Academia and journalism: Two different worlds? How scientific institutions can successfully collaborate with journalistic organizations

Abstract

Traditionally, researchers have played only a limited role as experts or qualified sources for journalists—and journalists were the subject of investigation for researchers rather than cooperation partners. The rapid pace of transformation processes in media use poses various challenges for media practitioners today, which is why they increasingly rely on the support of media researchers and their valuable insights into consumer attitudes and behaviour. However, the cooperation between scientific institutions and media practitioners is marked by many challenges and apart from individual temporary projects, lasting collaborations have not yet been established. This paper presents a long-term transfer initiative that aims to promote news use and news literacy among young people in close cooperation between a scientific institution and a wide range of private and public service media. Using this initiative as an example, we analyse the opportunities, challenges, and productive dynamics that result from this project. Based on our experience, we propose four main pieces of advice for how researchers can enhance long-term collaboration with newsrooms.

Keywords

Journalism academic work transfer collaboration transdisciplinary project

Introduction

The rapid pace of transformation processes in media use poses various challenges for journalism. In principle, new technologies and distribution possibilities for journalistic content offer diverse opportunities for delivering comprehensive information and increased participation by broad segments of the population (Lüdecke and Schulz, 2011). However, there are contrasting negative developments, including financing difficulties for digital products (Buschow, 2018; Neuberger, 2018) and a shift in the consumption behaviour of young people. This shift is accompanied by a low willingness to pay for journalistic products and a tendency to avoid news (Behre et al., 2023; Karlsen et al., 2020). In addition, there is growing competition from alternative media offerings, which often do not feel bound by journalistic standards, but may be favoured by the curation mechanisms of modern information intermediaries (Schmidt et al., 2017; Stöcker, 2020).

Journalistic media are forced to confront these problems and increasingly seek the support of media scholars (Meier, 2020). Academic institutions can provide valuable insights into consumer attitudes and behaviour by researching emerging trends in news consumption and transformations in the media landscape. Research suggests that academia helps to increase the credibility of the media by producing verified and in-depth content in a period when citizens’ distrust of journalism is growing (Domínguez, 2022). To keep journalism relevant, media scholars also argue in favour of cooperation between media companies and scientific institutions (Meier, 2020). The transfer between science and journalistic practice is suitable for initiating scientifically based social transformation processes (Schützeneder et al., 2022). However, the collaboration between researchers and media practitioners faces numerous challenges (Fischer et al., 2024) and apart from individual projects, lasting collaborations have not yet been firmly established (Meier and Schützeneder, 2019). Buschow and Wellbrock (2020: 2) identify “a low level of institutionalisation of knowledge transfer from research and academia to media practice” as a key institutional barrier in the current innovation landscape of German journalism.

Against this background, our paper addresses the question of how scientific institutions can establish long-term collaborations with journalistic organizations. We present a sustainable and transdisciplinary initiative that aims to promote news use and news literacy among young people through close cooperation between a scientific institution and a diverse array of private and public service media as well as educational initiatives. However, for the purpose of this manuscript, we exclusively focus on the relationship between the scientific and practice partners. Based on Schützeneder and colleagues’ (2022) definition of transfer processes, we analyze how far such cooperation can offer added value for the partners involved. In this practice insight, we highlight how our unique perspectives from research and practice can enrich each other and contribute to greater insights into the news consumption practices and competences of young people.

In the following, we first outline previous research on forms of cooperation and the challenges of the research-practice relationship. Then, we introduce the initiative, the actors involved, and methods of knowledge transfer. Our main findings regarding the evaluation, opportunities, and challenges of cooperation are presented before we draw a conclusion.

The research-practice relationship

The relationship between communication studies and practice has changed in the digital media environment. Today’s social problems are complex and multidimensional which is why interdisciplinary projects are needed. The concept of interdisciplinarity, though lacking a universally accepted definition, refers to the collaboration and integration of knowledge from multiple academic disciplines (Uth et al., 2020: 132). This coexistence can take different forms. Uth and colleagues (2020) differentiate between “auxiliary”, “composite”, and “unified” interdisciplinarity, with the latter representing an integration of theories and methods from different fields. Transfer can be seen as a further enhancement of interdisciplinarity because it integrates different forms of knowledge and allows exchange between scientific fields and practice. Schützeneder et al. (2022: 123) suggest that we can refer to “transfer” when two (or more) groups of actors and/or organizations operate independently but recognize and leverage the potential for mutual added value by working together. Drawing from several case studies that represent collaborative projects between journalism and academia, Domínguez (2022) stresses the idea that academics help to increase the credibility of the media by producing verified and in-depth content in a period when citizens’ distrust of journalism is growing (Newman et al., 2023). Equally, Meier and Schützeneder (2019) introduce an approach for the transfer between scholarly research and newsrooms in journalism education and show how journalism students’ awareness of an evidence-based journalistic practice can be strengthened.

Despite this potential for mutual reward, scholars have pointed out the resulting difficulties in the context of transfer and science communication projects (Fischer et al., 2024). Tensions can arise from system-inherent logics and the functions of the actors involved from science and practice (Schützeneder et al., 2022). While science aims to produce generalizable statements about social reality in an intersubjectively comprehensible way (truth), mass media seek attention for their reported topics (Holtz-Bacha, 2009: 86). On the part of journalistic practice, it was argued that many practitioners “may simply lack the time to stay up to date with current journalism and communication research as well as the theoretical, conceptual, and methodological knowledge to interpret the respective research results” (Fischer et al., 2024: 2). Besides, practitioners may criticize scholars for neglecting their perspective and perceive researchers as disconnected from their daily work (Riesch et al., 2016). Likewise, from the perspective of research, the focus is more on basic than applied research, resulting in “a gap between research and its practical relevance, with a notable lack of integration of practical knowledge and experience in the field.” (Fischer et al., 2024: p.2) Different working cultures and role models further enhance difficulties in transfer projects that involve academia and journalistic practice (Schützeneder et al., 2022). For instance, in editorial departments, decisions need to be taken quickly while, in science and research, processes of knowledge acquisition and publication take long periods of time (Han and Stenhouse, 2015).

When it comes to empirical research, an important aspect is that most academic projects or case studies deal with journalism as a subject, but they often lack direct cooperation with the practical aspects of the field. For example, a case study of Australian participatory-journalism project, ABC Open, analyses the role of professional staff in the gatekeeping of user-generated content (Reader, 2021). In another cooperation project, researchers carried out a multi-wave survey of a major daily newspaper’s audience before and after its transition to enterprise and solutions journalism, collected community conversations via social media data from Twitter and Facebook, and reviewed the newspaper’s website analytics (Lough, 2021). Another example is the project “Journalism under pressure: risks and uncertainties in a changing media environment” which is a collaborative project between three countries in the DACH region (Switzerland, Austria, Germany). This project is dedicated to analysing the risks and uncertainties journalists face in these countries and globally but does not apply an institutionalized knowledge transfer (Loosen et al., 2023). Another important factor is that collaborative projects are mostly designed for concrete and time-limited ventures and less for long-term cooperation (Meier and Schützeneder, 2019) which reduces the long-term benefit. Altogether, Fischer and colleagues (2024) conclude that “bringing research and practice together is no easy task. Both fields are diverse, face their own challenges and are confronted with the manifold developments in today’s societies.” (p. 3)

Against this background, the question arises of how these challenges and tensions between academia and journalism can be overcome in a joint project. There are few practical examples to date that show how long-term collaborations can be organised including findings that can be used to drive collaboration forward. For this reason, our manuscript, which is co-authored by two researchers and one practitioner, illustrates a practical case that shows how journalistic practice and scientific research can be connected in a greater initiative that does not have a fixed term from the outset. The guiding questions are: How can scientific institutions establish long-term collaborations with journalistic organisations? To what extent does such cooperation offer added value for the partners? Which opportunities and challenges can be observed regarding the working methods of the partners in this context?

Case: The collaborative initiative #UseTheNews

Outline of the initiative

The #UseTheNews initiative was launched in 2020 as a cooperation project between media, education, and academia to find answers to the question of how young people inform themselves and how they can be better reached by journalistic news. It involves numerous partners ranging from media practitioners and educational initiatives to media researchers. The cooperation project is led by a core team consisting of four people from academia, one person from the education sector, and five people from journalistic practice. The core team is responsible for the overall organisation and communication within the network. Two researchers from the field of media use research are responsible for conducting communication studies as well as giving an overview about current research findings and two further scientists from the field of digital communication are responsible for supervising the News Lab. (see next subchapter). The overall initiative comprises a network of almost 500 people from the fields of journalism and education who do not participate regularly but have the option of taking part in online seminars and accessing research results and materials.

The activities in the initiative can be divided into different phases. During the first 3 years, the focus was on developing new formats and offerings for young target groups. This development was based on empirical findings regarding their attitudes, usage patterns, and the relevance of non-journalistic actor groups. Here, the focus from the scientific side was on providing basic knowledge about how and where young people obtain information, how they assess news, and how these aspects relate to their level of knowledge. On the editorial side, the focus was on establishing different working groups dedicated to a specific topic (News Lab). In detail, we researchers conducted a study that built upon group discussions and a representative face-to-face survey involving 1500 participants. The investigation focused on news interests, news use, relevance to opinion formation, and the levels of awareness among adolescents aged 14 to 17 and young adults aged 18 to 24, comparing them with a 40 to 50 years cohort (Wunderlich and Hölig, 2022). Scientific findings from this study were structurally integrated into the product development. For instance, based on the identified patterns of news orientation and the differences between teenagers and young adults as news audiences, the project partners have developed and tested new formats and news services tailored to the changing uses and needs of young people (Ellers, 2021).

In a second phase, which is still ongoing, specific activities, all aimed at promoting news use and news literacy, are carried out in interaction with young people. These activities include, for example, regionally organised news camps, where pupils can take part in workshops and exchange ideas with young journalists, or model projects where young people work together with local newsrooms to create their own content for publication. The focus from the scientific side is on accompanying and evaluating these activities. Various data is collected and analysed in this context. This includes, for example, data from focus groups with young people who have taken part in one of the activities organised and carried out by journalists. Among others, the editorial partners are focused on providing and testing a news service for the core target group of 14 to 24-year-olds as part of a newly established laboratory for social media journalism. These activities are also monitored by collecting reach and target group metrics. The data is currently being collected and has not yet been analysed. Against this background, the period of collaboration covered in this manuscript is 3 years (2020 to 2023).

Actors in the collaboration

From a research perspective, the project involves “participating cooperation partners” (Schützeneder et al., 2022: 125). The academic partners, more precisely two researchers, conduct basic research on news practices among young people aged between 14 and 24. Their main task is to translate the respective research results into applicable practical knowledge for journalism and education initiatives (see Figure 1). Moreover, they translate and interpret international research findings on news use, news literacy, and journalism. In doing so, they fulfil a shortcoming in practice, which often lacks the time and scientific expertise to stay up to date with current journalism and communication research (Fischer et al., 2024: 2). The researcher’s output of knowledge is constantly transferred via online data presentations, face-to-face meetings, and science communication tools.

Figure 1.

Framework of the transfer initiative.

The journalistic practitioners’ tasks also involve the evaluation of proven formats as well as the development and testing of new formats based on scientific findings. Within the first phase of the collaborative project, the focus is on the transfer of scientific research into journalistic practice, more precisely into the product development with young audiences as a target group. A media laboratory (News Lab.) was set up specifically for this purpose. Here, employees of all project partners from print, radio, TV and online, as well as from privately and publicly financed areas, work together in groups with different foci, for example, formats, collaboration, language, and topics, on new product ideas, and the development of prototypes. The working groups are networked with each other and cooperate on individual problems or issues. The concrete implementation of scientific findings into practice is, therefore, the sole responsibility of the practice partners involved or their editorial teams (Meier, 2011: 70). For example, initial articles tailored to the target group were published by the participants in the working group “Topics” (Krizak, 2022), and this was followed by the initiation of collaborations with young people as content creators (Ellers, 2021). Within the transfer process, the practice partners provide ideas for research interests through individual requests and briefings, while the academic partner retains responsibility for defining research questions and determining the methodological approach (Schützeneder et al., 2022).

Scientific findings from the research partner not only directly contribute to journalistic product development but also assist media practitioners in gaining a general understanding of young target groups and their heterogeneity. For example, editors were able to gain an insight into the most important motivations of young people when following social media content creators; the six different motives for following these actors range from entertainment and creating social proximity to providing inspiration, orientation and knowledge, or empowerment to participate in peer-group conversations (Wunderlich, 2023). This, in turn, indirectly enhances the relationship between journalism and the young audience, as seen in approaches like the integration of NewZees. In the NewZee-community, people interested in media between the ages of 14 and 24 exchange ideas and can participate in all aspects of news. Once a month, the community meets with media experts for workshops and discussions on an online platform. In that way, news consumers are directly involved and participate in the initiative.

A third subgroup of practitioners are members of journalistic editorial teams who are part of the overall initiative, but only participate sporadically and passively in knowledge transfer formats. This may be due to a lack of resources for active and continuous participation or a lack of time. Nevertheless, it is always possible to switch to one of the expert-led working groups or to participate more actively.

Methods of knowledge transfer

Researchers can use various strategies, such as collaboration with practitioners in the research process and/or various activities to communicate their research findings which can all be referred to as “transfer strategies” (Mohajerzad and Schrader, 2022). These strategies can be organised in different ways; there are various models of science communication that differ in terms of their objectives and transfer formats (Begenat, 2023). Forms of science communication that correspond to the deficit paradigm of science include interviews or written contributions in the media, giving public lectures or contributing to podcasts (Broer and Hasebrink, 2022). In dialogical and participatory formats of science communication, the public and other social actors are more closely involved (Schäfer et al., 2015). In the dialogical model, there is a two-way exchange of knowledge between science and practitioners, for example, through analogue or digital discussion events.

In our initiative, the transfer of research findings into journalistic practice is supported and implemented through different transfer and dialogue-oriented forms of science communication (Begenat, 2023). Formats that are designed to share scientific findings include, for example, podcasts, written articles for online blogs that are not aimed at a scientific audience, or overviews of current (inter)national studies in a monthly newsletter aimed at a broad, predominantly non-academic readership. Dialogue formats that are aimed at permanent interaction between participants (Schützeneder, 2022) include:

• Monthly online webinars: A combination of scientific input and concrete practical work (journalistic as well as educational initiatives) on a selected topic.

• Face-to-face workshops: In the face-to-face workshops that take place every 3 months, study results are presented, and the working groups have time to exchange ideas and consider how the individual project pillars can be designed together.

• (International) Collaborations with other projects pursuing similar objectives (e.g., the News Literacy Project in the USA).

Besides the cooperation between science and media practice, the initiative also includes educational institutions. Under the title “Open News Education” (ONE), educational offerings, teaching materials and further training for teachers are being developed to strengthen the teaching of news literacy in schools (Nägele, 2023). Here, scientific findings on different types of news users have been incorporated into teaching materials. With this learning programme, teachers can find out which types of use are prevalent in their class and use the knowledge and material to encourage their pupils to critically consume news and reflect on their own news behaviour. These complement and connect with existing offers from media houses, educational institutions, and initiatives.

Insights: Opportunities and challenges of the transfer initiative

The period of collaboration covered in this manuscript is 3 years (2020 to 2023). It is important to note that we are not so much external observers, but an integral part of the cooperation project itself, in that we, as communication researchers, take on the role of academics. Accordingly, we do not analyse how the cooperation between external partners works but interrogate our own experiences in collaborating on a project with journalism and educational professionals focusing on the promotion of news consumption and news literacy. Moreover, we look at our project through the lens of transfer (processes) in journalism research (Meier and Schützeneder, 2019; Schützeneder et al., 2022) and thus focus exclusively on the relationship between the scientific and practice partners.

To investigate the research-practice relationship in this collaboration and answer our guiding questions, we draw on Schützeneder and colleagues’ (2022: 123) definition of transfer. We focus on analysing the added value for both journalism and science, which can be described on various levels. Accordingly, on the scientific side, the added value can lie in the further development of methods (methodological), in the exchange relationship between science and practice (connective), or in a more impactful outcome of individual research modules (consecutive). Practitioners can gain added value, for example, by receiving feedback and recommendations for action (constructive), by interacting on an equal footing with scientists (discursive) or in the process of jointly developing a format (explorative). We structure the presentation of opportunities according to these categories.

Opportunities: Added value for collaborative partners

The potential of this collaborative project lies in the transfer of research findings into journalistic practice, specifically in the realm of product and positioning innovations (Buschow and Wellbrock, 2020: 9; Dogruel, 2013). The aim is to develop new offerings and applications, particularly targeting young audiences. For the journalistic partners within this project, the opportunities lie in potentially tapping into new target groups through the development of innovative products, with a specific emphasis on cross-genre cooperation. For example, a notable strength is the collaboration of numerous stakeholders gathered around one table. Sensitivities within both public and private media companies, though they may arise, are set aside, and collective efforts are directed towards a common goal. The added value for the journalistic practice partners can be described on the following levels according to Schützeneder and colleagues (2022: 123):

- Constructive level: journalistic partners within the initiative receive regular scientific feedback, particularly in the form of concrete recommendations for journalistic practice and format development, which are based on the studies carried out by the research partners.

- Discursive level: The partners can interact with the scientific community on an equal footing, in particular by providing specific advice on their own projects or problems. This counteracts possible reservations that researchers are disconnected from their daily work (Riesch et al., 2016).

- Explorative level: The partners benefit from a creative process within the framework of format development, which is guided by mutual impulses from science and practice, but in particular by involving members of the NewZee-community.

From the perspective of the researchers involved, the project has the potential to extend its impact beyond the scientific community. This would involve disseminating knowledge not just through academic journals for specialists, but also by making it accessible to the general public and applicable to journalistic practice. This closes the gap between “research and its practical relevance” (Fischer et al., 2024: 2). Schützeneder et al. (2022: 123) identify three key levels at which this project contributes value to the scientific institution and individual scientists:

- Methodological level: While researchers might not gain significant opportunities to directly develop new methods, the project offers valuable insights into practical issues that warrant further scientific investigation.

- Connective level: The project fosters communication and exchange between researchers and practitioners. This can be seen in collaborative conference contributions and joint appearances and impulses at media events.

- Consecutive level: This results in added value in the form of several sub-studies, which are carried out and provide a better picture of young peoples’ consumption practices.

Taken together, this collaboration is suitable for overcoming reservations and tensions between the two fields and brings communication research and practise together to share knowledge and experiences (Fischer et al., 2024).

Challenges of the transfer project

The framework of this project unites different (social) systems that are, in principle, independent of one another (Luhmann, 2018) and follow their own cultural norms. Due to their respective system-immanent logics as well as different objectives, the cooperation between researchers and journalistic actors also brings its own challenges. These mainly relate to the following aspects: working methods, communication goals, and resources.

First, there are major differences in terms of the pace of work. While the processes of knowledge generation, including data collection, analysis, and publication, are often very time-consuming in the scientific field, journalism thrives on the day-to-day business of dealing with current phenomena. This can lead to different expectations as to how quickly certain (scientific) results are available. Second, researchers and journalists have different communication goals and styles. When information goes back and forth between these groups, misunderstandings can occur, or important details can be lost. Moreover, scientific findings are often complex and nuanced. In media contexts, there may be a risk of oversimplification or distortion to make them easier to understand. This can lead to misunderstandings and affect scientific accuracy. Besides, the media often has limited space or time to convey complex scientific information. This can lead to sensationalised coverage that omits or distorts important nuances and contexts. Third, a potential challenge, particularly for journalists, lies in the large number of practice partners involved. These partners, funded by both private and public entities, may contribute varying resources to their News Lab. projects, which could lead to conflicts. For example, this can lead to accusations that public broadcasters have more financial and human resources at their disposal to test new (and sometimes risky) formats. This can also lead to an imbalance depending on the composition of the working groups. For the researchers, on the other hand, it is crucial to draw a clear line, defending their autonomy and independence of research when collaborating with newsrooms. It is imperative to make clear that the focus is not on interest-driven market research but rather on addressing questions and knowledge interests that are relevant to society as a whole and to journalism and communication research. This focus can be asserted by the fact that the added value and credibility of the overall project only exist if it is backed by independent research.

Altogether, these “irritations” (Blöbaum, 2012: 277) that arise during the cooperation must be overcome. One approach that is being pursued in this project is the focus on maximum cooperation, the pooling of resources and working in networks. The goal of the initiative is self-empowerment and empowerment in dealing with news. This is achieved through activating offers that enable participation, interaction, collaboration, and engagement.

Conclusion and advice for future collaborations

This report is the result of many years of collaboration and exchange between the co-authors who represent research as well as our practice partners. It illustrates a practical case in which journalistic practice and scientific research are connected in a greater initiative that does not have a fixed term from the outset. Based on Schützeneder and colleagues’ (2022) definition of transfer, we have highlighted both the opportunities for added value for the respective partners resulting from the cooperation and the challenges that can arise. This initiative clearly demonstrates what a fruitful cooperation between academia and journalism might look like when continuous exchange and communication on an equal footing are realised and various formats ensure ongoing interaction. At the same time, it shows that certain logics inherent in the two systems make cooperation challenging and that potential conflicts can arise from the diverse range of media houses, each with distinct financing models, goals, interests, and varying resources.

Our aim was to use a concrete example to reflect on how scientific institutions can successfully cooperate with journalistic organisations in a sustainable manner. Based on our experience, in this practice insight we propose four main pieces of advice for how researchers can enhance long-term collaboration with newsrooms:

1. Build a core team that manages the overall collaboration.

Especially in large-scale collaborative projects in which networks are established and involve hundreds of individuals from different areas, it is important to have a core team that takes over the organisational aspects of the project. This includes communication between all members, networking and establishing new contacts as well as organising all transfer formats such as webinars and co-creation workshops, as well as addressing all strategic decisions such as the expansion of international collaborations. Regarding the relationship between science and journalism, it is important that people from both fields are involved in the leadership team.

2. Define roles of actors and communication structures.

It is important to define the roles of actors involved and establish clear lines of communication that maintain transparency regarding conflicts of interest. From the perspective of researchers, it is especially important that these communication lines also ensure that scientific information is conveyed as accurately as possible. This includes taking the time to listen to and understand the professional partners and to rethink the common goal with mutual sensitivity to different perspectives. Moreover, to achieve the common goal of the initiative, it was helpful to define core principles. In our project, these include the orientation of the initiative towards the requirements of a digital media world and the possibilities of an editorial society. All practice actors are committed to the culture of agility as they rely on Minimal Viable Products (MVP) and experimentation to produce faster results. The definition of core values ensures that everyone involved is working towards the same goals and helps to organise work processes accordingly, in accordance with the same principles.

3. Ensure expectation management and regular exchange between all partners.

Expectation management as well as permanent interaction and activity are important to keep everyone involved, especially over a long period of time. This is particularly important to maintain the initial high level of motivation and to always make clear the added value of, for example, participation in webinars and active involvement in working groups in the News Lab. For example, this can be done via communication measures such as newsletters, regular information emails, or setting up channels in Messaging-Apps.

4. Ensure that success is defined and results are measured.

Defining and measuring success can be seen as both a limitation and a lesson learned from our collaboration. Regarding scientific results, no success criteria or targets were defined. However, the output can be tracked by using, for example, the number of publications of studies resulting from the project in international peer-reviewed and practice-related journals. In the first period, we recorded the output in the form of success stories, lessons learned, and recommendations gained in the newsrooms in a practical playbook and made it freely available to other media and educational practitioners. The aim was to inspire the development of contemporary journalistic news offerings whether with simplified news language, an alternative selection of topics, the testing of new formats and channels, or the active involvement of users in dialogue. In the second phase, we aim to accompany the activities of the practice partners and the overall project from a scientific perspective as described in the outline of the initiative. In general, the evaluation of results is important for reasons of process and collaboration optimisation. Besides, success is defined differently depending on the motives for the commitment and the objectives of the various partners. It is important, therefore, to define success and, in a second step, to determine which target values are to be achieved at different levels.

This project underscores the potential for even deeper mutual learning between scientific research and journalistic practice. Collaboration can lead to more effective responses to shared needs, as long as scientific inquiry doesn’t become a mere substitute for small-scale market research. Over time, these collaborations can reveal both opportunities and challenges, fostering realistic expectations on all sides.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Leonie Wunderlich

Author biographies

Leonie Wunderlich is a Junior Researcher at the Leibniz-Institute for Media Research I Hans Bredow Institute in Hamburg, Germany. Her research focuses on information-oriented media use and news literacy among young people.

Dr. Sascha Hölig is a Senior Researcher at the Leibniz-Institute for Media Research | Hans Bredow Institute in Hamburg, Germany. His main research interests lie in news use and information repertoires.

Meinolf Ellers is Chief Digital Officer at German Press Agency and Chief Marketing Officer at the next media accelerator in Hamburg, Germany.

References

Begenat

(2023) Wissenschaftskommunikation in unsicheren, digitalen Zeiten: Eine Interviewstudie mit Kommunikator*innen aus der Digitalisierungsforschung [Science communication in uncertain, digital times: An interview study with communicators from digitalisation research]. Easy_Social_Sciences 68: 39–49. DOI: 10.15464/easy.2023.05.

Behre

Hölig

Möller

(2023) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2023 – Ergebnisse für Deutschland. Working paper no. 67, June. Hamburg: Verlag Hans-Bredow-Institut.

Blöbaum

(2012) Journalisten und Kommunikatoren: Praxisprojekte in Journalistik und Kommunikationswissenschaft [Journalists and communicators: practical projects in journalism and communication studies]. In: Dernbach

Loosen

(eds) Didaktik der Journalistik Konzepte, Methoden und Beispiele aus der Journalistenausbildung. Wiesbaden: Springer, 273–284.

Broer

Hasebrink

(2022) Wissenschaftskommunikation als kommunikative Figuration. [Science communication as a communicative figuration]. Ein konzeptioneller Rahmen für die empirische Untersuchung von Domänen der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft 70(3): 234–255. DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2022-3-234.

Buschow

(2018) Journalistik praxistheoretisch betreiben: Impulse für ein dynamisches Verständnis des Journalismus im Kontext seiner Neuordnung. Publizistik 63(4): 513–534, [Practicing journalism in theory: Impulses for a dynamic understanding of journalism in the context of its reorganization].

Buschow

Wellbrock

(2020) Die Innovationslandschaft des Journalismus in Deutschland. Germany: Wissenschaftliches Gutachten im Auftrag der Landesanstalt für Medien NRW: 1–55, [The innovation landscape of journalism in Germany. Scientific report commissioned by the State Media Authority NRW].

Dogruel

(2013) Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Konzeption von Medieninnovationen: Begriffsverständnis und Theoretische Zugänge [A Communication Science Conception of Media Innovations: Conceptual Understanding and Theoretical Approaches]. Berlin, Germany: Springer VS.

Domínguez

(2022) Collaboration between Journalism and Academia: projects, trends and hybridizations of a necessary synergy. International Visual Culture Review/Revista Internacional De Cultura Visual 12(2): 1–10. DOI: 10.37467/revvisual.v9.3735.

Ellers

(2021) Playbook - Nachrichten für die Generation Z [Playbook - News for Generation Z]. Berlin, Germany: dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur und der Bundesverband Digitalpublisher und Zeitungsverleger (BDZV). Available at: https://www.dpa.com/kampagnen/09/UseTheNews-Playbook.pdf.

10.

Fischer

Barata

Scheu

Ziegler

(2024) Connecting science communication research and practice: challenges and ways forward. JCOM 23(02): 1–7. DOI: 10.22323/2.23020501.

11.

Han

Stenhouse

(2015) Bridging the research-practice gap in climate communication: lessons from one academic-practitioner collaboration. Science Communication 37(3): 396–404. DOI: 10.1177/1075547014560828.

12.

Holtz-Bacha

(2009) Zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft, Politik und Medien. Anmerkungen aus kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Perspektive. [On the relationship between science, politics and the media. Comments from a communication science perspective]. Deutsche Schule 101: 84–93.

13.

Karlsen

Beyer

Steen-Johnsen

(2020) Do high-choice media environments facilitate news avoidance? A longitudinal study 1997–2016. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 64(5): 794–814. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2020.1835428.

14.

Krizak

(2022) Was interessiert diejenigen, die sich bislang für nichts interessieren? [What interests those who have not been interested in anything so far?] IN: #UseThewNews-Blog. Available at: https://www.usethenews.de/de/aktuelles/was-interessiert-diejenigen-die-sich-bislang-fuer-nichts-interessieren (Accessed: 01. Juli 2024).

15.

Loosen

Garmissen Av Bartelt

, et al (2023) Journalismus in Deutschland 2023: Aktuelle Befunde zu Situation und Wandel [Journalism in Germany 2023: Current findings on the situation and change]. Working paper no. 68, October. Hamburg: Verlag Hans-Bredow-Institut. DOI: 10.21241/ssoar.89555.

16.

Lough

McIntyre

(2021) Transitioning to solutions journalism: one newsroom's shift to solutions-focused reporting. Journalism Studies 22(2): 193–208. DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2020.1843065.

17.

Lüdecke

Schulz

(2011) (Neue) Medien, Partizipation und nachhaltige Entwicklung. [(New) media, participation and sustainable development]. In: Heinrichs

Kuhn

Newig

(eds) Nachhaltige Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

18.

Luhmann

(2018) Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Berlin, Germany: Suhrkamp. [Social Systems. Outline of a general theory]. FFM.

19.

Meier

(2011) Journalismusforschung als interaktive Innovationsforschung. Eine Methodologie für Wissenstransfer. [Journalism research as interactive innovation research. A methodology for knowledge transfer]. In: Jandura

Quandt

Vogelgesang

(eds.) Methoden der Journalismusforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 67–82.

20.

Meier

(2020) Redaktionen zukunftsfähig machen: der Transfer zwischen Medienwissenschaft und Praxis [Making editorial offices fit for the future: the transfer between media science and practice]. EPD-Medien 9: 7–10.

21.

Meier

Schützeneder

(2019) Bridging the gaps: transfer between scholarly research and newsrooms in journalism education – toward an evidence-based practice in an age of post-truth and state of flux. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 74(2): 199–211.

22.

Mohajerzad

Schrader

(2022) Transfer from research to practice—A scoping review about transfer strategies in the field of research on digital media. Computers & Education Open 3: Article 100111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100111

23.

Nägele

(2023) Welcher Nachrichtentyp bist du? Die #UseTheNews-Studie im Unterricht! [Which news type are you? In: #UseThewNews-Blog. Available at: https://www.usethenews.de/de/aktuelles/welcher-nachrichtentyp-bist-du-die-usethenews-studie-im-unterricht (Accessed: 01. Juli 2024).

24.

Neuberger

(2018) Journalismus in der Netzwerköffentlichkeit. [Journalism in the network public sphere]. In: Nuernbergk

Neuberger

(eds) Journalismus im Internet. Profession – Partizipation – Technisierung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 11–80.

25.

Newman

Fletcher

Eddy

Robertson

Nielsen

. (2023) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2023. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-06/Digital_News_Report_2023.pdf

26.

Reader

(2021) Working with the ‘gated’: a case study of ABC Open’s blend of reciprocal journalism and ‘collegial gatekeeping. Journalism 22(1): 265–281. DOI: 10.1177/1464884918767595.

27.

Riesch

Potter

Davies

(2016) What is public engagement, and what is it for? A study of scientists’ and science communicators’ views. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 36(3): 179–189.

28.

Schäfer

Kristiansen

Bonfadelli

(2015) Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel: Relevanz, Entwicklung und Herausforderungen des Forschungsfeldes. In: Schäfer

Kristiansen

Bonfadelli

(eds). Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel. [Science communication in transition]. Köln: Herbert von Halem.

29.

Schmidt

J-H

Petrich

Rolfs

, et al. (2017) Zur Relevanz von Online-Intermediären für die Meinungsbildung [The relevance of online intermediaries for opinion formation]. Arbeitspapiere des Hans-Bredow-Instituts Nr. 40.

30.

Schützeneder

Engelke

Uth

, et al. (2022) Transferprozesse in der Journalismusforschung: Chancen und Herausforderungen im inter- und transdisziplinären Kontext der Journalismusforschung [ Transfer processes in journalism research]. Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft 70(1–2): 118–139. DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2022-1-2-118.

31.

Stöcker

(2020) How facebook and google accidentally created a perfect ecosystem for targeted disinformation. In Grimme

Preuss

Takes

, et al. (eds) Disinformation in Open Online Media. Berlin, Germany: Springer International Publishing, 129–149).

32.

Uth

Blöbaum

Badura

, et al. (2020) Institutionalisierte Interdisziplinarität: Chancen für die Neujustierung der Journalismusforschung in einer digitalisierten Welt. [Institutionalised interdisciplinarity: opportunities for the realignment of journalism research in a digitalised world]. In Schützeneder

Meier

Springer

(eds), Neujustierung der Journalistik/Journalismusforschung in der digitalen Gesellschaft: Proceedings zur Jahrestagung der Fachgruppe Journalistik/Journalismusforschung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 2019 (pp. 129-139). Eichstätt: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft e.V. DOI: 10.21241/ssoar.70829.

33.

Wunderlich

(2023) Parasoziale Meinungsführer? Eine qualitative Untersuchung zur Rolle von Social Media Influencer*innen im Informationsverhalten und Meinungsbildungsprozessen junger Menschen [Parasocial opinion leaders? A qualitative study on the role of social media influencers in young people's information behaviour and opinion-forming processes]. Medien- & Kommunikationswissenschaft Heft 1-2: 37–60. DOI: 10.5771/1615-634X-2023-1-2-37.

34.

Wunderlich

Hölig

(2022) Types of information orientation and information levels among young and old news audiences. Media and Communication 10(3): 104–117. DOI: 10.17645/mac.v10i3.5293.