This study explores the level of scrutiny data journalists from national, local, traditional and digital outlets apply to data sets and data categories, and reasons that scrutiny varies. The study applies a sociology of quantification framework that assumes a tendency for data categories to become “black-boxed,” or taken-for-granted and unquestioned. Results of in-depth interviews with 15 data journalists suggested these journalists were more concerned with data accessibility and ease of use than validity of data categories, though this varied across outlet size and level of story complexity.
Borges-ReyE. (2016). Unravelling data journalism: A study of data journalism practice in British newsrooms. Journalism Practice, 10, 833-843.
2.
boydd.CrawfordK. (2012). Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 662-679.
3.
BucherT. (2017). “Machines don’t have instincts”: Articulating the computational in journalism. New Media & Society, 19, 918-933.
4.
CoddingtonM. (2015). Clarifying journalism’s quantitative turn: A typology for evaluating data journalism, computational journalism, and computer-assisted reporting. Digital Journalism, 3, 331-348.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
CushionS.LewisJ.CallaghanR. (2017). Data journalism, impartiality and statistical claims: Towards more independent scrutiny in news reporting. Journalism Practice, 11, 1198-1215.
7.
dal ZottoC.SchenkerY.LugmayrA. (2015). Data journalism in news media firms: The role of information technology to master challenges and embrace opportunities of data-driven journalism projects (Research-in-Progress Papers No. 49). European Conference on Information Systems. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2015_rip/49
8.
DesrosièresA. (2002). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
DiakopoulosN.KoliskaM. (2017). Algorithmic transparency in the news media. Digital Journalism, 5, 809-828.
10.
Diaz-BoneR.DidierE. (2016). The sociology of quantification—Perspectives on an emerging field in the social sciences. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 41(2), 7-26.
11.
DörrK. N.HollnbuchnerK. (2017). Ethical challenges of algorithmic journalism. Digital Journalism, 5, 404-419.
12.
EspelandW. N.StevensM. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313-343.
13.
EspelandW. N.StevensM. L. (2008). A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 49, 401-436.
14.
FinkK.AndersonC. W. (2015). Data journalism in the United States: Beyond the “usual suspects.”Journalism Studies, 16, 467-481.
15.
GubaE. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 29, 75-91.
16.
GynnildA. (2014). Journalism innovation leads to innovation journalism: The impact of computational exploration on changing mindsets. Journalism, 15, 713-730.
17.
HermidaA.YoungM. L. (2017). Finding the data unicorn: A hierarchy of hybridity in data and computational journalism. Digital Journalism, 5, 159-176.
KnightM. (2015). Data journalism in the UK: A preliminary analysis of form and content. Journal of Media Practice, 16, 55-72.
20.
LewisS. C.UsherN. (2014). Code, collaboration, and the future of journalism: A case study of the Hacks/Hackers global network. Digital Journalism, 2, 383-393.
21.
LewisS. C.WestlundO. (2015). Big data and journalism: Epistemology, expertise, economics, and ethics. Digital Journalism, 3, 447-466.
22.
LowreyW.HouJ. (2018). All forest, no trees? Data journalism and the construction of abstract categories. Journalism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1464884918767577
23.
MaierS. R. (2003). How sources, reporters view math errors in news. Newspaper Research Journal, 24(4), 49-63.
24.
MarchJ. G.SimonH. A. (1993). Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
25.
McCrackenG. (1988). The long interview. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
26.
MessnerM.GarrisonB. (2006). The literature of journalism pertaining to public agency databases. In JohnsonJ. T. (Ed.), Ver. 1.0 proceedings: A workshop on public database verification for journalists and social scientists (pp. 44-66). Santa Fe, NM: Institute for Analytic Journalism.
ParasieS. (2015). Data-driven revelation? Epistemological tensions in investigative journalism in the age of “big data.”Digital Journalism, 3, 364-380.
29.
ParasieS.DagiralE. (2013). Data-driven journalism and the public good: “Computer-assisted-reporters” and “programmer-journalists” in Chicago. New Media & Society, 15, 853-871.
30.
PorterT. M. (1986). The rise of statistical thinking, 1820-1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
PorterT. M. (1996). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
SplendoreS.Di SalvoP.EberweinT.GroenhartH.KusM.PorlezzaC. (2016). Educational strategies in data journalism: A comparative study of six European countries. Journalism, 17, 138-152.
33.
StarrP. (1987). The sociology of official statistics. In StarrP.AlonsoW. (Eds.), The politics of numbers (pp. 7-57). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
34.
Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism. (n.d.). Superpowers: The digital skills media leaders say newsrooms need going forward. Retrieved from http://towknight.org/research/superpowers/
35.
UskaliT. I.KuuttiH. (2015). Models and streams of data journalism. The Journal of Media Innovations, 2, 77-88.
36.
VeglisA.BratsasC. (2017). Reporters in the age of data journalism. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 6, 225-244.
37.
YoungM. L.HermidaA.FuldaJ. (2018). What makes for great data journalism? A content analysis of data journalism awards finalists 2012-2015. Journalism Practice, 12, 115-135.
