Journalism

http://jou.sagepub.com/

Questioning the 'bleeding obvious': What's the point of researching

journalism?
Tony Harcup
Journalism 2012 13: 21 originally published online 14 June 2011
DOI: 10.1177/1464884911400843

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jou.sagepub.com/content/13/1/21

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journalism can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jou.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jou.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jou.sagepub.com/content/13/1/21.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Dec 20, 2011

Proof - Jun 14, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

Article

Journalism

Questioning the ‘bleeding

13(1) 21–37
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
obvious’: What’s the point co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1464884911400843
of researching journalism? jou.sagepub.com

Tony Harcup
University of Sheffield, UK

Abstract
Within higher education, journalism studies is often seen as an uncomfortable bedfellow
with journalism training; there is evidence of a pervasive disconnect between research
and teaching, as between theory and practice. However, voices within journalism
education are calling for a more critical curriculum informed by scholarly research.
There are suggestions that the journalists now doing much of the teaching within
university journalism departments could play a key role in establishing a more critical
journalism education and, by doing so, contributing towards more critical forms of
journalism. Within this context, do journalists-turned-journalism-educators see any
point in researching journalism or would they rather simply pass on vocational skills to
the next generation? This article is based on asking a sample group of such ‘hackademics’
working in UK and/or Irish universities about the utility of scholarly inquiry into
journalism. The article suggests that exploring ostensibly ‘bleeding obvious’ aspects of
journalism may not be the pointless exercise derided by some commentators; rather, it
could be precisely what journalism educators ought to be doing.

Keywords
curriculum, ‘hackademics’, journalism education, journalism studies, journalism training,
practitioners, skills, vocationalism

An uneasy relationship
The study of journalism is a burgeoning field internationally, as is demonstrated by the
growth of university journalism departments, the birth of journalism studies journals,
the expanding library of journalism studies books, and the creation of journalism studies

Corresponding author:
Tony Harcup, Department of Journalism Studies, University of Sheffield, Minalloy House, 18–22 Regent
Street, Sheffield S1 3NJ, UK
Email: t.harcup@sheffield.ac.uk

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

22 Journalism 13(1)

research networks (Cottle, 2009; Cushion, 2007; Delano, 2008; Franklin, 2009; Hanna
and Sanders, 2007; Hujanen et al., 2008; Loffelholz and Weaver, 2008; Terzis, 2009;
Tumber, 2005; Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch, 2009). Journalism studies has been
described as essentially interdisciplinary, a ‘pluralistic, differentiated, and dynamic field
of research …full of competing ideas’ (Loffelholz, 2008: 15), that of necessity takes into
account ‘all levels of analyses including individual, organizational, societal, and cul-
tural’ (Loffelholz and Weaver, 2008: 288). Studying journalism has been something of
an uncomfortable bedfellow with training journalists, yet study and vocationalism
together form ‘journalism education’, which now typically takes place within higher
education institutions, even in countries that previously concentrated skills training
outside universities (Greenberg, 2007: 291; Hanna, 2005: 127; Kenny, 2009: 37;
Nordenstreng, 2009: 513–514).
Today’s universities must ‘play a number of different games’, according to Trowler
et al.:

Each game has different goals and involves different rules. Some are about generating income.
Others are about increasing funding through attracting greater student numbers. Some are about
enhancing research, and research reputation. The goals are often incompatible, the rules are
written separately, in different places by different people. And winning at one may involve
compromising in others. (2005: 440)

These different ‘games’ can result in uneasy discussions around theory versus practice,
critical reflection versus skills, research versus teaching. A study of journalism educa-
tion within 33 European countries found ‘the theory-practice division’ to be pervasive
although it ‘seems to be diminishing with the gradual realization that both are vital for
successful education in this field’ (Nordenstreng, 2009: 516).
Uneasiness over journalism’s relationship with the academy – resulting in ‘intense
animus on both sides’, according to Susan Greenberg (2007: 292) – appears to be felt
particularly sharply by some of the journalists and ex-journalists who have been
recruited in increasing numbers to teach journalism within universities. Such journalists-
turned-journalism-educators have become known as ‘hackademics’ (Engel, 2003) – a
combination of ‘hack’, slang for journalist, and ‘academic’ – and many have found the
transition bruising (Errigo and Franklin, 2004: 47). Journalism departments are not
unique in being locations of uneasiness – studies of education departments in UK uni-
versities found staff more likely to describe themselves as teachers than as academics
whilst feeling uncomfortable about pressure to publish in peer-reviewed journals (Sikes,
2006: 558–559) – but tensions may be particularly prevalent because of the labour-
intensive ways in which journalism skills have traditionally been taught.
Yet it has been claimed that having a foot in both camps might give the ‘practitioner-
academic’ a distinctive perspective on journalism (Niblock, 2007). From their vantage
point at the intersection of journalism and academia, what do journalists-turned-journalism-
educators themselves make of journalism studies? Do they believe there is even any
point in conducting academic research into journalism – and, if so, what might that point
be? Or is too much research merely ‘stating the bleeding obvious’, as several hackadem-
ics put it? Indeed, might there not be something to be gained from stating – and then
questioning – the ‘bleeding obvious’? Such questions are addressed in this article, first

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

Harcup 23

by exploring the context within which journalism education takes place, and then by
reporting and analysing the results of a survey of 65 journalists-turned-journalism-
educators who are now employed to teach journalism within the higher education sectors
of the UK and Ireland.

Questioning conventional practice

When it comes to the training of journalists and potential journalists, media employers
have long been accused of displaying ‘antipathy to critical media theory’ (Tumber, 2000:
5) and of preferring recruits to be skilled in the practicalities of journalism whilst dis-
playing ‘an unquestioning attitude’ (Curran, 2000: 42). Journalism education as it is
conducted in much of the world is, according to Michael Bromley (2009: 29), ‘chiefly
concerned with the unproblematic reproduction of the existing labour force’, although he
notes that it also retains ‘the potential for resistance, opposition and negotiation, and for
cultivating alternatives in practice’. Yet the whole point of being in a university is ‘to
question, not to replicate conventional practice’, argues Wendy Bacon (2006: 148),
herself a journalist-turned-journalism-educator in Australia. Similarly, Martin Hirst
(2010: 93), a hackademic in New Zealand, calls for a reorientation of journalism educa-
tion away from the ‘churning out’ of trained graduates towards ‘journalism scholarship’.
For Hugo de Burgh (2003: 98), the purpose of higher education programmes of journal-
ism education are ‘not to make people adequate employees but thoughtful citizens and
potential contributors to the intellectual and cultural life of the society’, and, for Angela
Phillips (2005: 243), serious journalists working within a democracy need to be equipped
and encouraged ‘to think about where the power lies’. However, Greenberg (2007:
291–6) questions any automatic assumption that ‘skills-based training is inherently
uncritical of practice’ and suggests that journalism education might be capable of moving
towards what she describes as a ‘full cycle of reflective learning, with ideas moving not
just from theory to practice, but also from practice to theory’.
From a North American perspective, David Skinner et al. (2001: 342) agree that jour-
nalism education should concern itself with more than equipping future journalists with
‘a particular skill set’; they argue that journalism students ‘also need to understand how
journalism participates in the production and circulation of meaning’. Creating such a
curriculum means that, rather than teaching skills ‘uncritically, as simply “the way it is”’,
journalism educators should be prepared to question their own ‘underlying assumptions
concerning journalism’s place in society’ (Skinner et al., 2001: 345, 357). They suggest
the incorporation of ‘critical communication studies’ – by which they mean ‘disciplines
such as semiotics, ethnography, discourse analysis and the political economy of
communication’ – into journalism education, to help provide ‘the essential “why” to the
more pragmatic “how” of journalistic method’ (Skinner et al., 2001: 342–343). Their
purpose in unpicking ‘why’ rather than concentrating on ‘how’ is not merely to satisfy
curiosity; it is to improve journalism itself. As McChesney and Scott (2004: 9) put it:
‘[R]adical media criticism has never been criticism for criticism’s sake. It is a structural
critique with the intent of changing the system so there will be better journalism.’
However, such critical and theoretical approaches to journalism often find scant
favour within journalism workplaces, because of mutual suspicion, disdain and even

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

24 Journalism 13(1)

contempt (Delano, 2008: 68–71; Hujanen et al., 2008: 76; Keeble, 2006: 260; Williams,
2003: 12). In this sense, journalism and the academy have been described as ‘parallel
universes’, demonstrating a ‘glaring disconnect’ between ‘noncommunicative neigh-
bours’ (Zelizer, 2004: 2–9). Journalists typically ‘regard their own professionalism and
autonomy as proof against academic theories which speak of any overt economic or
ideological domination of news and its content’, writes Jackie Harrison (2006: 27).
Amongst the many journalists who dismiss out of hand the very concept of journalism
studies is Andreas Whittam Smith, one of the founders of the Independent newspaper.
For Smith (2008), journalism is unworthy of study because, far from being an academic
subject, it is ‘just a trade where the gifted, the average and the incompetent sit side by
side in the same office producing work of varying quality’. The prevalence of such
views even within ‘highish brow’ newsrooms pervades the journalistic atmosphere with
a ‘distinct whiff of book-burning’ (Cole and Harcup, 2010: 163–164).
Even in the USA, despite its long tradition of university-based journalism courses,
journalism education is marked by fragility, according to Betty Medsger (2005: 209),
who laments: ‘Surely no other field of higher education that prepares students for entry
to a profession has suffered such ignominy as has journalism.’ Feelings of antipathy,
disregard and even jealousy between practitioners and academics are mutual, notes
Hagar Lahav (2008: 464), even though ‘these two branches of journalism are inextricably
interwoven and mutually feed each other’. According to Frith and Meech (2007: 144): ‘If
journalists look at university journalism courses and find evidence that academics simply
don’t understand the realities of journalism, so academics look at journalists’ accounts of
themselves and find evidence of a striking amount of myth-making.’
Part of the context within which hackademics work, in the UK at least, is the role
played by the industry-based accreditation bodies the Broadcast Journalism Training
Council, the National Council for the Training of Journalists, and the Periodicals Training
Council, all of which, to a greater or lesser extent, place demands on universities over
curriculum and staffing. It is against this backdrop that Karin Wahl-Jorgensen and Bob
Franklin (2008: 172) identify historical ‘dissonance between journalism practice and
research’ in the UK; but this gap is gradually closing, they argue, as journalism training
completes its migration from workplaces and technical colleges into higher education.
Closing this gap between practice and research is crucial if journalism is to cope
with the economic, cultural, political and professional challenges it is facing, argues
Risto Kunelius, because at present:

academic criticism of journalism has the disadvantage of keeping its distance from the actual
production processes of journalism. Endless debates between ‘theorists’ and ‘practitioners’ all
over the world are a frustrating testimony of the fact that the ability to articulate a critical stance
often comes with a price tag of being also rather detached from the everyday professional
practices of journalism. (2006: 672)

Howard Tumber is also concerned with the role of the academy in the context of chal-
lenges currently facing journalism. In a changing world in which journalism’s failings
have ‘left the public woefully mistrustful of the fourth estate’, he argues that ‘the task
for scholars and educators is to provide, through a variety of disciplines, enquiry and
teaching that can both respond to and address these issues’ (2005: 552).

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

Harcup 25

In this sense, journalism education can be seen in part as a ‘corrective to journalism’

as well as preparation for working within journalism, according to Beate Josephi:

This dual role is its strength and its weakness. It puts tertiary journalism education at arm’s
length to the industry but also entrenches the mistrust between academe and the media’s
working world … [J]ournalism schools are dependent on the industry, whereas the industry is
only partially convinced of the validity and usefulness of journalism degrees. (2009: 52)

Yet it is precisely its engagement with practitioners that distinguishes journalism educa-
tion from other forms of academic study of the media, argue Machin and Niblock (2006:
2). They identify journalists-turned-journalism-educators as enjoying an advantage over
academic researchers who have not themselves worked as practitioners, because they
enjoy easier access to newsrooms and are more able to engage and identify with ‘the
working lives of their subjects’ (2006: 183). Many such practitioner-academics have ‘a
burning desire’ to engage in research and ‘connect theory and practice by incorporating
insights from the professional world of journalism into academic and scholarly thinking
and writing about that practice’, yet many are also uncertain about how to begin fulfill-
ing such desire (Niblock, 2007: 21). When they succeed, the result can be a ‘mutually
beneficial … alliance and shared vocabulary between journalism academe and practice’
(Machin and Niblock, 2006: 178). This positive perspective on the potential of crossing
boundaries is shared by Barbie Zelizer, who argues for inquiry into journalism to be
‘porous’ and for craft, education and research to mingle under one roof:

[J]ournalism studies is about making a setting to include different kinds of engagement with
journalism – both those who practice journalism, those who teach others to practice journalism,
and those who teach yet others to think critically about what that practice means. (2009: 38)

Questioning the hackademics

To examine potential mutual benefits for journalism and the academy of building such
bridges between journalistic practice and critical thinking, a study has been undertaken
of the views and experiences of journalists-turned-journalism-educators who now teach
journalism within higher education. The study is located in university journalism
departments in the UK and Ireland but the findings have international relevance because
similar issues confront journalism educators in different countries (Bromley, 2009;
Deuze, 2008; Servaes, 2009; Terzis, 2009).

Methodology
The views of hackademics have been gathered via questionnaires and interviews. The
sample comprises 65 journalism educators who all worked as journalists before going
on to teach journalism within universities as academic members of staff, rather than as
visiting lecturers or guest speakers. Potential members of the sample group were
approached by email via the Association for Journalism Education (AJE), which covers
350 journalism educators in 46 universities in the UK and Ireland. Some findings about
the extent of hackademic research, and perceived obstacles to it, have already been

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

26 Journalism 13(1)

published (Harcup, 2011a; 2011b); this article completes the triptych by moving on to
ask questions about the very point of such research. In addition, direct approaches were
made to authors of research articles published in key journals (Journalism Studies,
Journalism Practice, and Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism) whose biographi-
cal notes indicated they had worked as journalists before entering the academy. The
precise number of journalism educators with practitioner backgrounds is unknown
because the numbers of teaching staff vary markedly between institutions and many
non-journalists are also employed in journalism departments. As the 350 lecturers circu-
lated by the AJE include some who have not worked as journalists, a sample of 65 can
be regarded as a significant proportion of the target population of hackademics cur-
rently working in UK and Ireland.
The sample consists of 33 women and 32 men who have been lecturing in journalism
within higher education for between one year and 36 years, with the median period
of teaching being five to six years. Their experience as lecturers is across the range
of institutions including higher education colleges, ‘new’ universities (mostly former
polytechnics), research-intensive ‘Russell Group’ institutions, and traditional ‘redbrick’
universities. Several also have experience of practising and/or teaching journalism
in other countries. The sample includes 18 participants who have had research into
journalism published in peer-reviewed academic journals (sub-group one) and 47 par-
ticipants who have not (sub-group two). Respondents were asked to complete a detailed
questionnaire about their experiences of and attitudes towards academic research into
journalism, and this was followed up by a series of semi-structured interviews with a
number of the sample group. Information was gathered during 2009–10, and partici-
pants were guaranteed anonymity.

Findings
All 65 journalists-turned-journalism-educators were asked: ‘Is there any point to aca-
demic research into journalism? If Yes, what? If No, why not?’ The answers of the
whole sample and the two sub-groups are presented numerically in Table 1 and Table 2
and are discussed in more detail below.
The headline finding is that there was an overwhelmingly affirmative answer to the
question, with 61 saying ‘Yes’, two saying ‘No’, one saying it was too early to tell and
one not answering. There was no great disparity when the sample was divided into sub-
groups based on whether the individuals were themselves published researchers, with

Table 1.  Is there any point to academic research into journalism?

Yes (% Yes) No (% No) No answer/ (% N/A)

Don’t know

Published researchers 18 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Non-published researchers 43 (91) 2 (4) 2 (4)
Total 61 (94) 2 (3) 2 (3)
Notes: The sample of 65 hackademics was asked if they felt there was any point to academic research into
journalism. Results are broken down into those who have had their own research published in peer-reviewed
journals and those who have not. (Percentages have been rounded up/down to nearest whole number.)

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

Harcup 27

Table 2. What is the point of academic research into journalism?

To improve (% of sample To benefit (% of sample To benefit (% of sample

journalistic who cited academic who cited democracy by who cited
practice and/ practice and activity academic scrutinizing democratic
or benefit industrial including reasons) the role of reasons)
journalism reasons) teaching journalism in
industries society

The sub-group  9 (50)  9 (50) 11 (61)

of published
researchers
(18)
Those 28 (65) 11 (26)  6 (14)
non-published
researchers
who felt there
was a point to
research (43)
Total (61) 37 (61) 20 (33) 17 (28)
Notes:  The 61 hackademics who felt there was a point to academic research were asked what that point
might be. Their replies have been categorized as being for industrial, academic, or democratic reasons, with
results broken down into those who have had research published in peer-reviewed journals and those
who have not. Some respondents cited more than one point. (Percentages have been rounded up/down to
nearest whole number.)

100 per cent of the published researchers perhaps unsurprisingly feeling there was some
point to their efforts, compared with 91 per cent of those who had not had any of their
own research published in a peer-reviewed journal. For many, the issue was unconten-
tious. As one respondent put it:

That’s a dumb question. As a field of human activity, journalism should be subject to the
scrutiny of academic research as much as anything else. In fact more, given its role as a
profoundly important guarantee of our freedoms.

Another responded:

To me, good research is an art form – a culturally specific and contemporaneous thing of beauty
when it works, when it all comes together … Offering knowledge on power-holders, construction
of public discourses, agenda-setting and so on are vital if we are to understand the type of
democracy we have and what we can do to make it better.

Members of the tiny ‘No’ camp were equally vehement, with one replying:

[A]cademic journalists have failed to engage the interest of working journalists in what they
do. Or anyone else except their buddies. Since nobody cares, why bother? … I believe the
bulk of academic research in journalism is scandalously ill-informed, mostly useless and often
plain wrong.

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

28 Journalism 13(1)

Such a view was not representative. The vast majority of respondents felt it was worth
bothering, even those who were critical of some research for merely ‘stating the bleeding
obvious’ – a phrase that cropped up several times, unprompted – or for being written in
deliberately impenetrable language. One respondent articulated the value of research in
the following terms:

When I was a practitioner (of 20 years) I often didn’t think about why I worked in a particular
way – I just followed the formulas to meet the deadlines. What little notice I did take of
academia’s view of the media came in the form of scepticism. Now that I study journalism from
an academic platform I can see how more research would be invaluable – particularly from
those of us who have a foot on each side of the fence.

There was a feeling among many respondents that research should influence teaching
and vice versa. Teaching and research ‘influence each other continually, in terms of both
content and method of inquiry’, said one. Another commented:

When you are trying to explain issues and concepts to students, it makes you really work
hard to put things clearly. In so doing … crucial research questions emerge. At least they
have for me.

However, personal experience of having worked as a journalist, although useful in some

ways, could also be a hindrance because, as one put it, ‘familiarity did make me feel at
times as though I was “stating the bleeding obvious” or assuming that “everybody
knows this”’.
As is evident from Table 2, although a large majority of hackademics supported the
idea of research, when they went on to explain what they felt the point of research was,
there emerged some interesting differences of emphasis.

Sub-group one
Many of the published researchers stressed the argument that research into journalism is
vital for society because, as one put it, ‘if journalism fails, democracy fails’. Reasons that
could be classified as being concerned with democracy were cited by 61 per cent. This
frequent assertion that research into journalism is important because of the importance of
journalism to society, as a crucial element of democracy, was made without any prompt-
ing, as was a belief that practising journalists themselves could or should not be trusted
to be sufficiently reflective or critical of their own practices. As one put it:

Journalism is too important to be left solely to journalists’ self-scrutiny and self-development

… Journalism research is for the sake of the long-term development of democracy and society.

Academic research into the products and processes of journalism ‘plays an essential
part in scrutinizing and understanding people and organizations who are supposed to be
the eyes and ears of the public’, according to one respondent, who added: ‘That scrutiny
is lacking within the industry itself.’ As another put it: ‘Journalism does not “belong” to
journalists.’

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

Harcup 29

However, a number of respondents felt that findings should have wider dissemination.
‘There is some really interesting work being done by researchers,’ said one, ‘the pity is
this material does not find a wider audience.’ Another commented:

Most of the information we receive is mediated in some way, so it is only right that those
who are supposed to hold the powerful in society to account should also be scrutinized and held
to account … I also feel it is very important for debates within the academy to be taken out to
journalists in the form of non-academic books and articles.

In this way journalism itself might be improved, according to another researcher:

Journalism and research are actually not that far apart – they both stem from a curiosity and the
desire to find out new things. Journalism research can help us formulate better questions about
journalism, its role in society, in people’s lives, in democracy. The answers we come up with in
research can ultimately benefit journalists and contribute to better journalism.

Not just better journalism but also better journalism education; half the sample cited
academic reasons, including informing teaching activity, when asked to explain the point
of academic research into journalism.

Sub-group two
Amongst those hackademics who had not themselves had research published in peer-
reviewed journals there was a subtly different flavour to arguments about the point of
research. Less emphasis was given to inquiring into the role of journalism within society
and more to arguments that research could be beneficial to media industries: whilst the
published researchers were more than four times as likely to cite democratic reasons for
researching journalism than their non-published colleagues, the latter were significantly
more likely than the former to cite industrial reasons (65% compared with 50%).
However, many respondents clearly shared with their published counterparts the view
that practising journalists ought not be left to get on with their jobs without scrutiny.
Central to the range of reasons given for journalism research being a worthwhile activity
was this argument that, just as journalists stress the importance of scrutinizing others –
acting as the ‘eyes and ears of the public’ – so journalism itself must be scrutinized. The
further point was made that, as an industrial practice, much journalism tends to be ‘non-
reflective’; hence the importance of inquiry into journalism from outside the industry,
notably academia. There was a strong feeling that academic research into journalism
could – or at least should – contribute to better journalism because ‘it should feed back
into arguments about good practice’ for current and future journalists alike.
A number of respondents also indicated that engagement with research contributed to
better teaching. ‘Research-led teaching is invaluable and it also broadens your interest in
the subject’, one argued. Another said:

I feel very strongly that critical academic research into journalism and journalism education is
necessary. Journalists play an important role politically, culturally, socially, economically, as
analysts and brokers of information. How they do that, how they engage with audiences, how

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

30 Journalism 13(1)

the audiences receive their work and value it and use it – or not – are all areas of immense
interest, as well as importance. It is equally important to understand how we teach journalism
in a society and in a media world undergoing substantial transformation, and what changes we
might need to make and why.

Just over a quarter of the non-published researchers (26%) cited such academic reasons
for researching journalism, compared with half the published researchers.
Even amongst those who greatly valued research there was a feeling that some
academic research was pointless. Research is worthwhile ‘if it contributes to better
practice’, as one respondent put it, but there is no point to research that is ‘so obscure
as to be completely irrelevant to the real world and only of interest to a very narrow
group of academics’; or, in the words of another, ‘pseudo-academic bullshit’. This was
a recurrent argument within the sub-group. In the words of another respondent:

It is the job of the academy to reflect, discuss, analyse and come up with insights. But for
heaven’s sake, do it in a way that is comprehensible and recognizable to a reporter standing
outside magistrates’ court on a wet Wednesday. That way it might actually get read by journalists
as well as academics … The patchy quality of some academic articles, the use of jargon,
long-windedness, statements of the obvious, all offend journalistic sensibilities, leading some
to question whether there is any point to it at all.

Suggested areas of research

Whilst discussing the merits of academic research, many hackademics made
suggestions – unprompted – of areas in which research would be particularly useful.
These included: the continuing impact of technological convergence on what journal-
ists do; the role of journalists in an information-rich world in which anyone can become
a publisher; journalistic uses of social media; structural changes within journalism
industries, including crises in local newspapers and regional commercial television;
changes within the employment market for journalists, including where future jobs are
likely to be; the processes of journalism, including so-called ‘churnalism’ in which pre-
packaged stories are churned out; the commodification of news as a product; perceived
failures of journalism to scrutinize military or economic policies; reporting from areas
of conflict; recurrent ethical crises involving journalists; the ways in which journalists
act as brokers of information; changing news values; stereotyping of certain groups in
the media; journalistic uses of language; how journalists cover and respond to global-
ization; the European influence on media law; the impact of Freedom of Information
legislation; ways in which journalists engage with their audiences; audience consump-
tion patterns; historical research into journalism; and empirical research to test
seemingly accepted theoretical explanations of journalistic practice.
Academic research could usefully ‘point out and analyse failures of the profession,
for instance in coverage of the Iraq war and the credit crunch’, according to one respon-
dent. However, another doubted if any such research would have much impact on
journalism as it is practised, because most journalists would never read it, and the few
that do ‘understandably get a bit tired of being told they’re crap by their academic
counterparts’.

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

Harcup 31

Discussion
It may be stating the obvious to point out that the journalists-turned-journalism-educators
surveyed here have all had different individual experiences both as journalists and as
academics; some have undertaken extensive academic research into journalism whilst
some have undertaken a little and others none; and they have a range of differing per-
spectives on the place of scholarship and critical inquiry within journalism education.
They work in a world of conflicting demands: not just the competing demands on time
felt by most academics, but also between the gravitational pull of academia – which
demands research income and outputs – and the gravitational pull of the journalism
industry – which demands graduates with multiple vocational skills. How hackademics
negotiate such conflicting demands and how they perform in the various ‘games’ they
have to play will have implications for them as individuals in terms of job security, career
progression, and promotion, and for their departments in terms of submissions to the
Research Excellence Framework which will help determine research income in the UK
(Trowler et al., 2005). But such issues are not the major concern of this study; the
primary focus here is the impact on journalism education as a field and on journalism
itself as reflective practice. The above findings will be discussed within this context.
Notwithstanding their wide-ranging individual experiences and views on a variety of
issues, and the wide range of higher education institutions by whom they are employed,
the findings suggest that most hackademics would agree with de Burgh (2003: 110)
that, when journalism education is conducted within universities, ‘skills are not enough’.
More than nine out of 10 of those surveyed believe there is a point to academic research
into journalism, thus confirming and amplifying the findings of a smaller study of
members of the AJE, which found that journalism educators ‘were generally keen to put
journalism in a wider context and were strongly opposed to unexamined practice’
(Greenberg, 2007: 299).
There is significant support amongst respondents for the view that journalism does
not ‘belong’ only to journalists and, because of the socially important roles attributed to
journalism as the ‘eyes and ears’ of citizens, that inquiry into journalism should not be
left to journalists alone. These findings reinforce the arguments of Bromley (2009), de
Burgh (2003), Hirst (2010), Phillips (2005) and Skinner et al. (2001) that journalism
education should mean more than the reproduction of a skilled yet not necessarily
reflective or questioning labour force for the journalism industries; that critical inquiry
and research can lead to ‘better journalism’ (McChesney and Scott, 2004) and act in
some ways as a ‘corrective to journalism’ (Josephi, 2009); and that interplay between
what are sometimes characterized as the odd couple of theory and practice can be mutu-
ally beneficial (Light et al., 2009; Machin and Niblock, 2006; Zelizer, 2009).
Theory and practice are not opposites, as Raymond Williams points out; rather, theory
can be seen as ‘a scheme of ideas which explain practice’ (Williams, 1976: 316–7); at
least, which may help explain and explore practice. Seen in this light, engagement with
research and critical scholarship need not be inimical to teaching the tools of the journal-
ist’s trade. As Cushion (2007: 431) argues: ‘it is difficult to see how an appreciation of
the history of the press, ownership, regulation, ethics and law is irrelevant to life as a
successful journalist’. But scholarship can go beyond such issues and engage with ques-
tions that may be as crucial for journalistic practitioners as for educators and researchers;

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

32 Journalism 13(1)

questions such as ‘what does a journalist in the 21st century need to know?’ and ‘what
skills are now necessary for good journalism practice?’ (Frith and Meech, 2007: 142–143).
The areas of research suggested by hackademics above seek to answer these questions
and more, including the role(s) journalists (might) play as bulwarks for democracy.
Some suggestions are concerned with understanding journalism better, some with doing
journalism better, some with both; what they have in common is that they stem from a
desire to ask questions. Arguably, of more importance than the precise answers is the fact
that such questions are being asked.
Perhaps it is not surprising that, in as relatively youthful a field as university-based
journalism education is in the UK and Ireland, exactly how better journalism might be
achieved and what might go alongside instruction in skills is still being discussed, tried
out and contested. Given the ‘knee-jerk readiness to sneer’ amongst journalists when
confronted with anything that looks too much like ‘media studies’ (Delano, 2008: 68), it
is also not surprising that some hackademics take into the academy a dismissive attitude
towards some academic research. Indeed, given the anti-intellectual posturing of so
many experienced and influential industry figures, perhaps more surprising is the extent
to which journalists-turned-journalism-educators are in many cases embracing research
and moving towards a more reflective curriculum.
Journalists, observes Zelizer (2009: 34), have ‘long resisted’ attempts by academics
to ‘microscopically examine their work environment’, and this is perhaps reflected in
the comments by some respondents that academic research into journalism amounts to
little more than ill-informed ‘gobbledebollocks’ or over-extrapolated explorations of the
‘bleeding obvious’. Some may be, but that is not the whole story. The very processes by
which journalists come to regard some things as obvious or self-evident also need to be
investigated, according to two editors of peer-reviewed journalism studies journals who
were also interviewed as part of this study. ‘A lot of what passes for common sense is
actually bullshit’, said one, who suggested that a worthwhile area for study would be
‘what are the processes by which what is completely erroneous comes to be common
sense “knowledge”, when the people who are transmitting it aren’t intending to mislead?’
The other editor agreed:

It may be stating the bleeding obvious, but at least it may be backed by some empirical evidence,
a statistical analysis, and that’s very important. People say, ‘it’s common sense’, and you say,
‘well, if you look at these stats it shows that that’s not the picture’. It’s all right journalists
saying, ‘it’s obvious, that’s what we do’, but most of the public don’t realize that, they don’t
understand that’s how the newsroom works. They think it’s god-given, they don’t understand
about choice and time constraints and page constraints, or the relationship between sources and
journalists. It also needs to be unpicked in relation to power and all these issues – that’s not the
bleeding obvious because the journalists themselves might not be aware of it.

As James Curran (2010: 31) has shown, when journalists adopt a ‘common sense’
approach to reporting it often turns out to be wrong. Therefore, it might be thought that
exploring, questioning and unpicking ‘common sense’ explanations of journalism is
precisely what journalism educators ought to be doing in addition to – and as part of –
journalism training.
Uncritical and unproblematic teaching of journalism skills is not sufficient for
those journalism educators who are concerned with enhancing the media literacy of

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

Harcup 33

their graduates and preparing future generations of journalists to be more reflective and
critical (Skinner et al., 2001), or with nurturing a journalism that operates within the
public interest (Phillips, 2005). As de Burgh (2003: 110) puts it: ‘In order to perform
their functions journalists need an education which enables them to put themselves and
their society in perspective; find out anything and question everything.’ The evidence of
this survey suggests that a considerable number of the journalists now employed to
teach journalism skills (and more besides) agree that vocationalism is not enough,
although there remain different views on what else is needed and how it might be deliv-
ered. Academic research is but one way, and there are arguments about the most useful
types of research and about the possibility of expanding the definition of research to
encompass some forms of practice (Medsger, 2005: 218). Such issues are still being
worked out in what for the most part is still the relatively early days of journalism
studies, but despite the hostility of some within the journalism industries and even
some within the ‘hackademy’ (Errigo and Franklin, 2004), the evidence of this survey
suggests that – as Machin and Niblock (2006: 3, 178) argue – journalists even from non-
academic backgrounds are not necessarily as unreflective, nor as hostile to theory and
research, as they are sometimes portrayed.
Skills, education and research inhabiting the same space can encourage those involved
to ‘think critically’ about practice (Zelizer, 2009: 38) by ‘standing back to gain a little
perspective’ (Cole and Harcup, 2010: 166). This is reflected in the experience of the
respondent who said that during two decades as a working journalist, ‘I just followed
the formulas’, yet who now values the critical space provided by the hackcademy to think
about why things tend to be done in certain ways rather than simply the how. Therefore, as
the same respondent put it, ‘more research would be invaluable – particularly from those
of us who have a foot on each side of the fence’. In the process, it might be that the uneasy
relationships between journalism and the academy, and between practice and theory, grow
into relationships based on mutual understanding and respect. This suggests ‘a dialogic
approach’ between practitioner and scholarly perspectives (Harcup, 2009: 11) that recog-
nizes how ‘the perspective of practitioners might influence theory’ (Greenberg, 2007: 296)
and also how even good theories ‘are routinely upended by events’ (Schudson, 2009: 113).
The extent to which journalism education continues to move towards a more reflec-
tive curriculum that builds bridges between theory, practice, research and teaching
could usefully be the subject of further research; future research might also explore the
impact on journalism education of the economic recession of 2008–2011, in terms both
of structural changes to the journalism labour market and of the funding squeeze within
higher education. For now, this study of hackademics suggests that journalists – at least,
those journalists who have been recruited by universities primarily to pass on their
skills to journalism students – are not necessarily as anti-intellectual or non-reflective as
they are sometimes portrayed. There is, as Machin and Niblock (2006: 2) contend, some
evidence that this ‘new breed of journalism scholar’ within university journalism depart-
ments may indeed be instrumental in helping to erode divisions between theory and
practice and in questioning what some might believe to be the ‘bleeding obvious’. If this
process is truly to be a mutual and dialogic one between journalism and the academy,
then it is surely necessary to go beyond the challenging and unpicking of journalists’
‘common sense’ explanations of their craft to apply the same scepticism and scrutiny
to the products and processes of academia itself; that is, not only to critically examine

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

34 Journalism 13(1)

journalists’ accounts of their practice, but also to critically examine the ways that scholars
have examined and explained such practice.
If journalistic practice requires critical inquiry, and if news can be seen as a manufac-
tured and mediated product, should the same degree of critical inquiry not also be applied
to the products and processes of the academy? As Kevin Williams points out:

All theory is a social construction … Theory guides research by helping scholars to organize
how they gather facts and observe the world. But good theory should also help us to understand
and make sense of our personal experience and the wider structures and processes of daily life,
and how they shape our interaction with other people … Theories do not develop in a vacuum,
they are a response to the concerns of the period in which they emerge. (2003: 11–22)

Theories of journalism, therefore – like journalism itself – can be seen as social

constructions and as products of their time; similarly, again like journalism, they can be
seen as products of the institutional settings in which such work takes place, settings in
which work may be subject to a range of constraints. If scholarly scrutiny can detect
innumerable individual journalists following certain ‘formulas’ and adopting certain
positions because they appear to be the obvious and common sense explanation, why
should scholars of journalism be thought to be immune from similar pressure to produce
work that follows formulas and meets rather than challenges expectations? As Tumber
(2000: 10) observes: ‘The reluctance of journalists to explain their working practices is
similar to that shown by other professionals, including academics.’ If the practices of
journalism form part of the production of ‘meaning’ within society, as Skinner et al.
(2001) insist, then surely so does the academic work that explores those practices; it
follows that journalism and scholarship must both be open to challenge.
Journalism educators are therefore challenged to consider not merely how critical
theories and scholarly research might improve practice, but vice versa (Greenberg,
2007). Work in this area has already been undertaken in recent years by Sarah Niblock
(2005, 2007) and Barbie Zelizer (2004, 2009), among others (Fenton et al., 2010;
Harcup, 2009; Keeble, 2005; Machin and Niblock, 2006; Sheridan Burns, 2002),
suggesting that genuine dialogue is possible between theory and practice as long as
channels of communication – and the minds of those involved – remain open. If that
produces students, journalists and scholars with a more questioning attitude then should
we not be confident enough to assert the social value of such questioning, despite – and/
or because of – the media industries’ apparent preference for a steady supply of skilled
yet uncritical recruits? Yes we should, argues de Burgh:

[W]e must be prepared to say that the interests of employers and of society can conflict. The
lecturer is not merely the facilitator of practical challenges which hone skills but s/he is also the
transmitter of knowledge who subscribes to values quite distinct from those of the business
managers. Socialization by itself is not education; one of the university’s main tasks is to free
young people from the limitations of such socializations that confine their past and present
worlds. (2003: 109–110)

Just as de Burgh suggests that ‘question everything’ is a useful starting point for
journalists, so Schudson (2009: 112) argues that humility is necessary ‘in journalism as
in the university’ to enable us to ask questions and listen to answers even when they

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

Harcup 35

challenge ‘our own favoured schemes and theories’. In this light, journalism educators
might like to remind themselves – ourselves – that once upon a time, in the early years
of journalism education, it appeared obvious to many that women were not suited to
journalism; that common sense view was challenged by a few and today is generally
regarded as neither common nor sense (Chambers et al., 2004: 65–66). This prompts the
thought: what ideas about journalism might be taken for granted today, only to be ques-
tioned and finally ridiculed, if not tomorrow then perhaps the day after?

Conclusion
‘Question everything’ might be adopted as an ethos equally applicable to journalism
practice, journalism research and journalism education. To question something does not
mean it is rejected or devalued; merely that it is not accepted at face value, as just ‘the
way it is’ (Skinner et al., 2001). From the evidence of this study of journalists-turned-
journalism-educators, there is perhaps less entrenched resistance to a questioning and
reflective approach than might have been expected if we took at face value the dismissive
tone that appears to be de rigueur amongst journalists whenever the academy has the
temerity to say anything about journalism. Whether the motivation is to increase general
levels of media literacy, to explore what new skills may be required by journalists, to
facilitate more critical forms of journalism, or to enhance the role of journalism as a
crucial watchdog within democracy – or all these motivations and more – the evidence
suggests that belief in a questioning and reflective approach that embraces critical schol-
arship and research is gaining ground within journalism education.
Journalism students will be by no means the only people who stand to gain from a
more critical journalism education that involves interplay between research and
teaching, theory and practice, scholarship and skills: hacks, academics, hackademics
and indeed other citizens might all benefit from the opening up of space for critical
engagement, reflection and inquiry into what journalism is, why it is as it is, why it
matters, and how it could be different. We need to ‘suspend our default assumptions
in journalism’s study long enough to look anew at the evolving world of journalistic
forms and practices’, as Zelizer (2004: 8) suggests. In other words: we must be
prepared to question everything, even the ‘bleeding obvious’.

Acknowledgement
Thanks are due to the AJE and its members for making this research project possible; to my
department and colleagues for supporting it; and to this journal’s editors and reviewers for their
helpful comments.

References
Bacon W (2006) Journalism as research? Australian Journalism Review 28(2): 147–157.
Bromley M (2009) Introduction. In: Terzis G (ed.) European Journalism Education. Bristol:
Intellect, 25–34.
Chambers D, Steiner L and Fleming C (2004) Women and Journalism. London: Routledge.
Cole P and Harcup T (2010) Newspaper Journalism. London: SAGE.
Cottle S (2009) Journalism studies: Coming of (global) age? Journalism 10(3): 309–311.

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

36 Journalism 13(1)

Curran J (2000) Press reformism 1918–98: A study of failure. In: Tumber H (ed.) Media Power,
Professionals and Policies. London: Routledge, 35–55.
Curran J (2010) Technology foretold. In: Fenton N (ed.) New Media, Old News: Journalism &
Democracy in the Digital Age. London: SAGE, 19–434.
Cushion S (2007) ‘On the beat’ or in the classroom: Where and how is journalism studied?
Journalism Practice 1(3): 421–434.
de Burgh H (2003) Skills are not enough: The case for journalism as an academic discipline.
Journalism 4(1): 95–112.
Delano T (2008) Different horses, different courses. British Journalism Review 19(4): 68–74.
Deuze M (2008) Journalism education in an era of globalization. In: Loffelholz M and Weaver D (eds)
Global Journalism Research: Theories, Methods, Findings, Future. Oxford: Blackwell, 267–281.
Engel M (2003) Book review: Hackademic heavyweight. British Journalism Review 14(4): 61–2.
Errigo J and Franklin B (2004) Surviving in the hackademy. British Journalism Review 15(2): 43–48.
Fenton N (ed.) (2010) New Media, Old News: Journalism & Democracy in the Digital Age.
London: SAGE.
Franklin B (2009) Editorial: On Journalism Studies’ tenth anniversary. Journalism Studies
10(6): 729–733.
Frith S and Meech P (2007) Becoming a journalist: Journalism education and journalism culture.
Journalism 8(2): 137–164.
Greenberg S (2007) Theory and practice in journalism education. Journal of Media Practice
8(3): 289–303.
Hanna M (2005) Journalism education. In: Franklin B, Hamer M, Hanna M, Kinsey M and
Richardson JE Key Concepts in Journalism Studies. London: SAGE, 127.
Hanna M and Sanders K (2007) Journalism education in Britain: Who are the students and what
do they want?’ Journalism Practice 1(3): 404–420.
Harcup, T (2011a) ‘Hackademics at the chalkface: to what extent have journalism teachers
become journalism researchers?’, Journalism Practice 5(1): 34–50.
Harcup, T (2011b) ‘Research and reflection: supporting journalism educators in becoming
scholars’, Journalism Practice 5(2): 161–176.
Harcup T (2009) Journalism: Principles and Practice, 2nd edn. London: SAGE.
Harrison J (2006) News. London: Routledge.
Hirst M (2010) Journalism education ‘down under’: A tale of two paradigms. Journalism Studies
11(1): 83–98.
Hujanen J, Lehtniemi N and Virranta R (2008) Mapping Communication and Media Research in
the UK. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla.
Josephi B (2009) Journalism education. In: Wahl-Jorgensen K and Hanitzsch T (eds) The Handbook
of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, 42–56.
Keeble R (ed.) (2005) Print Journalism: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
Keeble R (2006) The Newspapers Handbook, 4th edn. London: Routledge.
Kenny C (2009) The Republic of Ireland journalism education landscape. In: Terzis G (ed.)
European Journalism Education. Bristol: Intellect, 35–45.
Kunelius R (2006) Good journalism: On the evaluation of some interested and experienced actors.
Journalism Studies 7(5): 671–690.
Lahav H (2008) ‘If you can’t earn enough – teach’: Newspaper journalists as journalism lecturers
in Israel. Journalism Practice 2(3): 463–475.
Light G, Cox R and Calkins S (2009) Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The Reflective
Professional. London: SAGE.
Loffelholz M (2008) Heterogeneous – multidimensional – competing: Theoretical approaches to
journalism – an overview. In: Loffelholz M and Weaver D (eds) Global Journalism Research:
Theories Methods, Findings, Future. Oxford: Blackwell, 15–27.

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011

Harcup 37

Loffelholz M and Weaver D (2008) (eds) Global Journalism Research: Theories Methods,
Findings, Future. Oxford: Blackwell.
Machin D and Niblock S (2006) News Production: theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
McChesney R and Scott B (2004) (eds) Our Unfree Press: 100 Years of Radical Media Criticism.
New York: New Press.
Medsger B (2005) The evolution of journalism education in the United States. In: de Burgh H (ed.)
Making Journalists. London: Routledge, 205–226.
Niblock S (2005) Practice and theory: What is news? In: Keeble R (ed.) Print Journalism: A
Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
Niblock S (2007) From ‘knowing how’ to ’being able’: Negotiating the meanings of reflective
practice and reflexive research in journalism studies. Journalism Practice 1(1): 20–32.
Nordenstreng K (2009) Conclusions: Soul-searching at the crossroads of European journalism
education. In: Terzis G (ed.) European Journalism Education. Bristol: Intellect, 511–517.
Phillips A (2005) Who’s to make journalists? In: de Burgh H (ed.) Making Journalists. London:
Routledge, 227–44.
Schudson M (2009) Factual knowledge in the age of truthiness. In: Zelizer B (ed.) The Changing
Faces of Journalism. London: Routledge, 104–113.
Servaes J (2009) Epilogue: Back to the future? Re-inventing journalism education in the age of
globalization. In: Terzis G (ed.) European Journalism Education. Bristol: Intellect, 519–39.
Sheridan Burns L (2002) Understanding Journalism. London: SAGE.
Sikes P (2006) Working in a ‘new’ university: In the shadow of the Research Assessment Exercise?
Studies in Higher Education 31(5): 555–568.
Skinner D, Gasher M and Compton J (2001) Putting theory to practice: A critical approach to
journalism studies. Journalism 2(3): 341–360.
Smith, AW (2008) Media studies is no preparation for journalism. Independent, 25 February.
Terzis G (ed.) (2009) European Journalism Education. Bristol: Intellect.
Trowler P, Fanghanel J and Wareham T (2005) Freeing the chi of change: The Higher Education
Academy and enhancing teaching and learning in higher education. Studies in Higher Education
30(4): 427–444.
Tumber H (ed.) (2000) Media Power, Professionals and Policies. London: Routledge.
Tumber H (2005) Do the study of journalism and the education of journalists matter? International
Journal for Communication Studies 67(6): 551–553.
Wahl-Jorgensen K and Franklin B (2008) Journalism research in the UK: From isolated efforts to
an established discipline. In: Loffelholz M and Weaver D (eds) Global Journalism Research:
Theories Methods, Findings, Future. Oxford: Blackwell, 172–184.
Wahl-Jorgensen K and Hanitzsch T (2009) (eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York:
Routledge.
Williams K (2003) Understanding Media Theory. London: Arnold.
Williams R (1976) Keywords. London: Flamingo.
Zelizer B (2004) Taking Journalism Seriously: News and the Academy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Zelizer B (2009) Journalism and the academy. In: Wahl-Jorgensen K and Hanitzsch T (eds) The
Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, 29–41.

Biographical notes
Tony Harcup worked as a journalist in mainstream and alternative media before becoming a
‘hackademic’. He now teaches journalism studies at the University of Sheffield in the UK and
is a committee member of the Association for Journalism Education. His research has been
published in a wide range of journals and his books include Journalism: Principles and Practice
(2nd edn, SAGE, 2009).

Downloaded from jou.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 21, 2011