandoc, E., Hess, K., Eldridge, S., & Westlund, O. (2020). Diversifying Diversity in Digital Journalism Studies: Reflexive Research, Reviewing and Publishing. Digital Journalism, 8(3), 301-309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1738949
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rdij20
Digital Journalism
ISSN: 2167-0811 (Print) 2167-082X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rdij20
Diversifying Diversity in Digital Journalism Studies:
Reflexive Research, Reviewing and Publishing
Edson Tandoc Jr, Kristy Hess, Scott Eldridge II & Oscar Westlund
To cite this article: Edson Tandoc Jr, Kristy Hess, Scott Eldridge II & Oscar Westlund (2020) Diversifying Diversity in Digital Journalism Studies: Reflexive Research, Reviewing and Publishing, Digital Journalism, 8:3, 301-309, DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2020.1738949
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1738949
Published online: 24 Apr 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 561
View related articles
EDITORIAL
Diversifying Diversity in Digital Journalism Studies:
Reflexive Research, Reviewing and Publishing
Edson Tandoc Jra , Kristy Hessb , Scott Eldridge IIc and Oscar Westlundd
a
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore;bDeakin University, Warrnambool, Australia;cUniversity of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands;dOslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
In 2019, we invited leading scholars to not only define but consider the future of digital journalism studies research. As an editorial team, we also introduced the Digital Journalism Studies Compass (DJSC) which now guides the way we assess the rele-vance and value of articles published in Digital Journalism (see Eldridge et al. 2019). Central to these efforts is a desire to build a more refined, inclusive, and robust collec-tion of scholarship from across the globe in the pages of Digital Journalism.
Ongoing discussion around enhancing diversity in the media as well as in commu-nication and journalism studies has been heartening. Last year, a number of inter-national communication organizations issued statements to affirm their commitment to diversity. Many journalism scholars also took to social media to join this important discussion. We highlighted this in an editorial accompanying an online, free-access special issue devoted to important work by female scholars (Hess et al. 2019). In that virtual special issue, we had also invited Shakuntala Rao (2019) to comment on diver-sity in the field and she emphasized the importance of mindful inclusiveness. We con-tinue this conversation in this editorial, focusing on three points: First, we hope to further diversify our attention to diversity by referring not only to gender and race, but also to different geopolitical, methodological, and theoretical representations. Second, we want to argue that discourses on and about diversity should not only highlight problems but also include solutions, and we highlight the importance of reflexivity in this challenge. Third, we join calls to accompany discourse with action and seek help from you—our contributors, reviewers, and readers—in doing so.
Diversifying Diversity
Representation is important yet complex, and when confronted with the difficulty of observing representation in all of its different forms, we often base our judgments on what we can count: the number of submissions, citations, and editorial board mem-bers of one journal. We see a photo of journal editors online, and we can count how
CONTACTEdson Tandoc edson@ntu.edu.sg ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
DIGITAL JOURNALISM 2020, VOL. 8, NO. 3, 301–309
many are White and how many are not. Counting is important, and often illuminating, but it is also almost always inadequate.
Digital Journalism is one of the youngest journalism journals. However, it has in its short years remained mindful of diversity, long before #AcademicTwitter raised diver-sity to wider attention. This mindfulness can be seen—even counted—in the compos-ition of our editorial board. Beyond age, gender and race, we have painstakingly sought out scholars who can provide us with diverse geopolitical, methodological, and theoretical perspectives. Thus, our editorial board has since early 2018 reflected our ongoing effort in mindfully navigating the complex terrain of the field of digital jour-nalism studies (Eldridge et al.2019).
We would like to also emphasize the importance of geopolitical representation, in terms of not only where scholars are based, but also the geopolitical contexts they focus on in their work. Ongoing work by Kristy and Edson, analyzing articles published between 2013 and 2017 across three journalism journals, including Digital Journalism, found 48.1% of articles focus on the United States or the United Kingdom. This shows how (and perhaps explains why) theoretical approaches and frameworks developed in the context of Western democracies dominate (digital) journalism scholarship, even if often they are found to be inadequate, if not inappropriate, since these two countries differ from many other countries across many measures of news production and con-sumption, as documented by cross-country studies and collaborations. Studies focus-ing on these two countries get downloaded, read, and cited often—further influencing (digital) journalism scholarship—simply because there are a lot of them to begin with. This feeds into a cycle of dominant thinking, where Anglo-American schol-arship continues its dominance because of its dominance. Scholars can unintentionally reinforce this power imbalance by acting on a tacit assumption that their own work won’t be taken as seriously if it is not always situated or discussed in relation to this perceived“centre.”
Kristy and Edson’s analysis also shows that of those studies focusing on geopolitical contexts outside the US or UK, many were conducted by scholars residing in these two countries, scholars who have access to resources, both economic and social, that their counterparts in developing countries do not routinely have. As a simple example: We expect authors to be updated with the academic literature, but not all journalism researchers are affiliated with institutions that are able to subscribe to academic data-bases and scientific journals. To address this, and to try and re-tilt this Anglo-American orientation, we have worked with our publisher to provide free access to our journal to reviewers whose institutions do not have subscription access, and we are working on being able to provide free access to our contributors who are in the process of revising their own manuscripts, as they would benefit from being able to access our published articles.
Having to write in English also presents a barrier to scholars who are non-native speakers of English. This is something that native speakers, some of whom are quick to dismiss manuscripts with imperfect English, often forget or take for granted. It has been accepted, and rarely questioned, that to be able to publish in our field’s top journals, we have to write in English. We have to acknowledge that this is an extra barrier that non-native speakers of English have to navigate around. In an effort to 302 E. TANDOC ET AL.
address this hurdle, we have developed a practice where it is now routine for us in Digital Journalism to return a manuscript to an author whose manuscript needs lan-guage clarity not as a desk reject, but with initial feedback on how their manuscripts can be improved prior to peer review process, including tighter editing and proofread-ing. This has shown to help not only the authors trying to get their work reviewed, but also our pool of reviewers who we turn to not for language advice, but for their expert insights on the level of scholarship within an article. This allows us to better maximize both authors’ and reviewers’ time and skillsets.
Inclusive Discourse
Indeed, there is more to be done to promote diversity in digital journalism studies and continuing conversations on this agenda is important, including those that high-light the steps still needed to address these aspects of our field. But such conversa-tions should also not omit advancements, no matter how small, in this collective effort to make journalism scholarship more inclusive and intersectional (Rao 2019). We should focus the spotlight on issues that need to be addressed, but we should also, at the same time, acknowledge small steps going forward, for it is in supporting one another that we advance as a field.
To be truly mindful, these conversations should also seek out the voices of those they claim to represent. Conversations need to be between more than the most domin-ant voices, who easily find themselves talking to one another. It is also importdomin-ant in this ongoing discussion of diversity to hear the voices of those who are not often heard, and who may have never been asked for their input. In Digital Journalism, we try not only to provide the spaces for these voices, but we try our best to seek them out. For example, we have devoted several special issues to explicitly focus on attracting scholar-ship from non-Western contexts, including a recent collection edited by Appelgren, Linden, and van Dalen (2019) which drew together studies and perspectives on data journalism from around the world. We have also invited both established and emerging scholars from a wide range of academic disciplines and perspectives and across the world to contribute commentaries to the journal. Furthermore, we have engaged with diverse teams of scholars to develop special issues, trying to brighten the corners of digital journalism scholarship that we may otherwise struggle to see into.
Reflexive Scholarship
So where do we go from here?
The composition of journal editorial teams and boards has attracted a great deal of scrutiny recently, often rightfully so. This came to a head last year, when well-known journalism scholars publicly resigned from their editorial board memberships in order to offer their slots to other scholars who might have otherwise been blocked from such a position. Many of those who resigned even recommended bright scholars who would do well in such an editorial board position, including many from outside the familiar Western context. Memberships in editorial boards are not and should not be a zero-sum game, but editorial boards should not also be static places of prestige. In DIGITAL JOURNALISM 303
Digital Journalism, we have always considered our editorial board members integral to all our processes—they are required to review at least three manuscripts per year and nominate an outstanding article for our internal and external awards. Our editorial board is dynamic—we review membership every year—and we will continue to keep it so, incorporating new voices and new perspectives through its membership.
But this scrutiny of editorial teams sometimes comes at the expense of focusing on a relatively less visible but equally important process of academic publishing: reviewing manuscripts. We are extremely grateful to all those who accommodate our requests for review. We are mindful that these requests from us often come at a busy time. We are in the process of institutionalizing ways to acknowledge our reviewers more meaningfully and will continue a practice of inviting top reviewers (based on number of reviews completed and quality of reviews each year) to join our editorial board.
We believe that a collective effort to make digital journalism studies more inclusive and diverse also requires close coordination with our reviewers during the review process. To achieve this, we encourage our reviewers to practice mindful inclusiveness when reviewing papers. This entails providing helpful suggestions but also respecting theoretical and methodological diversity, including going beyond one’s own academic network when recommending additional literature to authors. Talking about diversity on one hand, and recommending academic work within one’s familiar academic and social network, betrays mindful inclusiveness. Dismissing theoretical approaches different from what you are using also ignores how scholarship is as much a learning process for readers as it is for authors. Research thrives in diversity, and not in the singular dominance of certain methods, theories, or approaches. Believing and acting otherwise is a form of academic arrogance, whether exercised intentionally or not.
“Backstage” Operations
We began this editorial by highlighting the importance of the digital journalism compass. How then is this actually operationalized at a decision-making level and during the knowledge production process with the work in Digital Journalism? We can perhaps draw some loose synergies to Erving Goffman’s (1959) use of the theatre— that of “front stage” and “backstage” performances and practices. What we present in each issue is refined for a global public audience, but often it is the backstage practices that remain underexamined—those hidden from public view and where we as an editorial community must ensure we are as reflexive as possible. Goffman argues that individuals never really behave the way they might on“front stage” and the two realms remain separate and distinct. We don’t publicly circulate reviewer feedback for example or “track change” documents to show the process of knowledge creation: It is only ever the result. In this spirit, we can provide some insight into the peer review process that occurs“backstage,” including:
We encourage scholars to consider diversity and gender balance in their works cited when submitting, and regularly point to this aspect of diversity to authors with manuscripts being processed.
We never desk reject solely on the basis of insufficient English, as we are well aware such matters can be resolved easily at a later stage with the help of a proofreader
Some scholars have not produced an updated literature review, and in some cases, this is because they do not have access to journals. We are looking for ways to pro-vide authors revising their manuscripts for Digital Journalism free access to all our content for 60 days. We already have this in place for all our reviewers.
We are keen to identify peer-reviewers with relevant expertise. Oftentimes one reviewer cannot master all aspects of a submission—its theory and concepts, its method(s), the context of study, and the analysis—and so we try to involve reviewers with a diverse set of expertise. Sometimes we call on a third and fourth reviewer where their expertise fits the specific contexts of study. Particularly, as we expand our attention beyond the West, we must broaden our own expertise, and also enrol other scholars in the peer review processes. This includes ensuring such diversity in our editorial board, where we often turn for reviews.
Peer-reviewers should follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Scholars must refrain from dismissive or unkind comments, which are all but mean-ingful and constructive, and rather destructive
We often see where peer-reviewers suggest author(s) to consider/cite their own work. Sometimes this is legitimate, but sometimes these suggestions are excessive. We encourage reviewers to use the submission field for “confidential comments to the editor” for more extensive suggestions of one’s own work. This allows the edi-torial team to make an assessment on how best to incorporate these recommenda-tions as we process the manuscript and develop our guidance to the author/s. In the role of a reviewer, we can all play an important role for diversity. Reviewers
have an important say on manuscripts and if reviewers mainly give examples of important publications by white men working in Western contexts, then they are likely to reinforce the extant dominance of this work. We encourage reviewers to be reflexive, so in cases where there are several similar studies in a field they can instead suggest publications that will stimulate diversity, and expand the academic community’s awareness and knowledge of the wide body of work that has been developed in the field.
We have decided as an editorial team not to discuss or release details of accept-ance rates. We do this as there is no globally accepted standard for these meas-ures. Percentages depend on whether to include desk rejects, special issue submissions, etc. and vary journal to journal. At this point in higher education scholarship, acceptance rates offer a shallow and inconsistent interpretation of the impact, reach and value of research submitted for publication. Digital Journalism continually receives more and more submissions, and consequently rejects more and more submissions. However, this also reflects how, with the rise in impact and visibility as a result of recent indexing exercises, the journal has been receiving a large number of submissions that do not fit our aim and scope, or do not meet our expectations on academic quality. Receiving and rejecting such submissions may well result in a lower acceptance rate, which skews seeing this measure as an indicator of success. What is most important for us and the health of the journal is DIGITAL JOURNALISM 305
that Digital Journalism has always received a sufficient number of quality manu-scripts, and their quality is not determined based on our rejecting other manuscripts.
We are also proud to formally present in this issue our International Engagement Editors, our Book Reviews team, and the members of our new editorial board, who help us further our efforts at developing a journal reflective of the global excel-lence in this field of research. We are grateful that they have accepted our invita-tion to help and guide us in our continuing effort to make Digital Journalism an inclusive platform for digital journalism scholarship
Perhaps sharing these insights opens up further questions and debate about the very process of knowledge creation that goes on“backstage.” There is still a lot to be done, and we hope that you—our readers, our contributors, and our reviewers—will continue to help us in these efforts.
Digital Journalism 2020
International Engagement Editors
Dimitra Dimitrakopoulou, Massachusetts Institute for Technology, USA Magdalena Salda~na, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Chile Shangyuan Wu, National University of Singapore, Singapore Book Reviews Team
Susan Forde, Griffith University, Australia Basyouni Hamada, Qatar University, Qatar
Viola Milton, University of South Africa, South Africa Rich Ling, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Elizabeth Saad, Universidade de S~ao Paulo, Brazil Esther Thorson, Michigan State University, US Henrik €Ornebring, Karlstad University, Sweden Editorial Board
Rasha Abdulla, American University, Egypt Laura Ahva, University of Tampere, Finland Stuart Allan, Cardiff University, UK
Ahmed Al-Rawi, Simon Fraser University, Canada Ester Appelgren, S€odert€orn University College, Sweden Stefan Baack, Mozilla Foundation, Germany
Christian Baden, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Auks_e Balcytien_e, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania Saba Bebawi, University of Technology Sydney, Australia Anja Bechmann, Aarhus University, Denmark
Valerie Belair-Gagnon, University of Minnesota, USA, Pablo Boczkowski, Northwestern University, USA
Svetlana Bodrunova, Saint-Petersburg State University, Russia Eddy Borges-Rey, Northwestern University in Qatar, Qatar 306 E. TANDOC ET AL.
Tanja Bosch, University of Cape Town, South Africa Meredith Broussard, New York University, USA
Axel Bruns, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Jo~ao Canavilhas, Universidade da Beira Interior, Portugal Matt Carlson, University of Minnesota, USA
Kalyani Chadha, University of Maryland, USA Saayan Chattopadhyay, Baruipur College, India
Hsuan-ting Chen, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China Lilie Chouliaraki, London School of Economics, UK
Wallace Chuma, University of Cape Town, South Africa H. Iris Chyi, The University of Texas at Austin, USA Barıs¸ C¸oban, Dogus¸ University, Turkey
Irene Costera Meijer, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands Juliette de Maeyer, Universite de Montreal, Canada
Nicholas Diakopoulos, Northwestern University, USA Andrew Duffy, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Stephanie Edgerly, Northwestern University, USA
Raul Ferrer-Conill, Karlstad University, Sweden
Tine Ustad Figenschou, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway Kate Fink, Pace University, USA
Amira Firdaus, University of Malaya, Malaysia, Richard Fletcher, University of Oxford, UK Audrey Gadzekpo, University of Ghana, Ghana
Jose Garcia Aviles, Universitas Miguel Hernandez de Elche, Spain Victor Garcia-Perdomo, Universidad de La Sabana, Colombia Anna Gladkova, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia Agnes Gulyas, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK Mario Haim, University of Leipzig, Germany
Naila Hamdy, American University, Egypt Folker Hanusch, University of Vienna, Austria Jonathan Hardy, University of East London, UK Leen d’Haenens, KU Leuven, Belgium
Harriki Harro-Loit, University of Tartu, Estonia
Natali Heiberger, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands Bahareh Heravi, University College Dublin, Ireland Alfred Hermida, University of British Columbia, Canada Avery Holton, University of Utah, USA
Edda Humprecht, University of Zurich, Switzerland Michael Karlsson, Karlstad University, Sweden
Linda Jean Kenix, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Neta Kligler-Vilenchik, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Anna Sophie K€umpel, LMU Munich, Germany.
Haewoon Kwak, Qatar Computing Research Institute, Qatar Florence Le Cam, Universite libre de Bruxelles, Belgium Sophie Lecheler, University of Vienna, Austria
Eun-Ju Lee, Seoul National University, South Korea
Francis L.F. Lee, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Trisha Lin, National Chengchi University, Taiwan
Wiebke Loosen, University of Hamburg, Germany Hayes Mabweazara, University of Glasgow, UK Mirca Madianou, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Admire Mare, University of Johannesburg, South Africa Fiona Martin, The University of Sydney, Australia Maarten Marx, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Klaus Meier, Catholic University Eichst€att-Ingolstadt, Germany Jad Melki, Lebanese American University, Lebanon
Eugenia Mitchelstein, Universidad de San Andres, Argentina Rachel Mourao, Michigan State University, USA
Shepherd Mpofu, University of Limpopo, South Africa Bruce Mutsvairo, Auburn University, USA
Philip Napoli, Duke University, USA
Jacob Nelson, Arizona State University, USA Joyce Nip, University of Sydney, Australia
Martin Oller Alonso, University of Havana, Cuba Duncan Omanga, Moi University, Kenya
Bella Palomo, University of Malaga, Spain Steve Paulussen, University of Antwerp, Belgium Zizi Papacharissi, University of Illinois at Chicago, USA Sora Park, University of Canberra, Australia
Chris Peters, Roskilde University, Denmark
Melita Poler Kovacic, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Thorsten Quandt, University of M€unster, Germany Stephen Reese, University of Texas, USA
Zvi Reich, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel Sue Robinson, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA Ramon Salaverria, University of Navarra, Spain Jose Sanders, Radboud University, Netherlands Amy Schmitz Weiss, San Diego State University, USA Kim Christian Schroder, University of Roskilde, Denmark Don Shin, Zayed University, UAE
Ignacio Siles, Universidad de Costa Rica, Costa Rica Helle Sjovaag, University of Stavanger, Norway Nikos Smyrnaios, University of Toulouse, France
Paschalia Spyridou, Cyprus University of Technology, Cyprus Steen Steensen, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway
Harsh Taneja, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA Ryan J. Thomas, University of Missouri, USA
Neil Thurman, LMU Munich, Germany
Sebastian Valenzuela, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Chile, Mikko Villi, University of Jyv€askyl€a, Finland
Arjen van Dalen, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark Igor Vobic, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Melissa Wall, California State University, USA
Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, Cardiff University, United Kingdom Lisa Waller, RMIT University, Australia
Haiyan Wang, Sun Yat-sen University, China
Tamara Witschge, University of Groningen & Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands
Kate Wright, University of Edinburgh, UK
Mary-Lynn Young, University of British Columbia, Canada Rodrigo Zamith, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA Mohamed Zayani, Georgetown University, USA
ORCID
Edson Tandoc http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8740-9313 Kristy Hess http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3027-7492 Scott Eldridge http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2184-1509 Oscar Westlund http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2533-6737
References
Appelgren, E., C.-G. Linden, and A. van Dalen. 2019. “Data Journalism Research: Studying a Maturing Field across Cultures, Media Markets and Political Environments.” Digital Journalism 7 (9):1191–1199.
Eldridge, S. A., K. Hess, E. Tandoc, and O. Westlund. 2019.“Editorial: Digital Journalism (Studies) – Defining the Field.” Digital Journalism 7 (3):315–319.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self. New York: Random House.
Hess, K., S. Eldridge, E. Tandoc, and O. Westlund. 2019.“Editorial: Diversity in Digital Journalism.” Digital Journalism 7 (5):549–553.
Rao, S. 2019.“Commentary: Inclusion and a Discipline.” Digital Journalism 7 (5): 698–703.
