Analytical Journalism: A Guide to Science-Based Explanatory Journalistic Practice 1032293071, 9781032293073

Citation preview

ANALYTICAL JOURNALISM

Responding to an increasingly complex and often contradictory barrage of news information, Analytical Journalism ofers a frst-of-its-kind guide to this emerging form of science-based journalism. Posited as a practical alternative to other more traditional forms of event-driven news reporting, analytical journalism relies on metatheory and methodology to highlight causal factors such as goals, norms, behaviours and social frameworks when covering events. Seen as adjacent to investigative and data journalism, analytical journalism seeks to provide a solution to the simplifcation and underreporting of the causal context by drawing on scientifc research and data to ofer a deeper understanding of news events. Central to this new feld is public understanding; providing news consumers with the information they require to navigate and act with nuance in the real world. Drawing on the author’s experience of teaching analytical journalism at the postgraduate level, this book summarises the aims and theory of the feld and contains practical tools to help improve journalists’ contribution to shared public knowledge, including methods and examples of identifying and justifying new causal explanations of an issue. Analytical Journalism will be of interest to advanced journalism students and practitioners exploring alternative forms of journalism. Flemming Svith is a senior researcher in journalism and director of the Center for Journalism and Democracy at the Danish School of Media and Journalism. He holds a PhD in social sciences, an MA in history and a BA in journalism. He is interested in journalism, knowledge production, media and democracy and focuses on advanced journalism, frst as a practitioner, then a developer of data journalism and later as an academic researcher.

ANALYTICAL JOURNALISM A Guide to Science-based Explanatory Journalistic Practice

Flemming Svith

Designed cover image: Cover Image by Flemming Svith First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Flemming Svith The right of Flemming Svith to be identifed as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-29307-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-29302-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-30097-7 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003300977 Typeset in Bembo by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

CONTENTS

1 Introduction

1

Chapter aims 1 Learning outcomes 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The discipline of analytical journalism 5 1.2.1 The deliberative role 6 1.2.2 The inferential role 8 1.3 The phases of analytical journalism 10 1.3.1 The frst phase of observing phenomena 11 1.3.2 The second phase of mapping ‘issue frames’ 12 1.3.3 The third phase of applying theory to hypotheses 13 1.3.4 The fourth phase of justifying hypotheses 13 1.3.5 The ffth phase of adding divergent issue frames 13 1.4 An example of analytical journalism 14 1.5 The methods used in analytical journalism 17 1.6 The didactic principle of the book: Theory and practice 22 References 23 2 The analytical journalism approach Chapter aims 26 Learning outcomes 26 2.1 Introduction 26 2.2 The approach used by analytical journalism 27 2.2.1 The metatheoretical level 27 2.2.2 The level of methodology 30

26

vi

Contents

2.2.2.1 Phenomena appear in ‘natural’ settings 31 2.2.2.2 Phenomena are ‘single outcomes’ 31 2.2.2.3 Phenomena are investigated in ‘single cases’ 31 2.2.2.4 Phenomena are the ‘starting points’ for enquiry 32 2.2.3 Three strategies of the methodology 33 2.2.4 The level of methods 36 2.3 What makes analytical journalism distinctive as a discipline 38 2.4 Clearing up some potential objections 42 2.4.1 It is too time-consuming 42 2.4.2 It is too comprehensive 43 2.4.3 The issues are too complex 43 2.4.4 The ideal is too unattainable 44 2.5 Journalism’s knowledge base 45 References 46 3 The framework for causal explanation Chapter aims 50 Learning outcomes 50 3.1 Introduction 50 3.2 Explanatory journalism 51 3.3 The causal nature of social reality 54 3.3.1 The layered reality – multilevel and multidimensional 55 3.3.2 The multicausal reality – the causal model 58 3.3.3 The variables of causal explanation 59 3.3.4 The relations of causal explanation 61 3.3.5 Separating cause and evidence 63 3.4 Practical guide to the elements of causal explanation and the frst phase 65 3.4.1 The variables 65 A) Standardise the variable 66 B) Identify stated variables 66 C) Convert data to variables 66 3.4.2 The relations 68 3.4.3 The level table 69 3.4.4 The causal model 70 3.4.5 Phase 1: The observed phenomenon 72 A) Select a phenomenon 74 B) The relevance of the issue 74 C) Specify the ‘why’ question 74 References 76

50

Contents

4 The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

vii

79

Chapter aims 79 Learning outcomes 79 4.1 Introduction 79 4.2 The theory behind the deliberative role of analytical journalism 82 4.2.1 Public knowledge on current issues as basis for deliberation 84 4.3 Collecting representative media items from the public knowledge base 86 4.3.1 Methods of collecting media items in analytical journalism 87 4.4 The analysis of media content 88 4.4.1 The issue frame as category of media content 89 4.4.2 Identifying issue frames in media content 90 4.4.3 Mapping the issue frames in a table 91 4.5 The legitimacy of the deliberative role 92 4.6 Practical guidelines for mapping issue frames 94 4.6.1 Collate the media content 94 A) The audience and the media for the analytical journalism product 94 B) Specify the search keywords 95 C) Specify media and databases searched for content 95 D) Specify the search period for media content 95 E) Specify the process of collecting the media items 96 4.6.2 Draw up the issue frame table 96 A) Specify the analysis technique 97 B) Fill the table with dominant issue frames 97 C) Add missing elements to dominant issue frames 97 D) Fill the table with the journalist’s issue frame 98 E) Test the public novelty of the journalist’s issue frame 98 References 101 5 The strategy for generating causal hypotheses Chapter aims 103 Learning outcomes 103 5.1 Introduction 103 5.2 The study of journalism from a knowledge perspective 107 5.3 The theoretical background to knowledge generation in analytical journalism 110 5.3.1 The justifed true belief 111 5.3.2 The knowledge-producing practice of inference 113 5.3.3 The method of the science-based inference 114

103

viii

Contents

5.3.3.1 The observation 114 5.3.3.2 The scientifc explanatory theory 115 5.3.3.3 The hypothesis of the journalist’s case 116 5.4 The public novelty of the causal hypothesis 117 5.5 The plausibility of the causal hypothesis 118 5.5.1 Quality of the selected studies 118 5.5.2 Relevance of the selected scientifc research 119 5.5.3 The causal model validation 121 5.6 The distinctiveness of the creative abductive inference in journalism 122 5.7 Practical guidelines for the abductive inference strategy 123 5.7.1 Selecting scientifc explanations 124 A) Search the academic databases 124 B) Justify the credibility of selected scientifc explanations 124 C) Justify the relevance of the scientifc explanation for the case at hand 124 5.7.2 Generating the causal hypothesis of the case at hand 124 A) Fill out the abductive inference table 124 B) Fill out the level table 126 C) Draw the causal model 126 D) Justify the causal model with narrative validation 127 E) Justify the causal model with level validation 127 References 128 6 The strategy for justifying causal explanation Chapter aims 132 Learning outcomes 132 6.1 Introduction 132 6.2 The study of justifcation in journalism 135 6.2.1 The principles and criteria that underpin justifcation in journalism 136 6.2.1.1 The verifcation principle 136 6.2.1.2 The attribution principle 137 6.2.1.3 The inference principle 138 6.2.2 The evidence used for justifcation in journalism 139 6.2.2.1 Direct and indirect evidence of claims 139 6.2.3 The status of justifcation in journalism 140 6.3 Methods of justifcation in social science 142 6.3.1 The pattern-matching criterion 143 6.3.2 Outline of the similarity model 145 6.3.3 The covariation criterion 146

132

Contents

ix

6.3.4 Outline of the covariation model 148 6.3.5 The problem of data availability 149 6.4 Deductive justifcation in analytical journalism 150 6.4.1 The evidence produced by pattern matching 151 6.4.1.1 The similarity model in analytical journalism 152 6.4.1.2 The covariation model in analytical journalism 153 6.4.2 Second-hand evidence from dialogue sources 154 6.5 Practical guidelines for justifying causal explanation 154 6.5.1 The similarity model 155 A) Create standardised variables using data from the case at hand 155 B) Compare the variables in the base case to the variables in the case at hand 158 C) Accept or reject the causal relations 159 6.5.2 The covariation model 159 A) Specify the variation in each of the observed variables 159 B) Visualising the chronology of the variations in the variables 160 C) Accept or reject the causal relations 160 6.5.3 Refexive evaluation by dialogue sources 163 A) Identify the optimal dialogue sources 163 B) Getting dialogue sources to evaluate the explanation 163 References 165 7 The strategy for convincing issue frames Chapter aims 168 Learning outcome 168 7.1 Introduction 168 7.2 Theories of convincing 171 7.2.1 Rhetorical theory 171 7.2.2 Narrative theory 172 7.3 Promotion of trust 173 7.3.1 Ethos appeal 174 7.3.2 Ethos model 174 7.3.2.1 Expertise 175 7.3.2.2 Character 175 7.3.2.3 Empathy 176 7.4 Promotion of comprehension 177 7.4.1 Explorative storytelling model 7.4.2 Modality 181 7.5 Promotion of engagement 183 7.5.1 Narrative whole 183

177

168

x

Contents

7.6 Analytical storyline model of analytical journalism 184 7.7 Practical guidelines for the rhetorical strategy 185 7.7.1 Explorative storytelling model 185 A) Journalist’s observation and the why question 186 B) Expert testimony 186 C) Journalist’s inference 186 D) Data of evidence 186 E) Commenting sources 186 7.7.2 Modality tables 189 A) Modality of language 189 B) Infuence of sources on modality 189 7.7.3 Analytical storyline model 190 A) Construct ‘explorative storytelling’ sections 190 B) Construct a ‘narrative whole’ 190 C) Construct an analytical journalistic identity 190 7.7.4 Ethos model 193 A) Consume the product as an audience 193 B) Identify crucial ethos elements 193 C) Account for elements of the ethos model 193 References 193 8 Guidelines, best practice criteria and learning tools

196

8.1 Exam assignment 197 8.2 Meta-report and guidelines 197 8.2.1 Deliberative part of the meta-report 198 8.2.2 Explanatory part of the meta-report 198 8.2.3 The rhetorical part of the meta-report 198 8.2.4 Source and reference list 199 8.2.5 The table of content for the meta-report 199 8.3 Assessment template 199 8.4 Course exercises and assignments for students 199 8.4.1 The discipline of analytical journalism 202 8.4.2 The analytical journalism approach 202 8.4.3 The strategy for selecting phenomena 203 8.4.4 The strategy for mapping issue frames 203 8.4.5 The strategy for generating hypotheses 204 8.4.6 The strategy for justifying hypotheses 204 8.4.7 The strategy for convincing stories 205 Index

207

1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter aims ● ● ●

To explain why this book is needed. To make journalism science-based in both content and method. To rethink the contribution of journalism in an age of scientifc discoveries that permeate everyday life.

Learning outcomes At the end of this chapter, readers should know: ● ● ●

How journalism can proft from all the scientifc knowledge now available. How journalism can climb the ladder of cognition. How a plurality of explanations represent the best obtainable version of the truth.

1.1 Introduction This book is about journalism that helps people navigate in a complex world. It is journalism that provides insight into the mechanisms that drive society and infuence people. This kind of knowledge is important for deliberation, making decisions and planning action. According to journalism studies, current journalistic practice could do more to improve its contribution to the public’s understanding of the complexity of a range of issues. The idea behind this book is to explain and promote a form of journalism that improves its contribution to the publicly shared knowledge of current issues based on timely, in-depth explanations of

DOI: 10.4324/9781003300977-1

2

Introduction

present phenomena. The general public is arguably better served by knowing more rather than less about the causal factors impacting their everyday lives, their communities and the crucial issues they face. Journalism of this type focuses on causal factors of which the general public is not aware. It deliberately qualifes public knowledge by adding information about overlooked or omitted causal factors. The task at hand is to highlight uncommon causes of current phenomena of journalistic interest that are not obvious or trivial. This kind of journalism complements other forms, such as conventional news, investigative or data journalism. The book introduces a new term, ‘analytical journalism’, for this kind of work because it encompasses aims, norms, meta-theory and methodology not clarifed in standard practice or in the literature on journalism. In analytical journalism, the journalist becomes the actual producer of causal explanations for current phenomena of journalistic interest based on systematic research specifcally designed to generate credible explanations. To produce causal explanations of complex social afairs is usually the domain of the social scientist. However, publications by academics are stored in databases not used by the general public, and, even more importantly, it takes years to publish their fndings due to the lengthy procedures involved in scientifc research and publication. These delays mean that considerable time can pass before scientifc explanations are available for topical phenomena. The content of the ‘public knowledge base’ – basically, what we know and believe – provides us with a measure of our shared knowledge in the light of the problems we face in our lives. The ideal of a well-functioning public sphere provides all the knowledge needed to reason and debate the issues that face us on all levels: from the food we eat to the meaning of our dreams. This is a rationale for informed decisions and solutions not only in the political sphere but also in daily life. Journalism envisions the public sphere as a place where we, as communities, engage in arguments, discussions and decisions which end up shaping our ‘general knowledge’, including the assumptions that allow us to share information and knowledge and to create and change our points of view. An impressive body of research has shown that the framing of an issue (that is, highlighting some characteristics of an issue or context instead of others) afects public attitudes (Aarøe 2011). Empirical research connects media coverage with attitudes and decision-making. Happer and Philo (2013) show a relationship between negative media coverage of people on disability benefts and attitudes hardening towards them, for example. In the modern era, at least since the eighteenth century, journalism has developed in tandem with other intellectual specialities (Ward 2018) and has been one of the most important contributors to the publicly shared base of information and knowledge of current issues (Ekström 2002). Journalism’s function in the broader intellectual division of labour is to inform the public about current afairs and issues as they unfold, which has been labelled the

Introduction

3

‘critical information need of our communities’ (Friedland et al. 2012; Napoli et al. 2016). This book claims that science-based causal explanations for current issues constitute critical information in the context of deliberations in both the private and public spheres. However, according to journalism studies, journalism is not working properly when it comes to sharing insights into the more complex dynamics of reality. A study by Garnier et al. (2019) indicates that UK newspapers of varying qualities and diferent political inclinations, over a period of three decades, have systematically highlighted some explanations and left out others in their coverage of the production of chicken meat. The coverage has failed to highlight the diversity of causes behind the reality of chicken-meat production. It has not provided coherent frameworks of interpretation to help people comprehend the complexity of the process. Svith et al. (2017) found that local news media (i.e., newspapers, radio, television, weeklies, websites) in Denmark have been undersupplied with causal explanations related to current local phenomena. Reality is portrayed in an episodic, unconnected and random way. Remler et al. (2014) state that the biggest faws of journalism are how little it engages with complexity and how often it oversimplifes, a tendency exacerbated as the world grows more multidimensional and the resources of many news organisations shrink. (Chapter 3 includes a more in-depth literature review concerning explanatory journalism). At present, the public knowledge base about current afairs is, therefore, far from providing an optimal foundation for ongoing deliberations. These limitations may not be self-evident but are generally accepted as a natural feature of how information is supplied and consumed. According to Gutmann and Thompson (2004, 6), understanding and decision-making processes are as imperfect in politics as they are in much of everyday life. In the digital production of analytical journalism, the explanatory depth and nuances come from massive databases and published scientifc research available to journalists. These online databases constitute vast pools of ideas, which the journalist can use to explain topical phenomena in a far timelier fashion than scientifc publications. This is a science-powered form of journalism that systematically examines how explanatory theories from scientifc studies may explain new current issues. The analytical journalist applies scientifc explanations to new phenomena and uses current data to test their truth. It is a form of systematic research using verifcation methods from the social sciences tailored to the needs of journalism. Analytical journalism is not in competition with academic disciplines such as the social sciences or history because the aims are diferent. The cases studied by analytical journalists can be ordinary and studied in their own right with no intention to generalise beyond the case at hand or develop theory as the sciences do. They are individual cases to which the journalist adds causes to the general public knowledge without seeking a more complete account of all of the potential causes for the phenomena of interest as the sciences. The target audience for analytical journalism is the general public and not specialised

4

Introduction

academic communities, which implies a diferent kind of originality. Analytical journalism is less demanding than science but it fulfls the general public’s need for science-based knowledge about topical phenomena. This book provides a knowledge base and tools for analytical journalism. It expands the classical journalistic methods of fnding, creating and verifying causal explanations. Analytical journalism specialises in utilising the large, online releases of scientifc knowledge through databases available to journalists on the Internet. It is a form of digital news production that responds to digitalisation by suggesting a theoretical turn in journalism that utilises causal relationships accepted by academic communities. Analytical journalism combines available scientifc studies with its own research in the case at hand, following appropriate rules of evidence to present knowledge of complex realities to the general public. This is something not done enough by journalists at present and not elaborated upon in the literature on journalism. It is journalism with a diferent take on news value, systematic forms of causal explanation and the logic of evidence than other journalistic disciplines. Analytical journalists are well served by theoretical perspectives that capture the causes and efects of the real world and a methodology that processes causal explanations of current observations in which they have an interest. In other words, analytical journalism is science-based in a double sense. Causal explanations for current phenomena come from scientifc studies and the methods for validating these explanations come from the social sciences. This is not ‘old wine in new bottles’. It is new journalistic knowledge and skills that go beyond the dissemination of science or academic experts’ assessments of current issues. Causal explanation: an account of causes that increases the probability of a phenomenon.

Analytical journalism addresses the representations of what creates, generates or makes the present look the way it does. It consists of insights into the very complex reality of forces operating on diferent levels, which is crucial because it shapes our ‘common sense’ and the way we live our lives. Analytical journalism builds upon the common assumption in the social sciences that virtually any phenomenon has multiple causes. That includes more or less pertinent causal structures and contingent causal factors, such as people’s strategies, leadership and decisions (Gerring 2010). A plurality of explanations of a phenomenon involves creating a more adequate portrait of reality than one based on a single (or a few) causal explanations. Analytical journalism is guided by the conviction that a wide repertoire of causes for a given phenomenon constitutes a better knowledge base for arguments and decisions than a narrow one. Making multiple causal explanations available to audiences enhances their refections and discussions. The quality of the public knowledge base is determined by the

Introduction

5

presence or absence of a plurality of causal explanations of current phenomena. Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein famously said that ‘good reporting is the best obtainable version of the truth’. Good analytical journalism, this book similarly contends, provides a verifed explanation that increases the plurality of explanations overall and, in that way, ofers the best obtainable version of ‘the truth’. This statement is based upon the approach to analytical journalism expanded on in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 outlines the fundamentals of analytical journalism by presenting the approach with a full scale of epistemological levels, which are the level of meta-theory that embraces ideas of reality and ways to explore it, the level of methodology with various inference strategies and the level of methods of exploration and justifcation. The approach represents a mindset that will be valuable in diferent felds and genres of journalism. It adds a much-needed abstraction to the crucial, practical knowledge base of the profession. Chapter 2 addresses potential scepticism towards practising analytical journalism in various media industries. It discusses the cons of analytical journalism and argues for its applicability, in total or in part, in a changing news media industry. The chapter points out diferences between analytical journalism and other kinds of journalism to clarify what to expect from the analytical discipline. The main reason for proposing analytical journalism as a particular and necessary discipline is that the public would be better served by journalism that covers a wider diversity of causes related to current phenomena. The point is that journalism can provide explanations of current afairs in a far timelier manner than, for example, the humanities and the social sciences (Nielsen 2017). Analytical journalism ofers the general public science-based knowledge about topical issues.

1.2 The discipline of analytical journalism Analytical journalism is concerned with producing timely, trustworthy and indepth causal explanations of current phenomena for the general public. The short defnition would be ‘journalism that purposely goes beyond typical explanations of a topical phenomenon by applying and testing scientifc explanations in order to ofer a trustworthy, divergent framing of the issue’. It requires specifc knowledge and skills. As a discipline, it helps journalists to ‘think outside the box’ in terms of common sense and news discourses. It does this by drawing upon the various causal explanations found in scientifc studies. ‘Common sense’ is, in fact, a weak foundation for explaining complex matters because people rarely – if ever – have the full knowledge of the causal factors (Wackerhausen 2004). Analytical journalism combines the old values of the profession (such as public service, autonomy and trustworthiness) with journalism as an intellectual enterprise capable of contributing valuable causal explanations about current problems and issues of public concern.

6

Introduction

Analytical journalism encompasses two professional roles: ●

●

The ‘deliberative role’, which makes the journalist highlight overlooked causes to current phenomena. The ‘inferential role’, which makes the journalist create knowledge about the relations between causes and an observed current phenomenon.

These two roles set the normative direction for analytic journalism. They give the work of analytical journalists an ideal orientation towards producing causal explanations themselves that improves the public knowledge base. The following brief introduction to these two roles shows that they are based on diferent aims and research strategies but supplement each other in the overall practice of good analytical journalism. Professional role: this is the social function of people with a particular occupation.

1.2.1 The deliberative role The deliberative role in analytical journalism is to discover and fll explanatory gaps in the public knowledge base about causes of topical issues that have been overlooked. The idea of ‘the deliberative role’ is derived from the theory of deliberative democracy (Habermas 2010/1964), which posits that political decisions to serve the public good need to be the product of fair and reasonable discussion and debate. Analytical journalism is not concerned with the theory’s aim of consensus and mutually acceptable reasons, which seems to be beyond the power of journalism to engender. Instead, it focuses on the kind of knowledge essential to refection and discussion. The deliberative role of analytical journalism involves providing explanations that will aid in the general understanding of the causes of recent events at various dimensions of political, economic, cultural and daily life. This puts analytical journalists in a favourable position because no other discipline, profession, group or institution has as its core concern the quality of shared public knowledge about current issues at the level of causal explanation. Deliberative role: in analytical journalism, the journalist adds issue frames with causal explanations absent or rare in the public knowledge base about current issues.

The deliberative role of analytical journalism applies three strategies: a selection strategy to choose relevant phenomena for causal explanation; an inductive one,

Introduction

7

The deliberative role The selection strategy to chose a phenomenon FIGURE 1.1

The inductive strategy to map existing issue frames

The rhetorical strategy to add a convincing new issue frame

The three strategies of the deliberative role

which is used to map existing explanatory media frames; and a rhetorical one to convince the audience to include the journalist’s divergent issue frame in their considerations and discussions (Figure 1.1). ●

●

●

The selection strategy focuses on choosing a topical phenomenon for which causal explanations for its emergence or its changes appear to be lacking. The phenomenon must be of public interest and relevant to analytical journalists. A novel causal explanation for them must also be newsworthy in the minds of the target audience. The observed phenomenon is not the subject of analytical journalism in itself. The subject is the case of which the phenomenon is a part and the highlighted causes are another part. The phenomenon will be local (the antonym of the universal) and restricted in time and space – and most often characterised by qualitative or quantitative changes in appearance. Such phenomena may be observed in the news or in reports from public authorities or non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This initial observed phenomenon is in the subsequent phases of analytical journalism conceptualised as a single outcome or in other words as a variable. The practical guidelines for the selection strategy are outlined in Chapter 3. The inductive strategy focuses on providing an overview of the causal explanations in the media coverage of the phenomena of interest to the analytical journalist. This overview gives an impression of the explanations already covered and with which an audience may be familiar. This is part of the knowledge base for current issues. It makes clear when a new causal explanation is a supplement to existing coverage. The inductive strategy makes the analytical journalist confdent that her story adds to the existing explanatory repertoire contained within the public knowledge base. The mapping of causal explanations in existing coverage underscores the news value of a story based on a divergent explanatory frame. This strategy is elaborated upon in Chapter 4. The point of the rhetorical strategy is to get the public to take the analytical journalist’s explanation seriously. This is achieved by the journalist appearing credible, the explanation being reasonable and well founded and the audience being able to empathise with the explanation. The analytical journalist appears with expertise, authority and a prominent voice committed to explaining the causes of recent phenomena. The journalist appears responsible for the causal claims, which difer from the practice of attributing every piece of information to sources (e.g., Kovach and Rosenstiel 2001; Hunter et al. 2011). The rhetorical strategy is outlined in Chapter 7.

8

Introduction

1.2.2 The inferential role The inferential role in analytic journalism is about creating the causal explanations needed for the deliberative role. The word ‘creating’ is meant literally. It is the analytical journalist who generates the explanation in a cognitive process of reasoning based on the information they obtain. This mental process is captured by the concept of ‘inference’: it expresses something new based on what is already known. The term ‘inference’ is used in a more specifc sense than is usual for the term ‘interpretation’ (e.g., Steensen et al. 2022). Inference: a statement about the unknown based on the known.

A causal explanation does not automatically come with a phenomenon or its description. Someone must perceive the phenomenon as an outcome and then connect it with one or more causes. The task is to formulate a causal relationship between otherwise separate factors. In journalism, this is done either by journalists themselves or their sources. This makes for two diferent journalistic roles: the inferential and the referential. These build on two quite unlike mental processes. From the more simple referring processes of remembering and understanding to the more complex inferring processes of analysing and creating, which are diferent steps on the ladder of cognition known as Bloom’s taxonomy (https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/ blooms-taxonomy/). An inferred explanation requires the journalist to make novel connections between the phenomenon concerned and other phenomena as causes. A referred explanation, on the other hand, requires journalists to report (quote or copy/paste) an already stated explanation. The inferential role positions analytical journalists as knowledge creators – along with other human explainers in the public sphere, such as scientists, politicians or the general public – instead of as an intermediary between such explainers and an audience. The inferential role is in line with Ettema (2007), who argues that journalism must itself be constituted by reasoning. Hence, journalists should aggressively pursue, rigorously test and compellingly render reasons that advances the deliberative democracy. Inferential role: in analytical journalism, the journalist creates causal explanations of current phenomena based on scientifc studies and empirical data.

The inferential role applies two strategies – one is to identify ideas, and the other is to confrm those ideas. These are the abductive strategy and the deductive strategy (see Figure 1.2). The abductive strategy focuses on generating ideas creatively, from scientifc research through to explanations of current issues not mentioned

Introduction

9

The inferential role The abductive strategy to generate a plausible explanatory hypothesis FIGURE 1.2

The deductive strategy to justify the causal hypothesis in the case concerned

The two strategies of the inferential role

in existing coverage. The deductive strategy concentrates on testing the validity of explanations in the case concerned. ●

●

The abductive strategy is creative. It begins with a phenomenon and ends with a causal hypothesis. This hypothesis consists of a plausible explanation of a topical phenomenon that has not yet been investigated. Crucial to this strategy is the journalist’s knowledge of causal relationships relevant to the phenomena of journalistic interest. To go beyond the explanations featured in the existing media coverage, the analytical journalist consults the theoretical knowledge about causal relationships in the wide corpus of scholarly work. Once knowledge is stored in publications and digital repositories, it is available for retrieval and use by the scientifc community – and by anyone else who has access (De Ridder 2020, 11). The ‘theorised’ data in published scientifc research is as vital to analytical journalism as ‘raw’ data is to data journalism. The abductive strategy suggests causal relationships which have initial plausibility because they have already been validated in the scientifc community. Such causal relationships may be unknown to the journalist or to common sense because the mass media difers from the academic public (Osrecki 2012). Science and common sense represent diferent ways of creating knowledge and diferent kinds of knowledge. Scientifc analyses presuppose concepts and categories that go beyond everyday knowledge. To develop social scientifc explanations, it is not enough simply to collect and repeat the interpretations and explanations that people themselves have of various social phenomena (Danermark et al. 2019). For instance, a surprising increase in poverty may prompt explanations from the individuals afected by it. Even so, these explanations may not include certain important factors beyond their purview, such as larger shifts in labour-market policy, regulations concerning competition and subsidies, relocation, the strength of unions and the proft ratios of particular companies. The experience, motives and intentions of the sources are often inadequate to provide a divergent explanation of an issue. The abductive strategy is elaborated upon in Chapter 5. The deductive strategy is confrmatory. It begins with a plausible causal hypothesis and ends with a confrmed causal explanation. The causal hypothesis is compared with data from the case concerned. To be confrmed, the data must either match the details of causes and outcome predicted by the hypothesis or changes in causes and outcome as predicted

10

Introduction

by the hypothesis. None of these methods requires a lot of data (compared to quantitative approaches, for example), and the data required can be obtained by traditional journalistic research. The analytical journalist may then add further justifcation by assessing the causal explanations provided by relevant academics, professionals and people experiencing the causal relationships involved. The deductive strategy is elaborated upon in Chapter 6. The fve strategies applied here fulfl the traditional journalistic aims of fnding a new angle, collecting information and presenting the result as a story. Together, the deliberative and inferential roles outline analytical journalism as a critical, creative and constructive discipline. ●

●

●

Critical in the sense that the analytical journalist perceives the dominant representations of reality in the media and ‘common sense’ as incomplete. Creative in the sense that the analytical journalist combines the general discourse around a particular phenomenon with propositions derived from scientifc knowledge. Constructive in the sense that the analytical journalist suggests new frames contribute to deliberations that, in some way, can advance how people organise their lives.

Analytical journalism aims at a journalistic product informed by theory and analytical tools that goes beyond most experience and tacit knowledge in the profession based on real-life situations and actions. A range of analytical tables, models and accounts of practice ensures that the systematic approach of analytical journalism consciously shapes the story. These analytical tools are indispensable to its deliberative news value and the evidence for the story. In the media industry, such analytical remedies may come about in an ad hoc, less formalised manner inspired by the analytical journalism mindset.

1.3 The phases of analytical journalism The normative roles of analytical journalism comprise processes of exploration, justifcation and dissemination. The entire process is illustrated in Figure 1.3 in three parts, which specify the deliberative role, the inferential role and their associated strategies with the fve phases of analytical journalism. The fve phases are: ● ● ● ● ●

Observing a phenomenon of journalistic interest. Mapping issue frames. Applying theory to a hypothesis. Justifying hypothesis. Adding divergent issue frames.

Introduction 

The deliberative role

The deliberative role

The selection strategy

1 Observing phenomenon

The roles

The strategies

The phases

FIGURE 1.3

11

The deliberative role

The inferential role

The inferential role

The inductive strategy

The abductive strategy

The deductive strategy

The rhetorical strategy

2 Mapping issue frames

3 Applying theory to hypothesis

4 Justifying hypothesis

5 Adding divergent issue frame

The roles, strategies and phases of analytical journalism

Each phase builds on the previous ones. Some of them make more intuitive sense, for example that a specific phenomenon must be selected before investigating how the media have covered it. It is less intuitive to complete a hypothesis before examining the case for which it is formulated, but it is a requirement of the validation logic used. Each phase is valuable in its own right and can be carried out in conjunction with other journalistic disciplines. The book describes each of the five phases in a separate chapter.

1.3.1 The first phase of observing phenomena The first phase of analytical journalism concerns the phenomenon about which we want to know more. It looks at events, developments and news with causal explanations in mind. These explanations are more like mysteries than puzzles. Puzzles can be solved; they have answers. But a mystery offers no such comfort. It poses a question to which there is no definitive answer because the answer is contingent (Treverton 2007). That is, it depends upon the interactions of many factors, both known and unknown. A mystery can only be framed by identifying the critical factors and by applying some sense of how they have interacted in the past and how they might interact in the future. A mystery is an attempt to define ambiguities. This distinction is taken into journalistic practice by Malcolm Gladwell (2010/2007). He labels Watergate a classic puzzle: the journalists Woodward and Bernstein were searching for a buried secret involving cover-ups, whistle-blowers, secret tapes and exposés as the principal elements of the puzzle. Gladwell labels the bankruptcy of the leading American company Enron in 2001 a mystery where there was too much information, not too little. That requires judgment and assessments of uncertainty. In-depth explanations of current phenomena have more in common with mysteries than puzzles. Three

12

Introduction

examples of initial observations made by analytical journalism students in spring 2019 illustrate this: ●

●

●

France, after 50 years, is only now beginning to return African art stolen by colonists and currently kept in French museums. The Ukrainians elected a comedian in the frst round of their presidential elections. People ghost each other on dating apps.

These phenomena are facts about which there is little doubt or can be proven to exist. What appears much more mysterious are the causes of these phenomena: the return of the art, the election of a comedian and the ghosting of other people. Many news media focus on causal explanations, some collect them on dedicated web pages (accessed October 2022), e.g. ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

The Economist: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/ The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/pass-notes BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/reality_check Vox – Understanding the News: https://www.vox.com/explainers or as videos: https://www.vox.com/videos The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/section/upshot Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/explainers Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/

The purpose of these news media resembles analytical journalism, i.e. to delve deeper than conventional journalism by focusing on ‘why’ instead of the what, were, when and who, and often with a causal perspective and thereby helping the audience navigate the complex realities of today. This objective can be achieved by various methods and the media may use diferent methods than the analytical journalist.

1.3.2 The second phase of mapping ‘issue frames’ The second phase is about fnding out what the audience knows about the causes of the chosen phenomenon. Unable to ask the audience, the journalist instead looks at how the news media and/or social media have explained it. The journalist follows the inductive strategy to organise the most current and common explanations in the public knowledge base (mass media and or social media) in order to establish an overview. This is created by a map of ‘issue frames’ which encompasses a problem’s causes, remedies and moral judgments (Entman 1993). ‘Issue frame’: in analytical journalism, this is a specifc way of highlighting some causal features of reality at the expense of others.

Introduction

13

Journalists do not usually have such a map of issue frames of a particular phenomenon. Often, common explanations will be repeated or assumed in various stories about the phenomenon in question. This frst level of analysis tells us how diferent ‘frames’ represent the phenomenon within the public knowledge base about current issues. The map tells the journalist where not to go if the aim is to explore causes other than those already known by the public.

1.3.3 The third phase of applying theory to hypotheses The third phase is about identifying ideas about the causes of the selected phenomenon that are not found in the media during the previous phase. The journalist follows the creative, abductive strategy, which looks for possible answers to the causes of the phenomenon. These causes may not be the most obvious to journalists or the general public, so analytical journalists can seek inspiration in the vast pool of causal explanations available in academic databases. These databases contain not explanations for current phenomena because of the time it takes to conduct scientifc research and publish the results, but they may contain explanations of similar phenomena. This second level of analysis involves causes from diferent dimensions (e.g. economics, politics, culture, health and climate) and at diferent levels (e.g. society, organisations and individuals). The analytical journalist uses these causes to generate a hypothesis that is plausible but still not evidence-based.

1.3.4 The fourth phase of justifying hypotheses The fourth phase is about investigating the truth of the hypothesis generated in the previous phase. The analytical journalist follows the deductive strategy to justify the causal hypothesis beyond doubt. They look for concrete evidence of the causal hypothesis. Analytical journalism, with its test of a detailed causal hypothesis, is more stringent in a scientifc sense than conventional journalism. The data must show what is predicted by the hypothesis for it to be confrmatory. Otherwise, the hypothesis does not explain the case. This third level of analysis involves data from various domains of reality, which can be collected using traditional reporting methods, such as interviews and database searches. In addition to the specifc data on the causes of the hypothesis, the journalist can add assessments from academics, professionals and people with experience of the causal relationships.

1.3.5 The ffth phase of adding divergent issue frames The fnal phase of analytical journalism is to add an issue frame containing the causal explanation to the existing media coverage in order to infuence – extend or modify – the public’s current understanding of a specifc aspect of reality. This involves transferring the causal explanation to the audience. The journalist

14

Introduction

follows the rhetorical strategy to produce products that contain causal explanations the audience will fnd credible. The storytelling techniques, rhetorical devices and evidence used depend on the audience, the publishing platform and format. The story may highlight the divergence between the used issue frame and the existing coverage, the journalist’s inferences based on testimonies from the scientifc theories, the current empirical evidence and human subjects. This will make the story credible, vivid and engaging, build trust and contribute to future discussions and planning. It presents an issue frame that unavoidably favours something or someone, but the divergence of this frame makes the coverage fairer overall. By doing this, analytical journalism moves the basis for the conversation and makes intellectual movement possible for the individual consumer. Analytical journalism adheres to the ideal of ‘epistemic insight’ (insight into the complexity of reality) in relation to public knowledge about current phenomena. It does this instead of upholding the ‘objectivity’ of Western journalism. Compliance with these ideals is measured and regarded diferently. Conventional objectivity includes presenting opposing views in a fair and adequate account of reality in a journalistic product. Epistemic insight focuses instead on the representation of an issue in its discursive context: extending the public representation of current phenomena and the adequate justifcation of the causal relations behind it. Compliance with these two norms is impeded by diferent attitudes to facts: the ‘objectivity norm’ of letting facts speak for themselves (Post 2015) and the epistemic insight norm of relating facts to context as causes or outcomes. Presenting diferent agents’ contradictory explanations lets the audience decide who to believe (the norm of objectivity), while one-sided uncommon causal explanations challenge the audience’s knowledge base (the norm of epistemic insight). Promoting divergent explanations about issues is not simply a matter of being contrarian. Rather, it is about the disruption of previous certainties in order to encourage refection ahead of public processes of deliberation (Goodin and Niemeyer 2003) to generate discussion among the general public.

1.4 An example of analytical journalism The fve phases of analytical journalism are illustrated below in an example looking at what causes people to participate in a large religious gathering, despite the threat of terrorism. This example, and most other examples in this book, comes from analytical journalism students in situations where the aim, the research process and the journalistic product are known to the author. In the media industry, accounts of the relationship between process and product are seldom published. This blurs the relationship between product and process. These examples from students all adhere to the analytical approach and display its diferent strategies across a broad spectrum of issues and theories. The specifc example concerns the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos. It is displayed in three tables, with the students’ writing in italics.

Introduction

15

Table 1.1 illustrates the fve phases of analytical journalism. This content comes from the student’s meta-report. The meta-report accounts for the fve phases of analytical journalism. Teaching or learning analytical journalism demands a more stringent integration between this mindset and journalistic production. This book recommends collecting these analytical tools in a meta-report (see Chapter 8) in order to improve learning and retention. This is not intended for a general audience but is part of an assignment to be evaluated in terms of its individual parts, the links between those parts and the links between the meta-report and the journalistic product. The meta-report is a structured and formalised account of the research: one that is necessary to produce analytical stories and which accounts for the methods and evidence used in analytical journalism. The meta-report accounts for the deliberative and inferential methods used to create the story. All parts of the meta-report relate directly to the journalistic product and are either used directly or in a moderated form. This is illustrated by the example in Tables 1.1–1.3. Tables 1.2 and 1.3 contain elements from the story showing the deliberative and inferential role of analytical journalism. To provide an overview, Table 1.2 illustrates the student’s deliberative role, while Table 1.3 illustrates the student’s inferential role. The contents of Table 1.2 and Table 1.3 are derived from the journalistic story targeting an international audience. Together, the three tables show the links between the phases of analytical journalism or between the research process and the journalistic product. The student then wrote the story ‘Bomb-defying faith’. It followed the ‘analytical storyline model’ (see Chapter 7 for this model), which has a promise section that expresses the deliberative role of the journalist. The promise section displays the three deliberative story elements: the relevance of the issue, the why-question (for details, see the guideline for Phase 1 in Chapter 3) and the dominating issue frames (for details, see Chapter 4). The promise section is the ffth paragraph of the story ‘Bomb-defying faith’ (https://munduscollection .wixsite.com/emj2021/bomb-defying-faith). The middle of a story follows ‘the explorative storytelling model’. The section lived religion illustrates the student’s inferential role. It uses expert testimonials about general knowledge and knowledge of similar phenomena, the student’s inference, evidence from the actual case and an acceptance of the causal relation by an expert (Table 1.3). The student uses ‘explorative storytelling’ (elaborated in Chapter 7), which starts with the phenomenon of journalistic interest, then a summary of a causal explanation from scientifc studies published prior to the phenomenon (an expert testimony). The student then claims that the causal explanation is valid for the student’s case (the student’s inference) and continues with data that proves this explanation. And fnally adds comments from sources that evaluate the student’s explanation. The example exemplifes ‘epistemic insight’ into complex matters such as lived religion by using scientifc studies concerned with similar phenomena. Following the fve phases of analytical journalism helps the journalist to meet

16

Introduction

TABLE 1.1 Analytical journalism research on the bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics

in physical crowds (Macaraig 2020). The student starts with an explanatory focus on an observation: The January 9 Black Nazarene feast in the Philippines draws millions in to venerate a life-size statue of Jesus in one of the world’s biggest annual religious gatherings. The devotee’s attendance doubled in 2020, despite authorities and foreign embassies in recent years warning of terror attacks. What explains the fact that Nazarene devotees insist on being part of such high-density crowds? Then, the student followed the inductive strategy and mapped causal explanations of this religious event in terms of the public knowledge base of the Philippines. The dominating explanatory frames (see Chapter 4 for details) are: The Philippian media ofered four explanations: attendees believe the statue is miraculous, they display religious fervour, they ask forgiveness or they identify with Christ’s sufering. Next, using knowledge of the dominant explanations in the Philippine media, the student followed an abductive strategy and searched for studies explaining the phenomenon of large religious gatherings. She used Google Scholar, scientifc databases at the library and the references from the initial studies she found in order to look for more studies. She then adapted three studies (see Chapter 5 for her justifcation of these theories): The frst is an empirical study of pilgrims at the Holy Mosque, Mecca, during the 2012 Haji. This concluded that identifcation with the crowd diminishes or even reverses the negative efect of crowd density on safety. The higher the crowd density, the safer pilgrims feel, so they participate in religious gatherings despite threats because they expect others to help them in times of danger (Alnabulsi and Drury, 2014). The second study explains that religious identity is based on a daily lived religion in relation to practical concerns like healing within a local context; and that embodiment is essential for spirituality, leading to throngs at religious events (McGuire, 2008). The third study explains that Mayans’ pilgrimage to Guatemala’s Black Christ January 15 feast is linked to Mayan daily religious life, as embodied and infuenced by Mayan cosmology (Kapusta, 2016). From these three studies, the student infers an explanatory hypothesis: the Nazarene devotion stems from ordinary people’s daily concerns in the Philippine context. Embodiment is part of spirituality, leading devotees to form huge crowds during the procession. Social identifcation moderates the negative efect of crowd density on safety. Thus, devotees participate in the feast. The expected divergence of the academic theories selected was confrmed by a control search in the public knowledge base of the Philippines. Keywords: Philippines Nazarene lived religion; Philippines Nazarene social identifcation Results: Not Present, Novel Next, the student followed the deductive strategy in order to test the validity of her causal hypothesis. The studies she consulted allowed her to detail the causal variables she expected to fnd if her hypothesis was to prove valid (see Chapter 6 for further details of her justifcation). The validation method of similarity between cases shows enough similarity between the data from the scientifc studies of the celebrations of Guatemala’s Black Christ and Saudi Arabia’s Hajj on fve primary factors (the desire to practise lived religion, practicing embodied faith, crowd density, crowd identifcation, participants in the religious gathering) and empirical data from the current case of Philippine’s Black Nazarene. In addition, the student consulted experts in the subject in search of evaluative assessments, a process with the same function as peer review in scientifc research. Four relevant Philippine experts in the feld (three scholars from diferent universities and a book publishing journalist) evaluated the student’s causal explanation. These dialogue sources ‘confrmed’, ‘supported’, ‘backed up’ and ‘afrmed’ the causal hypothesis. Finally, the student follows the rhetorical strategy of applying knowledge-creating expertise to the journalistic product. The features of analytical journalism in this story are illustrated in Table 1.2 and Table 1.3.

Introduction

17

TABLE 1.2 The deliberative role in the story of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos

(Macaraig 2020). The relevance of the issue to the community and the government: The response bafed ofcials who had expected a lower attendance this year but saw it double to 3.3 million. Instead of keeping their distance, Nazarene followers scrambled for the statue. Some removed barriers, climbed over barbed-wired bridges and pushed against police. The central ‘why-question’ that pilots the research, and which is answered by the journalistic product, is: In the face of threats to life and limb, why do Nazarene devotees insist on physically participating in the feast? The dominating issue frames are mentioned briefy, thereby showing familiarity with this common piece of public knowledge: Observers often attribute this to a belief that the statue is miraculous, showing religious fervour, asking forgiveness or identifying with Christ’s sufering. To critics, it is pagan, fanatic, cultic worship. While some of these reasons are credible, one explanation hardly discussed unpacks devotees’ faith and psyche and could decode their death-defying practice.

the traditional journalistic goals of fnding a new angle, gathering information and presenting the research as a story. It is a slower kind of journalism, which does not compete on speed, because the speed of the news cycle infuences the form of knowledge that is prioritised. News tends to be delivered in bits of factual information and voices. Truth is almost reduced to accuracy of facts, fgures and quotes. Speed afects the opportunity for the journalists to provide diferent perspectives and possible explanations (Ekström and Westlund 2019). Instead, analytical journalism competes on explanatory depth and relies on the journalist displaying expertise in creating knowledge of current issues for a larger audience. Analytical journalists increase the public understanding of complexity in current reality by explaining topical issues in terms of causal relationships that have been proved to be valid in scientifc research on similar phenomena and which are tested against detailed data from the journalist’s case to avoid being merely speculative. Stories based on empirically justifed explanations ft the wider aim of journalism, which is to help the public navigate the complexity of reality.

1.5 The methods used in analytical journalism Analytical journalism aims to qualify public knowledge about topical issues. Analytical journalists employ fve strategies associated with the deliberative and inferential roles in order to achieve this normative goal. Each strategy consists of methods that follow specifc principles and criteria to achieve the ‘sub-goal’ of one of the phases in analytical journalism. The guiding principles, criteria and related methods for each of the fve phases are shown in Table 1.4.

18

Introduction

TABLE 1.3 The inferential role in the story of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos

(Macaraig 2020) The general expert testimony: What evades religious teachings and police concerns is captured in the sociological concept called lived religion. Meredith McGuire, a retired sociology professor at Trinity University in the USA, uses this to explain religion as practiced and experienced by ordinary people in their everyday lives. In her extensively cited and positively reviewed 2008 book, Lived Religion: Faith and Practice in Everyday Life, McGuire says the term refers to people’s actual experience of faith, which must make sense in daily life for practical concerns like healing, relationships and food … . The specifc expert testimony: One pilgrimage illustrating lived religion is the Mayan procession to Guatemala’s Black Christ. Anthropologist Jan Kapusta of the Czech Republic’s University of Hradec Králové did an ethnographic study of indigenous Mayans’ pilgrimage to the dark icon of Jesus on its annual 15 January feast. In his 2016 article in the top-ranked Anthropos journal, he found that for Mayans, including ordinary farmers, the pilgrimage was a plea for daily concerns like rain, harvest or health. Mayans practice faith through embodied experiences like touching the Black Christ … Kapusta concluded that such a worldview explains why the temple attracts over a million pilgrims annually. The student’s inference: Similarly, it is possible to conceive of the Nazarene devotion as lived religion. The evidence from the actual case that matches the scientifc case referred to above: Like Mayans, most devotees are ordinary people: the urban poor. First, they pray about pragmatic daily concerns. This is demonstrated by their Nazarene petitions, which Fr. Daniel Pilario, a theology professor at Manila’s Adamson University, says are mostly for relationships and cures. Second, to practice this faith, devotees perform physical rituals. Examples are mounting the carriage, touching and kissing the Nazarene and wiping towels on it, as listed in former Quiapo parish priest Jose Ignacio’s pastoral message. These may then be viewed as the devotees’ embodied faith leading them to form large crowds during the feast. As with Mayans and lived religion, local culture matters. Physicality is important to Filipinos, evidenced by their use of objects to connect with the divine since pre-colonial times, wrote Fr. Jannel Abogado, University of Santo Tomas theology professor, in a 2006 article in the top-tiered Philippiniana Sacra journal. The student’s inference is confrmed by two experts: Asked about relating lived religion to Nazarene devotees’ insistence on physically participating in the feast, Mark Calano, Ateneo de Manila University philosophy associate professor, confrms the connection. ‘The devotion to the Black Nazarene is an example of appropriated practice,’ said Calano, who researches Philippine religion. ‘It is as much Filipino as it is foreign. Because devotees interpret their everyday lives in relation to this devotion, you can say it is a lived religion’, he added in an interview. As for devotees’ faith being embodied and infuenced by local culture, University of the Philippines anthropology professor Nestor Castro supports the view. ‘It is traditionally believed that you cannot just possess an amulet without passing through tests to prove the worthiness of this magic. The same is true with prohibitions imposed by police. These are but tests’, said Castro, author of journal articles on Philippine culture. The student’s inference is exemplifed by a key person: Sanding, the devotee, epitomizes lived religion. The village councilman said his faith began when the Nazarene healed him of typhoid fever when he was 12, and until now, prayers for his family’s sustenance have been answered. When his friend Renato Guiron died of a heart ailment in the 2015 Traslacion, it inspired him to persist. ‘We won’t allow ourselves to be barred from the carriage [with the Black Nazarene icon]. This is the source of our strength’, he said. ‘You cannot dictate on devotees not to touch the image. They will get mad. They are like zombies who can only be calmed upon touching the Nazarene’.

Deliberative

Selection

Particularising

Public relevance

Journalistic scanning

Role

Strategy

Principle

Criteria

Methods

Phase 1 Observing phenomena

•

•

•

Collecting media examples Content analysis Issue frame table •

•

•

Science-based inference Causal model validation •

•

•

•

•

•

Similarity model Covariation model Refexive evaluation

Pattern matching Covariation Expert assessment

Verifcation

Hypothesising

Categorisation Public novelty Plausibility

Deductive

Abductive

Inductive

•

Inferential

Inferential

Deliberative

Representativeness

Phase 4 Justifying hypothesis

Phase 3 Applying theory to hypothesis

Phase 2 Mapping causal explanations

TABLE 1.4 The principles, criteria and methods of science-based explanatory practice

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Ethos model Explorative storytelling Modality tables Narrative whole Analytical storyline

Trust Comprehension Engagement

Convincing

Rhetorical

Deliberative

Phase 5 Adding divergent issue frame

Introduction 19

20 Introduction

The methods associated with each of the fve phases are outlined in Chapters 3 to 7. Each chapter presents a specifc theoretical framework, detailed methods and exemplifed guidelines for a phase of analytical journalism. Phase 1, which concerns the journalist’s selection of the phenomenon from a causal explanatory perspective, is elaborated at the end of Chapter 3. The chapter begins by establishing a theoretical framework for explaining causality in the social world. It clarifes some fundamentals in analytical journalism’s epistemology (theory of knowledge creation), drawing on the meta-theories of ‘critical realism’ (presented in Chapter 2), the multi-level approach and qualitative social science methods. Phenomena are standardised as independent, moderating and dependent variables. The layers of reality are standardised as four levels: mega, macro, meso and micro. A causal explanatory framework is a precondition for both the deliberative role and the inferential role in analytical journalism. It encompasses probability-based causality, empirically justifed variables and the display of multi-causality within a causal model. This causal mindset underpins the frst phase of observing a phenomenon, which in the mind of the analytical journalist deserves a causal explanation. The method used during the frst phase is called journalistic scanning, which covers one of the most common journalistic practices of looking for ideas for new stories, but analytical journalism does this from a causal perspective, because academics have expressed unfulflled normative expectations about explanatory journalism (see Chapter 3). The selection strategy consists of identifying easily distinguishable phenomena as per the principle of particularising, which means dealing with something precise, detailed and distinct defned as a unit with certain characteristics such as a politician’s communication skills or an organisation’s framing strategy, where it is of public relevance (criterion) to identify their causes. The chapter presents the guidelines for the frst phase of observing a phenomenon and making it the subject of causal explanation. Phase 2 is elaborated in Chapter 4 which is about creating an overview of the previous coverage of the selected phenomenon. In this phase, the analytical journalist maps causal explanations for the selected phenomenon in media coverage. It describes ‘framing theory’ and the concept of the ‘issue frame’ in order to understand the news and its impact on the audience. The chapter presents the inductive strategy, which consists of three methods: one is the collection of media examples that are representative of the media coverage of the phenomenon in the general public knowledge base. A second is content analysis, which identifes categories of issue frames in these examples. The third is flling in the issue frame table to create a map of media coverage. This practice of mapping issue frames is a prerequisite for claiming that an issue frame created by the analytical journalist is new. Phase 3 is elaborated in Chapter 5 which is about identifying explanations with causes overlooked so far by the media. In this phase, the analytical journalist applies scientifc causal explanations to a hypothesis concerning the case covered. It describes knowledge as ‘justifed true belief ’ and ‘inference’ as knowledge

Introduction

21

creation, paving the way for a knowledge-creating analytical journalist. The chapter presents the creative abductive strategy for generating a causal hypothesis, which consists of two methods: the frst is the science-based inference, which fnds and applies causal relationships from academic peer-reviewed publications to a causal hypothesis that is novel to the public according to the issue frame table created in Phase 2. The explanations, adapted from scientifc publications, will contribute to the public understanding of non-observable causes and complex relationships. In this phase, the academic databases and scientifc publications that include a range of causal explanations are explored. The hypothesis is illustrated by a causal model that specifes the causes and their relations to the observed phenomenon. The second method involves validating the causal model for inconsistencies to make the hypothesis plausible enough to be worthy of further investigation. Phase 4 is elaborated in Chapter 6 which is about making sure that the explanation is true. In this phase, the analytical journalist justifes the hypothesis from the previous phase. It describes three validation criteria derived from social science: matching causal patterns, covariation between variables and expert assessment. The chapter presents the deductive strategy that consists of three methods to verify the causal hypothesis. The frst method uses a similarity model to compare the details of each variable in the hypothetical causal model with data from the case that the journalist is investigating. The second method also uses the data in the case the journalist is investigating in a covariation model to compare the predicted occurrence of the variables or changes in the variables in the hypothetical causal model. The third method consists of interview with relevant academics to obtain their refexive evaluation of the causal explanation already confrmed by the data. These justifying methods employ a relatively limited volume of easily available data compared to the data used in data journalism or investigative journalism. Phase 5 is elaborated in Chapter 7 which is about convincing the audience to accept the causal explanation. In this phase, the analytical journalist adds a divergent issue frame to the public knowledge of current issues. The chapter uses rhetorical theory to describe the appeals to trust, comprehension and engagement used in order to convince an audience. The chapter presents the rhetorical strategy and the optimal goal of transferring the causal explanation to the audience. It consists of four methods. The frst is the ethos model, which seeks to depict the journalists as insightful, decent and audience oriented in the mind of the audience. The second is explorative storytelling, which seeks to improve the audience’s understanding of the causal explanation by allowing the audience to follow the journalist’s inferences by themselves. The third is modality tables, which seeks to give the audience a picture of journalistic expertise and authority. The fourth method is a narrative whole which involves what characters do in chronological sequences. The last method is the analytical storyline which combines the models of explorative storytelling and narrative whole with the creation of an analytical journalistic identity.

22

Introduction

1.6 The didactic principle of the book: Theory and practice This book comprises guidelines (norms and standards) for good analytical journalism and instructions on how to behave in specifc research situations. Readers will fnd that the methods are presented with a degree of formalisation and separated into analytical procedures. Formalisation serves the didactic purpose of explaining the aims and use of particular analytical procedures. It is about clarifying otherwise complicated chains of reasoning. In order to be explicit about otherwise implicit practices, the author has opted for a step-by-step guide. The aim is to present an outline for integrated practice in real-life analytical journalism. It is undoubtedly a challenge to make this immediately relevant to everyday journalists because analytical journalism is more challenging than pulling together quotes of sources and because it does not ft the paradigm of ‘frst and fast’ that dominates much of the news media. However, like all challenges, it holds out plenty of opportunities for those who know how to seize them. Chapters 3 to 7 are separated into a theoretical part and a practical part. Together these comprise the knowledge base of analytical journalism. The theory of any profession includes a distinction between two types of knowledge: theoretical (‘knowing that’) and practical (‘knowing how’). This distinction is common in the education and training in all professions, and they are often considered separately. Solkin (2020) calls it the standard model of journalism training. Sometimes that makes the process of integration challenging, assigning the theory to universities and the practice to professionals. This book seeks to build a bridge between theory and practice. Each chapter is illustrated by examples from Master’s students in our analytical journalism classes. The theoretical and practical components are closely connected, of course, because the theoretical and analytical concepts explored here need to be part of journalistic practice. The mindset and skillset required are correlated. So, the theoretical sections of this book consist of theories about society, professions and communication, which defne and clarify the foundation of the kind of analytical journalism proposed here. They make up a deliberative and inferential journalistic methodology. This includes instructive guidelines, concepts, specifcations, models, etc. This science-based practice closely links the analytic journalist with privileged knowledge rather than moral authority, as is common in American textbooks on journalism (Coatney 2022). The main point of this textbook is to provide a credible way to understand complicated issues in journalism, which is reminiscent of ‘knowledge-based journalism’ (Patterson 2013), ‘the new knowledge profession’ (Donsbach 2013), ‘wisdom journalism’ (Stephens 2014) and ‘slow journalism’ (Le Masurier 2016; Neveu 2016). This book difers from these approaches by its meta-theoretical background, methodology and stepby-step guidelines. It ofers a theoretical platform and practical strategies for the uses of selection, induction, abduction, deduction and rhetoric in science-based explanatory reporting. The platform is set out in Chapters 1 to 3, while Chapters 3 to 7 each covers one of the fve strategies.

Introduction

23

Chapter 8 brings together the guidelines for analytical journalism and provides practical advice about learning to be an analytical journalist. It includes exercises of diferent complexity for the discipline, approach and the fve phases relate to teaching analytical journalism to students. These exercises are arranged to ft a meta-report, in which the student accounts for their practice when following the fve strategies. The chapter includes a table of contents for the meta-report. The didactic function of the meta-report is to ensure that the various methodological steps are taken to achieve the objectives of the strategies. The chapter contains an exam assignment, which includes the meta-report and journalistic products, and an assessment template for grading the analytical journalism. This collection of practical tools for teaching and carrying out analytical journalism only makes sense in relation to the arguments about the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of analytical journalism set out in the previous chapters of the book. This book describes in detail analytical journalism as a science-based discipline aimed at improving knowledge of the causes of current events, situations and collective patterns of behaviour. The idea is to improve deliberation in the private and public spheres. The book provides working journalists and students with knowledge and skills to produce their own deliberative and explanatory stories in the diverse felds of people’s daily lives and on various matters of concern to wider society. It is informed by the personal experience of the author, Flemming Svith, who is used to working as a journalist practitioner and as a social scientist and lecturer in journalism.

References Aarøe, Lene. 2011. “Investigating Frame Strength: The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames.” Political Communication 28(2), 207–226. Coatney, Caryn. 2022. “‘New Forces’: How Classroom Textbooks Are Redefning Journalism.” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 1–13. Danermark, Berth, Mats Ekström and Jan Ch. Karlsson. 2019. Explaining Society. Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. New York: Routledge. De Ridder, Jeroen. 2020. “How Many Scientists Does It Take to Have Knowledge?” In What is Scientifc Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science, edited by Kevin McCain and Kostas Kampourakis, 3–17. New York: Routledge. Donsbach, Wolfgang. 2013. “Journalism as the New Knowledge Profession and Consequences for Journalism Education.” Journalism 15(6), 661–677. https://doi.org /10.1177/1464884913491347 Ekström, Mats. 2002. “Epistemologies of TV journalism. A theoretical framework.” Journalism 3(3), 259–282. Ekström, Mats and Oscar Westlund. 2019. “Epistemology and journalism.” In Oxford Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. Oxford University Press. Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing. Toward Clarifcation of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43–4, 51–58. Ettema, James S. 2007. “Journalism as Reason Giving: Deliberative Democracy, Institutional Accountability and the News Media’s Mission.” Political Communication 24(2), 143–160.

24

Introduction

Friedland, Lewis, Philip Napoli, Katherine Ognyanova, Carola Weil, and Ernst J. Wilson. 2012, July 16. Review of the Literature Regarding Critical Information Needs of the American Public. [FCC submission]. Retrieved from Federal Communication Commission website: http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/ocbo/Fin alLiteratureReview.pdf. Garnier, Marie, Margit van Wessel, Peter A. Tamás and Severine van Bommel. 2019. “The Chick Difusion: How Newspapers Fail to Meet Normative Expectations Regarding Their Democratic Role in Public Debate.” Journalism Studies. https://doi .org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1707705 Gerring, John, 2010. “Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But…” Comparative Political Studies 43, 1499–1526. Gladwell, Malcolm. 2010/2007. What the Dog Saw and Other Adventures. Penguin. Goodin, R.E. and Niemeyer, S.J. 2003. “When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Refection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 51, 627–49. Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press. Habermas, Jurgen. 2010/1964. “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article.” In The Idea of the Public Sphere. A Reader, edited by Jostein Gripsrud, Hallvard Moe, Anders Molander and Graham Murdock, 114–120. Lanham: Lexington Books. Happer, Catherine and Greg Philo (2013). “The Role of the Media in the Construction of Public Belief and Social Change.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology 1(1), 321–336. Hunter, Mark Lee, Nils Hanson, Rana Sabbagh, Luuk Sengers, Drew Sullivan, Flemming Tait Svith, and Pia Thordsen. 2011. Story-Based Inquiry: A Manual for Investigative Journalists. UNESCO. Kovach, Bill and Tom Rosenstiel. 2001. The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and The Public Should Expect, Committee of Concerned Journalists. Three Rivers Press. Le Masurier, Megan. 2016. “Slow Journalism. An Introduction to a New Research Paradigm.” Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1139902 Macaraig, Ayee. 2020. “Bomb-defying Faith. Why Filipino Catholics Insist on Physical Devotion.” In Student at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Napoli, Philip M., Sarah Stonbely, Kathleen McCollough, and Bryce Renninger. 2016. “Local Journalism and the Information needs of Local Communities.” Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1146625 Neveu, Erik. 2016. “On Not Going Too Fast with Slow Journalism.” Journalism Practice 10–4, 448–460. Nielsen, Rasmus Kleist. 2017. “Digital News as Forms of Knowledge: A New Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge.” In Remaking the News Essays on the Future of Journalism Scholarship in the Digital Age, edited by P. Boczkowski and C. W. Anderson, 91–110. MIT Press. Osrecki, Fran. 2012). “Diagnosing the Present: Towards a Sociology of Medialized Social Science.” In The Sciences’ Media Connection: Public Communication and its Repercussions, edited by Simone Rödder, Martina Franzen and Peter Weingart, 307–332. Springer. Patterson, Thomas E. 2013. Informing the News: The Need for Knowledge-based Reporting. Vintage Books.

Introduction

25

Post, Senja. 2015. “Scientifc Objectivity in Journalism? How Journalists and Academics Defne Objectivity, Assess Its Attainability, and Rate Its Desirability.” Journalism 16(6), 730–749. Remler, Dahlia K., Don J. Waisanen and Andrea Gabor. 2014. “Academic Journalism.” Journalism Studies 15(4), 357–373. Solkin, Laurence. 2020. “Journalism Education in the 21st Century: A Thematic Analysis of the research literature.” Journalism 23(2), 444–460. Steensen, Steen, Valerie Belair-Gagnon, Lucas Graves, Bente Kalsnes and Oscar Westlund. 2022. “Journalism and Source Criticism. Revised Approaches to Assessing Truth-Claims.” Journalism Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2022.2140446 Stephens, Mitchell. 2014. Beyond News. The Future of Journalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Svith, Flemming, Peter From Jacobsen, Steen K. Rasmussen, Jakob Linaa Jensen, and Helle Tougaard Andersen. 2017. Lokal- og regionalmediers indhold, rolle og betydning i lokalområder, Rapportering om mediernes udvikling i Danmark. København: Slots- og Kulturstyrelsen. Treverton, Gregory F. 2007. Risk and Riddles, https://www.rand.org/blog/2007/06/risks -and-riddles.html. Wackerhausen, Steen 2004. “Kausale felter, meta-antagelser og metodisk pluralisme. In Videnteori, professionsuddannelse og professionsforskning, edited by Niels Buur Hansen and Jørgen Gleerup, 31–50. Syddansk Universitetsforlag. Ward, Stephen J. A. 2018. “Epistemologies of Journalism.” In Journalism, edited by Tim P. Vos, 63–82. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

2 THE ANALYTICAL JOURNALISM APPROACH

Chapter aims ● ● ● ●

To outline a coherent understanding of reality and ways to explore it. To inspire a practice that applies a full scale of epistemological levels. To outline what makes analytical journalism distinctive. To propose analytical journalism as a realistic prospect in a changing news media industry.

Learning outcomes At the end of this chapter, readers should know that: ● ● ●

Analytical journalism is a mindset applicable in diferent felds and genres. Analytical journalism is embedded in ideas of reality and ways to explore it. Analytical journalism benefts from a more abstract level of knowledge.

2.1 Introduction This chapter clarifes some of the fundamentals of analytical journalism. It begins by presenting the approach used in analytical journalism, which includes a metatheory of what reality is and ways of exploring it, as well as strategies for extending the journalistic explanation of current phenomena of analytical journalistic interest and methods of exploration and justifcation based on validation and confrmation. The approach represents a distinct specialisation and mindset which can prove valuable in various felds and genres of journalism. It seeks coherence and rigour from initial observation to the fnal journalistic product. The strategies and methods commended here are geared towards explaining DOI: 10.4324/9781003300977-2

The analytical journalism approach

27

current phenomena in various felds by means of causes not commonly found in the public knowledge base about these phenomena. The chapter then separates analytical journalism from better-known types of journalism. The diferences between analytical journalism and other kinds of journalism described in the literature are pointed out. These comparisons do not attempt any assessment of the diferent kinds of journalism but attempt to clarify what to expect from the version of analytical journalism. The chapter then addresses potential scepticism about practising analytical journalism in various media industries under the subheadings: too time-consuming, too comprehensive, too complex and too unattainable. It argues that the approach is a realistic vision, either in total or in part, in a changing news media industry. Finally, the chapter argues that analytical journalism adds a much-needed level of abstraction to the vital knowledge base of the journalistic profession.

2.2 The approach used by analytical journalism The approach used by analytical journalism emphasises the ideal and possibility of causal explanation, the existence of diferent levels within society and the use of empirical data in validating causal explanations. These points do not make analytical journalism ‘scientifc’ in the strong sense of the word, but rather the metatheoretical framework opens up for a science-based practice that reuses scientifc research on causality and adjusted methods of social scientifc justifcation. The diference between analytical journalism and the social sciences is one of epistemic interest. Social science is driven by an interest in generalising its results to develop theories and participating in an ongoing conversation with other scientifc ideas and research. By contrast, analytical journalism is driven by an interest in particular phenomena and participation in general public deliberations. This section outlines the approach used by analytical journalism in terms of interdependent levels of theory and practice. ‘Metatheory’ consists of the taken-for-granted assumptions about reality and research. Taking this general framework into account, ‘methodology’ means strategies to discover and justify causal explanations. These strategies are detailed through more specifc methods used to analyse various phenomena and the causal relations between them. The metatheory, the aligned methodology and methods are briefy described in Figure 2.1.

2.2.1 The metatheoretical level The discipline of analytical journalism rests upon assumptions about reality, just like other kinds of journalism. A journalist’s explanation of the world is embedded in their understanding of the nature of reality and how to conduct research into it. This statement may sound obvious, but it covers diferences that are not trivial. There are various schools of thought within journalism. In the modern era, at least since the eighteenth century, journalism has developed

28 The analytical journalism approach

Metatheory Critical realism and the causal nature of social reality Methodology Strategies for inductive, abductive and deductive inference

Methods Tools for exploration, justification and convincing

FIGURE 2.1

The epistemological levels of analytical journalism

in tandem with other intellectual specialities and has been based on theories about reality and how we achieve knowledge of it. At the most general level, these approaches are compiled in what are known as metatheories. These ofer diferent accounts of reality and ways of achieving knowledge about it. When metatheories deal with the nature of reality, this is called ‘ontology’. The various ways of exploring reality are captured under the heading of ‘epistemology’ (Ekström and Westlund 2019). Metatheory: a theory that provides the conceptual perspective on the nature of the world (ontology) and on ways to explore it (epistemology).

Metatheories such as phenomenology, hermeneutics, positivism, interpretivism, social constructivism and critical realism have arisen – and continue to be discussed – outside journalism. Journalists do not generally refect upon metatheories and their consequences for the coverage of issues (Ward 2018). This section brings metatheoretical considerations to the centre stage for analytical journalism. This is necessary because such a theoretical framework provides clear reasons for choosing particular research strategies and methods. Regarding the explanation of the causes of current phenomena, our metatheory indicates what to regard as causes and how to detect them. Analytical journalism takes its clues mainly from the metatheory of critical realism (Danermark et al. 2019; Miles et al. 2011). Critical realism is a term that was coined by Roy Bhaskar (1979), partly as a reaction to positivism (the notion that all knowledge of facts is based

The analytical journalism approach

29

on the ‘positive’ data of experience) and partly against radical constructivism (the idea that all knowledge is constructed, rather than consisting of facts perceived through the senses). The analytical journalism metatheory sits between the extremes of subjectivism (with no external or objective truth) and objectivism (with a direct perception of the world). Our metatheory ofers a framework within which to understand causality and its explanation in social reality. It has two related sets of claims about reality (ontology) and about exploring reality (epistemology). Claims about the nature of reality (ontology) ● ●

●

●

Reality exists independently of human knowledge and experience. Reality is bound together by relatively stable material, biological and social structures. It is layered and conditioned by top-down infuences: from the international level (mega), the upper societal level (macro), groups and organisations at the middle level (meso), to the individuals at the lowest level (micro). Infuences from the bottom-up are less usual. Reality changes, partly due to people’s actions, which are conditioned but not determined by social structures. Phenomena are generated by a multitude of causes in the social world. The outcomes are contingent. They could have been diferent. People can, for various reasons, choose or be forced to choose other actions. Causality (cause and efect) is local (restricted in time and space), as opposed to universal. Phenomena may share causes in diferent settings but not necessarily.

According to the metatheory, events are neither accidental nor arbitrary. Instead, they are generated by a multitude of causes without any certainty concerning the result. The relationship between potential causes and their consequences are ‘contingent’, i.e., a possibility, but never determined in advance (Buch-Hansen and Nielsen 2005). Such uncertainty intuitively makes sense when it comes to predicting future events, such as the result of football matches, political elections and share prices. However, the same logic applies to past or present events. These are not arbitrary phenomena but the result of other phenomena in a material and social context. Individuals are less unique than they often believe themselves to be. This is because of the context of conventions, institutions and structures that are mostly invisible but nevertheless have a real infuence on human activities. Claims about gaining knowledge concerning reality (epistemology): ●

●

Reality does not speak for itself, but there is a fair chance of explaining it via human perception and reasoning. The ability to analyse, abstract, relate, infer and justify makes causal explanations fallible to a certain extent. A causal explanation goes beyond the immediate experiences of events in the world. The power of causes may be less visible than their outcomes. An

30 The analytical journalism approach

●

example: the regulatory power of social norms (e.g. courtesy) is difcult to observe, while the homogeneous behaviour of individuals (e.g. queuing) is more visible. Causes and their outcomes are conceptualised as variables. A variable is a single unit with attributes that can take on diferent values. An example: A journalism student’s (unit) motivation (attribute) is high (value). High student motivation is the outcome of causes personal to and external to the student.

The metatheoretical framework for analytical journalism is that reality exists independently of human perception and of our knowledge of it. Social reality encompasses events, human actions and networks of observable and invisible causal factors such as structures, institutions, norms and discourses. All of this lies behind the consciousness and intention of the individual. Regularities and sequences link together phenomena. These patterns underlie individual and collective social life. The fact that most causal relations are invisible to the human eye does not make them invalid. After all we are surrounded by lawful physical mechanisms of which we are, at most, remotely aware (Miles et al. 2011). Consider causes for educational performance, for example. Proximate causes are the school setting and the educational situation – such as the student’s personality, age, gender, peer group, teacher, curriculum and classroom size. Causes at a distance are those such as family, neighbourhood and fnancial situation. More remote causes are, for example, the particular educational tradition in religious, ethnic or socioeconomic groups, the educational system and the labour market. Educational performance is the result of multiple causes that work simultaneously or in continuation of each other in causal chains. Any change in student attitudes or environment may impact their performance. In principle, there is no limit to potential causes (Gerring 2012). Since causal chains are potentially infnite, a phenomenon may be explained diferently and without repudiation, based on the journalist’s selection of causal chains and where they start. There are always novel and unimagined ways in which causes at a distance may infuence a phenomenon through causal chains (Gerring 2010). Analytical journalism seeks to draw attention to additional causes which are less likely to be known by the general public.

2.2.2 The level of methodology In terms of methodology, analytical journalism belongs to case studies. A methodology is a set of ideas about how to go about achieving justifed knowledge involving diferent types of inference. The analytical journalism methodology has been developed as an exchange between social science and journalism. In this way, it adds to the methodology of journalism, which has not been explored in depth within journalism studies (Ahva 2017). The observations of interest to analytical journalism are defned by the goal of causal explanation and the resources of journalism. The phenomena observed have four features: it belongs

The analytical journalism approach

31

to natural setting, it is a single outcome, it belongs to a single case and it is the starting point of analytical journalism.

2.2.2.1 Phenomena appear in ‘natural’ settings Most phenomena of journalistic interest are contemporary real-life ones. These contrast with phenomena in researcher-controlled settings, such as experiments. The expectations of experiments are that they will produce identical outcomes caused by regularities. Natural settings are more complex with various causal factors. A structure may generate two identical phenomena but with diferent proximate causes. A proximal cause operates immediately on an outcome. Whereas a distal cause such as a structure has long-term efects.

2.2.2.2 Phenomena are ‘single outcomes’ The treatment of phenomena as ‘outcomes’ shifts the focus from the phenomena themselves to their relations with other phenomena. The outcome phenomena are the result of forces in their wider context. Furthermore, the notion of ‘single’ indicates that the phenomena are attributes of specifc units – such as a country, an organisation, a group or an individual. Consider that the French people’s alcohol consumption was 11.6 litres per person aged 15 years and older in 2018. This is a single outcome. The unit is the French people, the attribute is their alcohol consumption and the specifc value is the average of 11.6 litres per annum. The actual duration of an outcome may be short (eventful) or long (static). A revolution (e.g. the French Revolution) and a political culture (e.g. France’s political culture) are understood as single outcomes since they register distinct values in relation to a single unit (Gerring 2006). Since most observations of journalistic interest concern what happens in society, and because only people can act, the most units of single outcomes and their causes are individuals or people in various institutionalised, organised or non-interconnected groups. Assigning the attributes of people’s living conditions to units of people as carriers makes single outcomes concrete and informative, which enhances the relevance and news value of single outcomes. Explanations of single outcomes of analytical journalistic interest are of interest to people who live with these causal circumstances and the general public. These explanations raise the understanding of current reality to a higher level and are relevant from a practical perspective.

2.2.2.3 Phenomena are investigated in ‘single cases’ A ‘case’ consists of more than an outcome. A case includes the context of a phenomenon that is ‘bounded’ in some fashion by time and space. The duration of the observed phenomenon, and the perspective of the scientifc explanations employed to examine it, determines the scope of the case. The analytical journalist’s case consists of the observed phenomenon and its causes. A case’s limits in

32 The analytical journalism approach

time and space are determined by the causes pointed out by the scientifc explanations used by the analytical journalist. Virtually any event before the outcome that has any plausible causal connection to it might be invoked as an antecedent cause (Gerring 2005). The notion of ‘single’ underlines the purpose of explaining only the case with the observed phenomenon, even though the investigation may include other cases from scientifc publications. Analytical journalism has no interest in creating knowledge of other cases beyond the single case of interest. A single case difers conceptually from a single outcome. By way of illustration, consider the following observations, focused on contemporary alcohol consumption (measured as litres of alcohol per year): ● ● ●

The French people’s relatively high alcohol consumption. The alcohol consumption within OECD. The development in alcohol consumption by the French people.

Of these, only the frst phenomenon is a single outcome because the unit of ‘the French’ is understood to have achieved a single, relatively stable value in relation to this attribute. The observation implicitly compares alcohol consumption in diferent countries, but the observation focus is on the point score of the French. The second observation encompasses several outcomes, one for each OECD country. For the second observation to be a single outcome, a value is attributed to the unifed alcohol consumption in the unit of OECD. The third observation encompasses a range of comparable outcomes over time within the single unit of the French. For the third observation to be a single outcome, one year is selected and attributed a value relative to other years. Case: in analytical journalism, this is a single case with a single current outcome and delineated in time and space by the explanatory theories employed.

The way analytical journalism explains single outcome cases difers from that of social science in two ways. First, unless the cases are unique, social science considers the explanations of a single outcome to be useless, because they do not generate or develop theories. The cases explored by analytical journalists may be common, but they must be topical. Second, social science explanations of single outcomes seek to be more or less ‘complete’, including all the causes that may have contributed (Gerring 2006), whereas analytical journalism seeks to supplement causes already well-known to the public. Analytical journalism primarily investigates current cases because of the newness of most journalistic observations.

2.2.2.4 Phenomena are the ‘starting points’ for enquiry The analytical journalist goes backwards from the initially observed phenomenon to fnd its causes, which is a common journalistic method. A forward-looking

The analytical journalism approach

33

process from cause to outcome involves predictions of future phenomena. Phenomena themselves are not the focus of study, but rather their context of causal factors. The methodology is tailored towards the aim of analytical journalism; that is, explaining an observed real-life phenomenon as a single outcome in a single case. The methodology is not well-suited to explaining multi-unit observations or observations of diferences and developments, such as a diference between two countries, or a long-run tendency of increase or decrease in for instance obesity.

2.2.3 Three strategies of the methodology The methodology of analytical journalism features three strategies for making inferences. These strategies are induction, abduction and deduction. The deductive and inductive strategies dominate the methodologies of research and methodology textbooks. These strategies are conventionally illustrated by the wheel of empirical science combining inductive and deductive strategies (Danermark et al. 2002/1997, 156), while the creative abduction strategy is left out. Methodology: comprises strategies for how to obtain knowledge.

Charles Sanders Peirce (1931/1903) introduced the idea of abduction in the second half of the nineteenth century as an addition to deduction and induction. In Figure 2.2, the creative abductive strategy is added to the wheel of science, as indicated by solid arrows. The deductive strategy is indicated by the stippled arrows, the inductive strategy by dotted ones.

Theory Deduction

Empirical generalisation

Creative abduction

Hypothesis

Test Induction Empirical observation FIGURE 2.2

The three strategies of inference for empirical knowledge production.

34 The analytical journalism approach

The three strategies are briefy presented below: ●

Using the inductive strategy, the analytical journalist systematises data in a specifc case, resulting in a general theory. Induction is the central inference in Chapter 4, in which the analytical journalist generalises journalistic or social media products into categories of dominant issue frames. This strategy aims to explore the causal explanations in pieces of journalism, social media or other parts of the public knowledge base on current issues. All content, or a representative sample of media examples, is analysed in order to detect the existing issue frames. The result is a proxy for a particular public knowledge base and for a targeted audience. The inductive inference generalises single pieces to a map of the causal ‘landscape’ on which the analytical journalist intends to intervene. Inductive strategy: in analytical journalism, this creates a map of causal explanation within media coverage of a current phenomenon.

●

Using the creative abductive strategy, the analytical journalist starts with an observation and applies a theory to a plausible hypothesis about the case. The hypothesis is formalised in a causal model that uses the causes of the hypothesis as variables with units, attributes and values. The model illustrates the relations between the causes and the observed phenomenon as a single outcome. Abduction is the central inference in Chapter 5, in which the journalist gets science-based ideas of causal relations in the case at hand. The abductive strategy is used in the context of discovery – that is, the stage of inquiry designed to establish an explanatory hypothesis. This creative abduction entails digging into scientifc theories which may explain the phenomenon from very diferent perspectives. There is no reason to presume that the case chosen for investigation difers from a broader class of similar cases. The outcome in natural settings may or may not be the product of a very general cause. The question of similarity and diference between cases in causal analysis is left open for empirical investigation. The concern for causal inference makes the objective a search for common features not distinctiveness of single-event cases (Gerring 2006). The application of scientifc causal theories to specifc phenomena is a task for journalists as for other practitioners (Danermark et al. 2019). Scientifc knowledge is available for use in deliberation, suggestions and action. The journalist’s hypothesis achieves initial plausibility from causal relations in other cases already proven by academics. Creative abduction difers from the common evaluative use of abduction as ‘inference to the best explanation’ (see Chapter 5 for details on this diference).

The analytical journalism approach

35

Creative abductive strategy: in analytical journalism, this generates a science-based explanatory hypothesis concerning current phenomena.

●

Using the deductive strategy, the analytical journalist uses empirical data to test whether a theory explains a specifc case. Deduction is the central inference in Chapter 6, in which the journalist tests his/her hypothesis (an as-yet unconfrmed theory) on the particular case at hand. The deductive strategy is used in the context of documentation – that is, the stage of inquiry used to justify the causal hypothesis. The strategy compares the causal model’s predictions with specifc details from the current case. These may or may not confrm initial expectations to varying degrees. Data to illustrate the phenomena is either observed or constructed by the journalist. These ‘facts’ are singled out by the hypothesis, but they are not determined by it, which is why they work as evidence. Deductive strategy: in analytical journalism, this justifes the causal explanation of a current phenomenon with empirical evidence.

According to Peirce (1931–1903), these three inferences encompass the same three elements of logic: the rule, the case and the result. What makes them different is the temporal order of the elements: what is known frst, what is known second and what is unknown and must be inferred. In Table 2.1, the concept of ‘rule’ is substituted by the less deterministic concept of ‘theory’. Induction starts with case (A) followed by observations (B), which are used to generalise into theory (C) beyond the observation. The illustration goes as follows: we observe the balls are from this bag, and all balls are blue. Therefore, we expect that the bag is full only of blue balls – this reasoning is motivated but uncertain. TABLE 2.1 The logic of the three inference strategies

Strategy

Step Elements

Illustration

Induction

1 2 3

Case (A) Observation (B) Inference about theory (C)

The balls are from this bag These balls are blue (not black …) All balls from this bag are blue

Abduction

1 2 3

Observation (B) Theory (C) Inference about case (A)

These balls are blue (not black …) All balls from this bag are blue The balls are from this bag

Deduction

1 2 3

Theory (C) Case (A) Inference about observation (B)

All balls from this bag are blue The balls are from this bag These balls are blue (not black …)

36 The analytical journalism approach

Abduction starts with an observation (B), followed by a theory (C), which are used to infer something about the case (A). The illustration goes as follows: we observe blue balls, and we know that a bag is full only of blue balls. Therefore, we expect that the observed balls are from that bag – this reasoning is motivated but uncertain. Deduction starts with a theory (C), followed by the case (A), which are used to infer if the theory accounts for the observation (B). The illustration goes as follows: we know that this bag is full only of blue balls, and we know the balls are from this bag. Therefore, we are sure that the balls are blue – this reasoning is motivated and certain. The less known inference of abduction may be clarifed by examples from daily life. Peter, arriving from another city, is late. The trains are often delayed. Hence, a delayed train made Peter late (or he stopped at a restaurant). Or another example: In the morning, the street is wet. When it rains, the street gets wet. Hence, rain at night has made the street wet (or …). Abduction difers from deduction by starting with an observation instead of a theory and then looking into the case at hand. Abduction difers from induction by jumping to a theory external to the case at hand instead of generalising the observations into theory beyond the observation. In abduction, the theory exists before and independently of the observation, while in induction the theory follows from the observation. The methodology of analytical journalism contrasts with most methodological work on case studies in social science, which understand the study of a case as a means to discover something about a broader population of cases. Social science conventionally infers a larger whole from a minor part. By contrast, analytical journalism infers a minor part from a larger whole studied by academics. The topical single case is perceived as an ‘example’ or ‘instance’ of a broader population of cases, which are probably (in part) the subject of scientifc publications. Hence, the case concerned may share causal relationships with a larger group of cases in scientifc studies. The more unique the case, the more difcult it is to explain because we have fewer cases with which to compare it, and those few cases that do present themselves may difer in their causal relationships (Gerring 2006). The methodology of analytical journalism flls a gap in the family of inferential methods associated with journalism. Other journalistic textbooks inspired by social science, for example, are Meyer (2002/1973), who utilises social science quantitative methods, and Iorio (2004), who uses the inductive methodology and qualitative methods of participatory observation and analysis of artefacts.

2.2.4 The level of methods The methods deployed in analytical journalism are suited to the explanation of single outcomes of single cases inspired by qualitative social science (Lofand et al. 2006; Miles et al. 2011). The methods that the analytical journalist use build on categorisation, modelling and comparison. The three diferent ‘realities’, i.e.

The analytical journalism approach

37

the public knowledge base about current issues, the scientifc databases and the empirical phenomena associated with the case being investigated, are reduced to manageable data. Data is treated as variables, that is, units with attributes that vary between presence/absence, high/low etc. (see Chapter 3 for details). Narrowing down the values so that they consist of dichotomies reduces complexity and facilitates qualitative eforts of causal explanation (Miles et al. 2011). The causes in the case under investigation are identifed by scientifc studies and not by in-depth studies of the case itself. Methods of detection are used to explore the causes of similar phenomena in scientifc studies. Relevant scientifc explanations are organised in a causal hypothesis, with the variables as detailed as possible. The explanatory hypothesis is mapped onto a multi-level model that emulates the top-down character of reality and allows variables at diferent levels and dimensions. The variables and their causal relations are organised in a hypothetical causal model as boxes and arrows that all point to the observed single outcome variable (the dependent variable) without encountering any dead ends. Each variable and each relation are a prediction that the analytical journalist must investigate. The type of causes employed in the adapted scientifc explanations will determine the limits of the case and which data to search for. The details of the causes in the scientifc explanations determine the method of validation. The investigation of the current case is governed closely by the hypothesis, which takes its causal explanation from scientifc theories. This makes ‘patternmatching’ the primary method of justifcation. The method is based on the following logic: if the plausible causal hypothesis is true, then what is it that ought to be true in the case concerned? The method is robust, but it is dependent upon the causal details of the hypothesis and upon access to empirical evidence for the variables that have been included (Gerring 2010). Two diferent techniques are used to test the predicted variables against data from the case being investigated. The frst technique is called the similarity model. It compares detailed variables in the primary case of current interest with the secondary case from scientifc publications. Matching enables the journalist to either accept or reject the hypothesis. The second technique is called the covariation model. The covariation model works with a less detailed hypothesis due to the vague explicitness and determinacy of the scientifc explanations employed. The covariation model does not match variables with fxed values such as the similarity model. Instead, it matches patterns of variation in variables. The variations over time within variables in the current case must be as predicted to accept the hypothesis (see Chapter 6 for details of the two models of validation). Decisive proof or disproof is not a realistic goal in analytical journalism. Although the evidence ofered by pattern-matching is rarely conclusive, it is suffcient to update the prior plausibility of the hypothesis. The exact matching of variables may not be practicable due to a lack of data concerning the present case at hand. The journalist may then cast about for other things that ought to be true if there is indeed a causal relationship between the causes and the outcome. This becomes a search for the best possible evidence (Gerring 2010; see also Chapter 6).

38 The analytical journalism approach

Methods of convincing are used to make the audience believe the divergent issue frame in the analytical journalist’s product. These methods draw upon the rhetorical principles of an appeal to trust, comprehension and engagement. This includes the application of diferent forms of evidence generated by earlier phases of analytical journalism to make the products told credible and vivid. This book constantly aligns the metatheory, methodology and methods with journalistic ideals, the opportunities to conduct practical research and promote more refective ways of obtaining knowledge by a general audience.

2.3 What makes analytical journalism distinctive as a discipline Analytical journalism may seem like interpretative reporting, in-depth reporting, long-form journalism, explanatory reporting or contextual reporting, which does not have a settled name or standardised place in journalism (Fink and Schudson 2013). However, even if the discipline of analytical journalism may sound like something well-known in journalist circles, albeit under other names, it difers from certain types of journalism that at frst resemble its objectives or methods. Hopefully, pointing out its diferences from other journalistic ‘ideal types’ will allow the distinctive features of analytical journalism to become visible. The intellectual utility of the ideal type rests not on whether it corresponds to an always messier reality but whether it helps us to order and understand the most critical aspects of reality (Nielsen 2017, 103), or in this instance, the ideal type of analytical journalism. The discipline of analytical journalism shares ambitions to be journalist driven, research demanding and utilises the openness provided by digitalisation and the internet, along with other journalistic ideal types, such as investigative journalism and data journalism. Even so, this book ofers advanced tools to enhance journalism’s contribution to the knowledge we share as communities and is not a collection of more or less well-known journalistic methods. A sign of the novelty of analytical journalism is that no similar discipline features in the roles articulated by Hanitzsch and Vos (2018), and it is not yet a key concept in journalism studies (Franklin et al. 2005). The deliberative strategy of reviewing the existing coverage of an issue or topic in journalism may be reminiscent of the conventional journalistic practice of ‘reading the clippings’ – something used to plan future reporting based on the achievements and gaps in existing coverage. The review of media coverage in analytical journalism difers by its systematic analysis of causes in the media coverage, which is the deliberative role mentioned above (elaborated in Chapter 4). The categorising of causes in relation to an observed phenomenon establishes the ground for adding other relevant causes to the knowledge base on current issues. This follows the argument set out by Boesman and Van Gorp (2017, 561) that one condition for achieving frame diversity is that journalists should be aware of the frames with which they are confronted or that they themselves use.

The analytical journalism approach

39

The use of scientifc studies in the inferential role may recall science journalism, which reports new developments and fndings in science to a broader public. Science reporting disseminates new research fndings in an easy-to-understand way. It may also report on conficting schools within the scientifc community and hold science accountable. Usually, the scientifc discoveries driven by the academic research agendas are what determines the agenda of the mass media (Rödder and Schafer 2010). Analytical journalism goes beyond popularising scientifc results by applying scientifc research to new phenomena, thus making a clear distinction between traditional science reporting and analytical journalism. The agenda that drives analytical journalists is to explain current issues by adapting and testing (new or old) scientifc research. Analytical journalism may have similarities with the work of those academics who diagnose the present state of society to a broad public (Osrecki 2012) such as The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/uk). It aims to deliver the kind of independent, high-quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism that underpins a functioning democracy and aids understanding of current afairs and complex issues. Such contributions usually come from researchers or academics employed at universities or research institutions, and they difer as much as their various research traditions. Some content may be like analytical journalism; other content will be very diferent. The element of analytical journalism that pursues a recent phenomenon back to a broader background of explanations may be reminiscent of the traditional genre of explanatory reporting or the new genre of ‘explainers’. However, these types of journalism do not focus specifcally on causal accounts. Rather, they have other goals as well, such as descriptions (like encyclopaedia entries) or the illumination of signifcant and complex subjects as formulated by the Pulitzer Explanatory Reporting Prize (https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by -category/207). For journalism scholar James W. Carey (1986), the knowledge and practice of explanatory journalism in the USA seemed ‘a dark continent’. However, analytical journalism now ofers a more explicit and systematised approach to explain the causes of recent phenomena in journalism. It may therefore be illustrative to compare analytical journalism with a few characteristics of other ideal types of journalism. These diferent types of journalism can move in diferent directions without building on each other. This refects journalism’s diverse functions in society and the maturity of the profession. It now has specialisations that can supplement rather than substitute each other. The current phenomena of journalistic interest in analytical journalism may, for instance, have been initiated by a participative and engaged audience. Analytical journalism may be combined with explanations stemming from the analysis of data within the current case performed by data journalism or ethnographic journalism. The digital production of journalism may combine scientifc data with data from ofcial bodies, companies, social media or the real-time data of smart cities. The products of analytical journalism may be integrated into audiences and professional journalists co-creating in news production.

The inferential role: Testing scientifc explanations on current phenomena with social science validation logic, empirical data and authority acceptance/ approval.

Generates big/sampled, numerical data, performs statistical analyses of numbers, data visualisation and interactivity (Lewis 2021)

Embeds in a social setting for an extended period while observing, interviewing, transcribing and coding (Hermann 2016).

Academics at independent research institutions almost unanimously do not refer to their work when providing comments for journalists; they refer to their own research in only 12% of their contributions (Laursen and Trapp 2021).

Facilitates and mobilises individuals in public deliberation, community belonging and democratic participation (Wall 2017).

Collaborates with communities as discussion facilitator, conversation shaper, community builder and public partners. Creates horizontal relationships with the public and space for the public to participate in journalism (Zahay et al. 2021).

Approving or eliminating sources; selecting sources with strong arguments that contribute to a furthering of discussion (Strömbäck 2005).

Encouraging mutual responsiveness, fair cooperation and a public voice to those who are otherwise voiceless (Ettema 2007) without content diversity (cf. Carpenter 2010).

Data journalism

Ethnographic journalism

Conventional journalism

Participatory journalism

Engagement-oriented journalism

Gatekeeping role

Fair-minded moderator

The deliberative role: Focusing on content diversity rather than source diversity. Expressing the ideas of the journalist – not the people studied.

The inferential role: Selecting and justifying scientifc causal explanations absent in the public knowledge base about current issues.

The deliberative role: Qualifying the public basis for deliberations about current issues by adding relevant causal frames.

Analytical journalism

Characteristics of other ideal types of journalism

TABLE 2.2 Ideal types of journalism compared to the ideal of analytical journalism

40 The analytical journalism approach

Representing diferent viewpoints in a balanced and accurate way in a single piece of journalism (Schudson 2018).

Connecting the behaviour of politicians with their inner thoughts or strategies in power struggles (Salgado and Strömbäck 2011).

Focusing on power as a resource that agents hold. Exposing ‘wrong’ behaviour or weak governance, uncovering information that has been concealed, testing the liability of people and holding them accountable (Ettema 2007; Hunter et al. 2011; McNair 2018; Schudson 1995). It is ‘investigative reporting as prosecution’ (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2001) or being ‘custodians of conscience’ (Ettema and Glasser 1998).

Johnson and Ross, the founders of the Institute of Analytic Journalism, (http://www.bu.edu/iaj/Pubs/IAJProposal-20010327.PDF) demonstrated 15–20 years ago a similar eclectic aim of introducing non-journalistic methods and appropriate cognitive tools to journalists (e.g. intelligent agents, geographic information systems, content analysis, complexity studies, risk analysis, Virtual Reality Mark-up Language).

Conventional journalism

Interpretive journalism

Watchdog journalism

Analytic journalism

The aim and methodology of analytical journalism difer from the Institute, but it was inspired by this eclectic endeavour to expand its journalistic practice. Without there being a coincidence of content, there was at f rst a coincidence of titles. In 2011, our f rst class was called ‘analytic journalism’, and in 2012 it changed to ‘analytical journalism’.

The inferential role: Focusing on the power of structures, discourses, norms and group behaviour on people’s actions.

The inferential role: Identifying causal relations between external factors and agents’ motivations and actions.

The deliberative role: Presenting an issue frame that unavoidably favours something or someone but which is fair in the context of the existing issue frames.

The analytical journalism approach 41

42

The analytical journalism approach

2.4 Clearing up some potential objections Analytical journalism may seem like an unrealistic vision far from the real life of the profession and the news industry. It is not. To avoid misunderstanding, journalism that looks like analytical journalism does appear in the media, indicating that this kind of journalism is both possible and valued. However, the process from idea to the fnal product is not generally transparent in journalism, which makes it difcult to identify this type of practice. For instance, the contribution journalists and the sources make to a piece is not clearly diferentiated, and analytical journalism is not labelled as ‘best practice’ in the news industry. The discipline is underdeveloped both in the industry and in academic literature. Arguably, it has the potential to develop in the same way as data journalism. A fve-year study of data journalism by Hermida and Young (2019) shows that data journalists, particularly in well-resourced newsrooms, are operating as institutional entrepreneurs in a feld that is still responding to the disruptive efects of digitalisation more than two decades ago. Data journalism has developed as a sub-speciality. Hopefully, analytical journalism will provide a new discipline, just as data journalism has done. Four major reservations about analytical journalism’s applicability could be the amount of time it takes, the challenge of integrating several research objectives, the causal complexity of the social world and the ambition to provide insight into complicated matters. These four reservations are discussed here in brief by emphasising developments in the media industry, the fexibility of the approach and what distinguishes it from the more demanding science.

2.4.1 It is too time-consuming An obvious concern is whether journalists have the time to address the obvious knowledge gaps that regularly occur regarding the causes of current phenomena. We think they do. Admittedly, analytical journalism is more time-consuming than mainstream news journalism, but it is not more time-consuming than other well-established practices – such as investigative journalism or data journalism, for example. Not all journalists will be analytical in the sense that this book suggests. Likewise, not all journalists are investigative or data journalists, even though they investigate and work with data. ●

According to Nielsen (2017), in recent years, we have witnessed the development of both faster transient journalism and more time-consuming indepth journalism. Deploying resources in this polarisation way may beneft analytical journalism in a competitive media market. Meijer (2020) discusses the ‘audience turn’ in journalistic discourse. She points to news organisations becoming more open and sensitive towards opening the minds of the audience, broadening their horizons and providing them with a quality experience that will enlighten them – providing them with reliable

The analytical journalism approach

43

information which they consider worthwhile. Analytical journalism seems to be a practice that is in line with this tendency. Without stretching deadlines to breaking point, analytical journalists can investigate the explanatory narrowness in the discussion of current issues and apply relevant but overlooked scientifc knowledge and empirical research to the issue at hand.

2.4.2 It is too comprehensive Analytical journalism may be comprehensive, but there is no need to deploy every aspect of it to every story. In addition to being a journalistic discipline with specifc research methods and techniques, analytical journalism is also a mindset that may be valuable in diferent felds and genres of journalism. The various components of analytical journalism supplement each other, but they are valuable in themselves, too. ●

●

●

The deliberative role’s causal map of media explanations can be combined with journalists referring the causal assessments of experts and other sources as a substitute for the inferential role of analytical journalism. The inferential role’s searching of scientifc databases can be used to expand the list of experts for interview instead of the causal explanations in their studies. Large numbers of academics contribute to scientifc databases and they often go undetected by journalists, according to an empirical study of journalism on artifcial intelligence in the UK and the USA by Brennen et al. (2019). The authors found that journalists repeatedly returned to a relatively small number of academics. The ten most-mentioned accounted for more than 70% of news mentions in both countries. These academics are not necessarily the most widely cited by their academic peers, however. Many of them have strong ties to industry, which means that there is a risk of problematic coverage favouring the technology of certain companies. Brennen et al. (2019) recommend that journalists should fnd a broader range of independent academic sources and explanations – ones not defned simply by their media popularity. Scientifc databases cover a wide variety of disciplines with contributions from across the world, which Lewis (2017) recommends that journalists draw on for the sake of accountability. The methods involved in the inferential role of checking explanations can also be applied to causal explanations from experts or other sources. Analytical journalism ofers techniques to empirically test causal claims so that journalists do not just take these explanations from sources at face value.

2.4.3 The issues are too complex Another concern may be the ambitious aim of having journalists generate knowledge about complex matters such as causes and efects in the contemporary

44 The analytical journalism approach

world. Can journalists who do not possess years of experience and research as academics generate explanatory accounts of topical phenomena? The point here is that analytical journalism and the sciences have diferent objectives. In analytical journalism, it is essential to ask: How do existing theories explain a particular event, a situation, a piece of behaviour and so on? In social science, the equally important questions are: How does the explanation of this case help us understand a broader range of cases? And what does this case say about the wider theory? This diference in objectives matches the diferent working conditions for journalists and academics and the diferent audiences for the fow of news and for academic articles. To put it simply, whereas social scientists often produce general explanatory theories that extend beyond their observations, analytical journalists move in the other direction. They use social science’s general theories to explain a single observation. Even though there are many specifc case studies within the felds covered by the social sciences, the general aim is to move from case studies to more general propositions about a greater whole. Social science is about explaining and generalising a larger number of phenomena across time and space (Gerring 2006). By contrast, analytical journalism is about explaining a specifc phenomenon in a specifc social and historical context. The relationship between mass media and the social sciences is still not a widely discussed area of research in studies of science (Osrecki 2012). Analytical journalism is not an ‘extended peer review’ of science (Weingart et al. 2012). ●

Analytical journalists provide explanations limited to single, current phenomena. These are less complicated matters than the scientifc work of creating generalised theories or of testing the general validity of such theories.

2.4.4 The ideal is too unattainable Analytical journalism may be provocative to some, as the theories and concepts are seldom or never covered in journalism textbooks. However, these concepts rooted in theory become more manageable once they are operationalised as practical journalistic tools. The result of these guidelines is journalism that is appreciated in the form of good stories, at any rate according to multiple external examiners – journalists, editors and academics – who have assessed more than 700 stories written by Master’s-level students in analytical journalism. Three conditions make the ideal of analytical journalism useful to journalism more widely: ●

The barrier of originality is much lower than in science. The contribution of analytical journalists to the public knowledge base about current issues places diferent demands on its originality and newness compared to specialised academic journals. The newness of analytical journalism depends only

The analytical journalism approach

●

45

upon the level of public knowledge shared by a specifc mass audience concerning recent phenomena. This task is entirely diferent from adding new and unfamiliar insights into a specialised knowledge base, which is a prerequisite for every scientifc contribution. The pre-existing general knowledge of a specialised and universal audience of academics difers from the pre-existing knowledge of a mass public restricted to a particular country or local community. Analytical journalists need not discover brand new relations or attributes through a comprehensive analysis of one or more cases. Instead, they can confne themselves to applying and confrming causal explanations already known by academics. The justifcation of causal explanations is, on the one hand, less rigorous, and the evidence less unassailable than for some quantitative science. On the other hand, it is adequately systematic to dissociate the approach from speculative accounts of explanation. Analytical journalism is more in line with qualitative feld research in the social sciences. This suggests ‘why’ something happened the way it did in a way that is evidence-based, but nonetheless a good-faith efort to map the relationships of cause and efect (Miles et al. 2011: 253). Analytical journalism achieves the status of truth via the combined validity of peer-reviewed scientifc explanations, the verifcation of the explanations in the case investigated through empirical data and expert evaluations of the journalist’s explanation.

2.5 Journalism’s knowledge base Analytical journalism is a form of disruptive journalism that renews the dynamic of critical thinking by diverging from the dominant public framing of reality. It uses divergent issue frames that enhance the public’s understanding of contemporary life. In their day-to-day work, journalists use a degree of professional discretion when selecting between several potentially appropriate choices. It makes sense to see journalists as an occupational group that applies relatively abstract knowledge from studies to write particular stories that feed into the public sphere. Journalism profession: this is an occupational group that uses discretion in producing news based on relatively abstract knowledge and practical experience.

This book describes in detail how journalists can occupy a position in society that benefts the collective public knowledge bases. It emphasises the classical ideal of journalism as an indispensable link between enlightenment and the mass audience. Academics have often complained that journalism’s knowledge base is too narrow (Borden 2007; Schudson and Anderson 2009). Journalists

46

The analytical journalism approach

lack specialised knowledge unique to them, though their strategic position in the fow of information sometimes provides a partial substitute (Hallin and Mancini 2004, 34–35). From the viewpoint of a professional journalist, the obvious question is: Why does this matter? Before the Internet, journalists worked in a protected sphere with clear credentials and without serious competition. Back then, the journalist could get by with a practical knowledge base that was comparatively slim, outsourcing expertise to the experts in their Rolodex. The position of the news media made sure that the interests of the experts and journalists were generally aligned – each needed the other to publish news into the public sphere. But this relationship has been fractured by the new media sphere. This is one in which experts and everyone else can communicate directly with a large audience. The intermediary role of the journalist has become ever more difcult. In the present-day environment, journalists must fght for their position and task in society. According to the theory of professions, knowledge is the currency of competition between professions (Abbott 1988). The profession’s knowledge base being adequately sophisticated depends upon the circumstances. Just as printing radically changed opportunities for the educated elite in early modern Europe, digitalisation and the transformation of the public sphere is radically changing the circumstances of contemporary journalism. The emphasis on inference in analytical journalism highlights one of the three key features of professional practice, which according to Abbott (1988, 40) are to diagnose, infer and treat; or in less formal terms, to classify a problem, reason about it and take action on it. In analytical journalism, the diagnosis phase involves the mapping of the explanatory repertoire in the dominant public ‘issue frames’ on current phenomena. The inferential phase is the testing of existing scientifc explanations on the current case. The treatment phase is the publication of a causal explanation that expands the public knowledge base about current issues. In analytical journalism, like most other professions, the work of diagnosis, inference and treatment are tied directly to a system of knowledge that formalises the skills on which the work is based. The emphasis on abductive and deductive inference strategies and skills aims to professionalise journalism as a science-based occupation (Brante 2011). According to Hermida and Young (2019), data journalists address issues of trust and credibility in order to advance their professional interests. In so doing, they are working strategically to modernise the way journalists talk about methods and maintain the authority of journalism. Analytical journalism is another strategy by which to modernise the profession, and like data journalism, it takes some efort to familiarise ourselves with the discipline.

References Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ahva, Laura. 2017. “Practice theory for journalism studies. Operationalizing the concept of practice for the study of participation.” Journalism Studies 18–12, 1523–1541.

The analytical journalism approach

47

Bhaskar, Roy. 1979. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Human Sciences, London: Routledge. Boesman, Jan and Baldwin Van Gorp. 2017. “An Insidious Poison or a Door to the Story?” Journalism Practice 11(5), 559–576. Borden, Sandra. 2007. Journalism as Practice: MacIntyre, Virtue Ethics and the Press. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing. Brante, Thomas. 2011. “Professions as Science-Based Occupations.” Professions and Professionalism 1(1), 4–20. Brennen, J. Scott, Anne Schulz, Philip N. Howard and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen. 2019. Industry, Experts, or Industry Experts? Academic Sourcing in News Coverage of AI. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Buch-Hansen, Hubert and Peter Nielsen. 2005. Kritisk Realisme. Frederiksberg: Roskilde Universitetsforlag. Carey, James W. 1986. “Why and How? The Dark Continent of American Journalism.” In Reading the News, edited by Robert K. Manof and Michael Schudson, 146–196. New York: Pantheon. Carpenter, Serena. 2010. “A Study of Content Diversity in Online Citizen Journalism and Online Newspaper Articles.” New Media & Society 12, 1064–1084. Danermark, Berth, Mats Ekström, Liselotte Jakobsen and Jan. Ch. Karlsson. 2002/1997. Explaining Society. Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. London: Routledge. Danermark, Berth, Mats Ekström and Jan Ch. Karlsson. 2019. Explaining Society. Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. New York: Routledge. Ettema, James S. 2007. “Journalism as Reason Giving: Deliberative Democracy, Institutional Accountability and the News Media’s Mission.” Political Communication 24–2, 143–160. Ettema, James S. and Glasser, Theodore. 1998. Custodians of Conscience. Investigative Journalism and Public Virtue. New York: Columbia University Press. Ekström, Mats and Oscar Westlund. 2019. “Epistemology and Journalism”. In Oxford Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fink, Katherine and Michael Schudson. 2013. “The Rise of Contextual Journalism, 1950s–2000s”. Journalism 15(1), 3–20. Franklin, Bob, Martin Hamer, Mark Hanna, Mari Kinsey and John E. Richardson. 2005. Key Concepts in Journalism Studies. London: Sage. Gerring, John. 2005. “Causation: A Unifed Framework for the Social Sciences.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17–2, 163–198. Gerring, John. 2006. “Single-outcome Studies: A Methodological Primer.” International Sociology, 21(5): 707–734. Gerring, John. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But….” Comparative Political Studies 43, 1499–1526. Gerring, John. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hallin, Daniel C. and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems. Three Models of Media and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hanitzsch, Thomas and Tim P. Vos. 2018. “Journalism Beyond Democracy: A New Look into Journalistic Roles in Political and Everyday Life.” Journalism 19(2), 146–164. Hermann, Anne Kirstine. 2016. “Ethnographic Journalism.” Journalism 17(2), 260–278. Hermida, Alfred and Mary Lynn Young. 2019. Data Journalism and the Regeneration of News. New York: Routledge. Hunter, Mark Lee, Nils Hanson, Rana Sabbagh, Luuk Sengers, Drew Sullivan, Flemming Tait Svith and Pia Thordsen. 2011. Story-Based Inquiry: A Manual for Investigative Journalists. Paris: UNESCO.

48

The analytical journalism approach

Iorio, Sharon Hartin. 2004. Qualitative Research in Journalism, Taking It into the Streets. London: Routledge. Kovach, Bill and Tom Rosenstiel. 2001. The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and The Public Should Expect, Committee of Concerned Journalists. New York: Three Rivers Press. Laursen, B. and L. Trapp. 2021. “Experts or Advocates: Shifting Roles of Central Sources Used by Journalists in News Stories?” Journalism Practice 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10 .1080/17512786.2019.1695537 Lewis, Charles. 2017. “Tear Down These Walls: Innovations in Collaborative Accountability Research and Reporting.” In Global Teamwork: The Rise of Collaboration in Investigative Journalism, edited by Richard Sambrook, 5–25. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Oxford: University of Oxford. Lewis, Norman P. 2021. “Defning and Teaching Data Journalism: A Typology.” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator , 78–90. Lofand, John, David Snow, Leon Anderson and Lyn H. Lofand. 2006. Analyzing Social Settings. A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, 4th Ed. Canada: Thomson Wadsworth. McNair, Brian. 2018. “Journalism as Public Sphere.” In Journalism, edited by Tim P. Vos, 149–168. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Meijer, Irene Costera. 2020. “Understanding the Audience Turn in Journalism: From Quality Discourse to Innovation Discourse as Anchoring Practices 1995–2020.” Journalism Studies, 21(16), 2326–2342. Meyer, Philip. 2002/1973. Precision Journalism. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefeld Publishers. Miles, Matthew B., Michael A. Huberman and Johnny Saldaña. 2011. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage. Nielsen, Rasmus Kleist. 2017. “Digital News as Forms of Knowledge: A New Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge.” In Remaking the News Essays on the Future of Journalism Scholarship in the Digital Age, edited by P. Boczkowski and C. W. Anderson, 91–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Osrecki, Fran. 2012. “Diagnosing the Present: Towards a Sociology of Medialized Social Science.” In The Sciences’ Media Connection: Public Communication and its Repercussions, edited by Simone Rödder, Martina Franzen and Peter Weingart, 307–332. London: Springer. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931/1903. The Collected Papers Vol. V.: Pragmatism and Pragmaticism. §2. Abduction and Perceptual Judgments. http://www.textlog.de/7664-2 .html. Rödder, Simone and Mike S. Schafer. 2010. “Repercussion and Resistance: An Empirical Study on the Interrelation Between Science and Mass Media.” Communications, 35, 249–267. Salgado, Susana and Jesper Strömbäck. 2011. “Interpretive Journalism: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings.” Journalism 13(2), 144–161. Schudson, Michael. 1995. The Power of News. London: Harvard University Press. Schudson, Michael. 2018. Why Journalism Still Matters. Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN 9781509528059. Schudson, Michael and Chris Anderson. 2009. “Objectivity, Professionalism, and Truth Seeking in Journalism.” In The Handbook of Journalism Studies, edited by Karin WahlJorgensen and Thomas Hanitzsch, 88–101. New York: Routledge. Strömbäck, Jesper. 2005. “In Search of a Standard: Four Models of Democracy and Their Normative Implications for Journalism.” Journalism Studies 6(3), 331–345.

The analytical journalism approach

49

Wall, Melissa. 2017. “Mapping Citizen and Participatory Journalism.” Journalism Practice 11(2–3), 134–141. Ward, Stephen J. A. 2018. “Epistemologies of Journalism.” In Journalism, edited by Tim P. Vos. 63–82. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Weingart, Peter, Simone Rödder and Martina Franzen. 2012. “Dimensions of Medialization. Concluding Remarks.” In The Sciences’ Media Connection: Public Communication and its Repercussions, edited by Simone Rödder, Martina Franzen and Peter Weingart, 363–373. London: Springer. Zahay, Megan L., Kelly Jensen, Yiping Xia and Sue Robinson. 2021. “The Labor of Building Trust: Traditional and Engagement Discourses for Practicing Journalism in a Digital Age.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 98(4), 1041–1058.

3 THE FRAMEWORK FOR CAUSAL EXPLANATION

Chapter aims ● ● ●

To sketch a framework for causal explanation. To outline the building blocks for qualitative causal explanation. To map explanatory journalism.

Learning outcomes At the end of this chapter, readers should know: ● ● ● ●

How to apply multilevel analysis. How to create variables. How to draw a causal model. How to use explanation and argument.

3.1 Introduction This chapter details some fundamentals of the approach used in analytical journalism. It provides a basic understanding of reality and causal explanation, which are the preconditions for this form of journalism. The chapter begins by outlining how journalism sees causality and the way it explains current issues. This part is based on a review of academic literature. The middle of the chapter covers metatheoretical considerations regarding the nature of social reality and ways to explore it. The intention here is to provide some basic insight into a theoretical framework for causal explanations of current issues. The last part of the chapter describes some practical tools for journalistic research that works with the metatheoretical stance just articulated. It ofers guidelines for the observation of DOI: 10.4324/9781003300977-3

The framework for causal explanation  51

The deliberative role

The deliberative role

The selection strategy

1 Observing phenomenon

The roles

The strategies

The phases

FIGURE 3.1

The deliberative role

The inferential role

The inferential role

The inductive strategy

The abductive strategy

The deductive strategy

The rhetorical strategy

2 Mapping issue frames

3 Applying theory to hypothesis

4 Justifying hypothesis

5 Adding divergent issue frame

The causal framework in the phases of analytical journalism.

phenomena as outcomes, for handling the different layers of reality and the plurality of factors that impact upon current phenomena. The causal framework is crucial for the research phases 2 to 4 of analytical journalism but is also relevant for the other three phases of analytical journalism (Figure 3.1). The framework for causal explanation outlines the concepts in order to: ●

●

●

● ●

Observe phenomena as outcomes in the case at hand and motivate their causal explanation in Phase 1 (this chapter). Identify causal explanation in media coverage of the phenomenon of journalistic interest in Phase 2 (Chapter 4). Generate a causal hypothesis to explain the phenomenon based on academic studies in Phase 3 (Chapter 5). Validate the causal hypothesis with evidence in Phase 4 (Chapter 6). Disseminate the causal explanation in Phase 5 (Chapter 7).

The first item on the list focuses on finding a specific current phenomenon that the analytical journalist is interested in explaining. This is the first stage of analytical journalism. It is the starting point chosen from a variety of current issues and phenomena. Guidelines for this first phase are presented at the end of the chapter. The other four items on the list clarify the purpose of this chapter, which gives it a general character that does not deal with the specific case at hand, but which serves as a prerequisite for the following phases of analytical journalism.

3.2 Explanatory journalism Explanatory journalism, or accounts of cause and outcome in journalism, has occasionally been the object of academic research over the past four decades.

52 The framework for causal explanation

This section highlights some of these studies in chronological order to give an overall impression of changes in both academia and journalism. Other studies have touched upon explanatory journalism as a part of the knowledge disseminated by journalism (Chapter 5 contains a review of these studies). In the 1980s, James W. Carey (1986) studied explanatory journalism in the USA. He outlined explanations as accounts of the deeper underlying factors behind events, actions and actors at the surfaces of the news story. The depth of a news story adds understanding to knowledge. The ‘why’ element attempts to make reports sensible, coherent and explicable. Explanation satisfes our desire to believe that the world, at least most of the time, is driven by something other than luck or blind chance. Explanations are what we most want to get out of a news story. They are also what we are least likely to receive – or what we, in most cases, supply ourselves as readers. Carey argues that journalism altogether as a curriculum are explanatory, but the single news item fails to explain and answer the question ‘why’, making causal explanation the dark continent of American journalism. Explanation in US journalism is a kind of long-distance mind-reading in which the journalist elucidates the motives, intentions, purposes and hidden agendas which guide individuals in their actions. The explanation by motives is too easy because the reasons can be ascertained from phone calls to the sources, whereas it takes time, efort and substantial theoretical knowledge to fnd a cause. Motives are also profoundly misleading and simplifying. Explanations of motives end up portraying the world as a place in which people are driven by desires no more complicated than greed. Notkin (1987) comes to a diferent conclusion in a study of Danish journalism. He argues that in journalism explanations, journalists display various causal factors such as agents, situations and structures. In contrast, Findahl and Höijer (1984) argue that Swedish television news conveys few causal explanations, which weakens the comprehensibility of its news items. In the 1990s, a study by Barnhurst and Mutz (1997) argued that journalism has become more explanatory because each news item has become longer. Parisi (1999) aligns with Carey (1986), stating that explanatory journalism in single news items is more an idea than an actuality. For example, the New York Times displays very few genuine explanatory stories – but a remarkable degree of analysis of strategic manoeuvring and speculations on future outcomes of events. He argues that explanatory journalism is a signifcant opportunity to win the trust of readers at a time when the newspaper industry is facing a signifcant credibility crisis. In the 2000s, Arnoldi (2003) studied US journalism and found that its explanations express less determinism and greater uncertainty, which is a characteristic of scientifc explanation. Forde (2007), on the other hand, argued that award winners in Pulitzer’s explanatory journalism category are weak on narratives to arouse interest and engagement, which detracts from their public impact. In the 2010s, Svith (2011) studied Danish national newspapers’ front pages over four decades and found that journalists feature with increased explanatory autonomy in news items, rather than attributing explanations to sources.

The framework for causal explanation

53

Several studies point out that interpretive journalism has increased since the mid-twentieth century (Fink and Schudson 2013; Esser and Umbricht 2014) and is found, to diferent degrees, in Western countries despite diferences in media systems (Salgado et al., 2017). According to Salgado and Strömbäck (2011), interpretive journalism at the story level is constituted by journalistic explanations, evaluations, contextualisation and speculations which go beyond verifable facts or statements from sources. It may also be characterised by the use of valueladen terms or overt commentary. The journalistic interpretations and analyses involved may be well informed or uninformed, critical or uncritical, and they provide context. Several empirical studies apply Entman’s framing concept (1993), which highlights the causes of a problem. Research on local media in Denmark has shown that three-quarters of the stories studied featured no causal factors (Svith et al. 2017). Baden and Stalpouskaya (2020) found that US, British and Russian newspapers covered the 2013 Syrian chemical weapons story with single frames, reducing variation in causal explanation. Moreover, research indicates that signifcant, valuable issue frames are regularly left out of the overall discourse about news issues. Garnier et al. exemplify the restricted repertoire of explanations in professional newspapers which are supposed to deliver the most thematic types of news (Iyengar 1991). The empirical research from Garnier et al. shows that UK newspapers of varying qualities and diferent political inclinations (Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, The Daily Telegraph, The Express, The Times, Financial Times, and The Guardian) in the period from 1985 to 2016 had a very narrow framing of the chicken-meat production issue. Articles on the topic typically focused on a lower level, narrowly framed specifc issues, and reported specifc problems with causes that called for particular solutions. The percentage of statements in the news that identifed systemic causes remained, on average, fewer than 5%, and the need for systemic action averaged under 0.5% for the 31 years covered. The coverage difered from scientifc literature, which revealed structural problems and contestation at a systemic level (ecosystems and economics of avian infuenza, the links between food systems and industrial animal production in particular and anthropogenic climate change, the systemic oppression of non-human animals, or the negative correlations between animal welfare, environmental emissions and the outlook for farmers given current broiler production systems). The newspapers exhibited specifc problems with specifc causes that called for specifc solutions – unlike the contemporary scientifc literature, which showed the presence of structural problems and contestation at a systemic level in chicken-meat production. The newspaper coverage appeared efectively to problematise and contest specifc issues within a larger structure, which went unnoticed. This kind of coverage does not appear to provide coherent frameworks of interpretation to help the general public comprehend the complexity involved. The authors concluded that the newspapers studied had failed to provide an adequate knowledge foundation for deliberation about chicken-meat production in the UK.

54

The framework for causal explanation

This impression of a restricted repertoire of issue frames fts the experience of several hundred analytical student assignments analysing the coverage of current issues in leading media outlets in countries around the world. A couple of examples illustrate the point. In Nigeria, the public knowledge base of the news media in the Spring of 2017 attributed the fact that the country had the highest maternal mortality rates in the world to a combination of poor health system, the complications of pregnancy and unsafe abortions. Improvements in the health system and in abortion provision could, therefore, reduce the mortality rate. However, restrictive abortion laws of Nigeria were omitted from the media coverage despite the fact that these restrictions force many pregnant women to undergo unsafe abortions (Oloruntoba 2017). Another analytical student example is the debate in Egypt concerning a constitutional amendment in Spring 2019 that would allow current President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to stay in ofce until 2034. This political debate was explained by news media as arising either from a desire for stability and development, a fawed constitution, a security threat or a conspiracy by a dictator. All these factors may be pertinent, of course. However, missing from the public knowledge base was any acknowledgement of the strong charismatic bond between the president of Egypt and the people that was created in the crisis that followed events in 2013 (Hassanain 2019). Later, Egypt’s parliament approved the constitutional amendment. This literature defnes explanatory journalism as claims about causality (cause and outcome) that answer the question ‘why’ phenomena happen, exist or change. Such journalism is supposed to create an understanding of reality. Since the midtwentieth century, some journalism has undoubtedly become more explanatory, and journalists appear more explanatory in an independent way, witnessed by relatively fewer explanations being attributed to sources within the news items concerned. However, academics also expressed unfulflled normative expectations about explanatory journalism. This review indicates diferent notions and understandings of causal explanation in academia and journalism, which highlights the possibility of providing journalists with information about the experience and achievements of the social sciences in explaining causality. The rest of this chapter draws upon experiences of how to understand causality and the methods used to study contemporary real-life phenomena in the social world.

3.3 The causal nature of social reality Our lives are full of events. Some are anticipated; others come as a surprise. As humans, we act with purpose, sometimes without the expected result occurring. We base our expectations on circumstances and what is going on. For example, news agencies and the legacy media run calendars full of ‘probably will happen’ events that are considered important – as well as anniversaries in national and international politics, in local and regional politics, in business, sports, culture and lawsuits. In relation to football (soccer), the UEFA 2021 Champions League’s

The framework for causal explanation

55

fnal had long been planned to take place on May 29 in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Like many other events, it was cancelled as a result of the unexpected COVID-19 pandemic and moved to Porto, Portugal. While the date and venue for a sporting fnal are pretty certain, who will compete in it is far less so, albeit without being random. Although football teams choose their strategies and tactics to win, one team will sufer an unintended defeat and have to leave the tournament. Some teams are expected to reach the fnal more than others due to their comparative strengths. According to bookmakers, among the fnal 16 teams left in the tournament in 2021, the odds on who would reach the fnal (14th December 2020), varied between the highly probable (Bayern Munich with 28 per cent) and the highly improbable (FC Porto with 0.5 per cent). This example from football illustrates how causality works: namely through the relationship between causes and outcomes. The UEFA’s intentions, international relations inside and outside the football world and other circumstances (like a pandemic) are what cause the date and venue of the European Champions League fnal to take place when and where it does. The football clubs’ fnances, the way they treat their players, the coach (etc.) are among the factors that mean certain teams qualify for the fnal. The venue for the Final and the victorious team are neither coincidental nor certain, but rather probable (to diferent degrees). In the social world, occurrences are the result of a range of phenomena, including deliberate human agency and interactions, and social and material settings. A reasonable defnition of causality in the social world is one by which causes may be said to refer to events or conditions that increase the probability of a particular outcome occurring. (X) may be considered a cause of (Y) if it increases the probability of (Y)  (Gerring 2005). To be causal, the phenomenon in question must generate, create or produce the supposed efect on something else. This is the ‘realist’ assumption in the metatheory of analytical journalism (see Chapter 2). The causes of any current phenomenon must be studied in the context of the case at hand – one in which causality is local and not deemed to be explained by universal rules of causality. However, the explanations pertaining to various diferent local realities might share some common characteristics because of structural circumstances, stable patterns and regularities that exist across time and space.

3.3.1 The layered reality – multilevel and multidimensional The metatheoretical framework for analytical journalism emphasises the layers of reality. Causes and their outcome are interrelated units on diferent levels and in diferent dimensions. Units reside in ‘nested structures’. For example, journalists are nested in editorial teams, which are nested in the larger organisational units of media companies, which are members of wider industries and located in certain territories. The result of these layers refects the commonly known fact that journalists have diferent professional orientations: some reveal secrets, others interview celebrities, for example. The orientation difers between Fox

56

The framework for causal explanation

News and CNN, and this diference may be even greater between countries such as Russia and the USA. An international study of journalist’s intervention (setting the political agenda, infuencing public opinion and advocating for social change) found that journalists were primarily infuenced by their country of origin or residence, less by their news organisation and least of all by their editorial autonomy and professional experience (Hanitzsch et al. 2015). The authors emphasise the usefulness of approaches that model infuences on the news in terms of a hierarchy of forces acting on diferent levels. This layered social reality is conceptualised by the multilevel theory, which includes diferent levels in a single model framework (Russo 2009, 64–65). These diferent levels are not just an analytical distinction. ‘The social universe operates at micro, meso and macro levels. These levels are reality’ (Turner 2013/2005, 409). Each of them exists in diferent dimensions, such as the economy, politics, science, religion, education, the law, etc. Thus, phenomena exist at specifc levels and dimensions and may be plotted systematically in a matrix of levels and dimensions. This is what we call the ‘level table’, and it is elaborated in the guidelines set out below. As per Turner, these levels are distinguished by the scale of units that comprise or include diferent numbers of individuals, organisations or other national phenomena. ●

●

●

The macro-level of reality consists of larger numbers of individuals organised in diferent spaces over longer periods of time. The key structural units are institutional systems – that is, the economy, polity, kinship, education, science, religion, the law and the like – and the culture of these systems. The meso-level consists of corporate units and categoric units. A corporate unit is a structure and its related culture, organised in such a way as to pursue particular goals or ends for a group of individuals (for example, an interest group, a community, or a bureaucracy). A categoric unit is a social category that makes a diference in terms of how people act towards, and are treated by, others (for example, by gender, ethnicity, age and social class). Even if the individuals are not part of a group or organisation, they are nevertheless members of diferent social categories. The micro-level of reality consists of episodes of face-to-face interaction between individuals who have particular emotions, expectations and roles (as mother, female, professional, aggressive, shy, etc.).

The national perspective of Turner (2013/2005) may be extended with an international perspective, which is named the mega level: ●

●

Mega: Global or transnational units, such as the EU, the UN, the World Bank, etc. Macro: National units such as government, population, legislation, the business and market system, church and religion, public discourses, etc.

The framework for causal explanation ●

●

57

Meso: Social, corporate and categoric units – such as organisations or groups of individuals by age, gender, social class, ethnicity, profession, communities, etc. Micro: Units such as families, friendships groups and individuals.

The upper levels are more likely to infuence the lower levels than the other way around (Miles et al. 2011; Turner 2013/2005). It is reality itself that reveals this macro-to-micro bias (Turner 2013/2005). Macro-level structures tend to infuence meso-level organisations and groups, which in turn infuence micro-level individuals and their interactions. The above-mentioned study of journalists’ attitudes to intervention illustrates just such a top-down model (Hanitzsch et al., 2015). Another study of journalists’ thoughts (Godler and Reich 2013) demonstrates the potential impact of the upper levels on the individual journalist’s attitudes. The causal relations of the top-down model are contingent and allow variation at lower levels (see Chapter 2). However, it is not a one-way process. The top-down model is supplemented with the bottom-up model, which is less common or probable but not completely absent or impossible. Examples of bottom-up impact on upper-level units are events such as terror attacks or outstanding achievements by infuential or powerful individuals who shape public opinion. The attitudes and behaviour of individuals may push the size, visibility, status etc., of a micro-level unit towards becoming a meso-level unit. This can be seen with corporate social groups like Black Friday, the Yellow Vests, the MeToo movement, FridaysForFuture or the mass behaviour of less-organised social categories, such as people following fashion, adding smileys to messages or making the search patterns on the Internet. This point is substantiated by the simple fact that it takes many iterated encounters to sustain or change either a categoric or a corporate unit at the meso-level or institutions at the macro-level. Units at diferent levels may exhibit motivations, purposes and strategies. At the micro-level, individuals have attributes such as perceptions, orientations, emotions, motivations, behaviours, etc. At the meso-level or the macro-level, institutions or organisations may have motivations and strategies attributed to them, if these units are characterised by formal procedures of decision-making, are guided by a collectively agreed intent or act according to collective rules and orders from people with the requisite authority (Lippert-Rasmussen 2012). Populations or groups are also units characterised by attitudes and behaviour that can be measured in surveys and opinion polls. In sociology, the multilevel approach attempts to identify the impact of social context on micro-level outcomes. For example, Schmid (2013, 5) argues that the macro, meso and micro levels of analysis can bring us closer to answers about the socio-psychological causes of radicalisation, mobilisation to terror and related processes of engagement and escalation. According to Schmid, most research points in the direction of there being no single cause for such things, but rather a complex mixture of internal and external pull-and-push factors, triggers and

58

The framework for causal explanation

drivers. All these can lead to the radicalisation of individuals and can even turn large, collective groups into radical milieux for violent extremists. The multilevel approach leads to explanations that include causes at higher levels (mega, macro or meso) or causes in other dimensions, all of which make explanations less obvious or self-evident – thereby counteracting any propensity towards narrowness in explanatory journalism.

3.3.2 The multicausal reality – the causal model Phenomena in the social world are generated by a multitude of causes. Causes and outcomes are conceptualised as variables, which in turn are the building blocks for causal theories in the social sciences. A variable is a unit with an attribute with a value, which is one among at least two possibilities. In qualitative social science approaches, variables are related through networks, which causal models display in the specifc case. A causal model is judged by its narrative and logical coherence and the empirical evidence (Miles et al. 1994; Miles et al. 2011). Causal models are helpful in clarifying the complex confgurations and temporal dimensions of causality. At a minimum, illustrating causation brings in the crucial question of time. Prior events are assumed to be connected with the ones that follow them, even though the connection may not be neat and clear. A causal model is a display of variables (which are represented in boxes in diagrams) and the relationships among them (represented by arrows). An arrow is drawn from the (temporally) frst variable to the later ones it appears to infuence. A causal model consists minimally of three elements: a cause, an outcome and the implied relation between these two. A causal model is written like this: Cause → Outcome, or in social science terms (X)→ (Y). The causal model highlights the causes of a fnal, single outcome (see Chapter 2). It is written like this: Cause (X1)→ Cause (X 2)→ Cause (X 3)→ Outcome (Y). Each cause may be considered as a single phenomenon with the characteristics of a variable. A causal model illustrates a restricted part of reality. Cause (X1) may be the outcome of some other causes. Cause (X 2) and (X 3) are both outcome and cause. The fnal outcome (Y) in the model can be the cause of other outcomes. An example of a simple causal model is A pandemic→ Government restrictions→ Travelling reduced→ The bankruptcy of airline companies. This model tells us that the pandemic causes the government to enforce restrictions that reduce the number of people travelling, which leads to airlines going bankrupt. This causal model is like the outline for a narrative that nails down the context, shows the temporal and causal relationships mapped within the network and explains why the variables are linked as they are. The diferent levels and dimensions of reality imply that some causes are closer to the outcome than others. Consider the claim that a pandemic (X) causes airlines to go bankrupt (Y). The spread of disease in the population of a country (health dimension, macro-level) or several countries (mega level, health dimension) works at a distance from the condition of fight organisations (economic

The framework for causal explanation

59

dimension, meso-level). These two variables may covary, meaning that a change in the cause also means a change in the outcome. However, the relatively small portion of infected individuals in a population has no direct impact on airline fnances. The variable works through other causes in chains of causation. Structural causes may be situated a long way away from the phenomenon of current interest, with multiple factors in between them (Gerring 2012). These patterns of intermediate association may not be directly observable; they may simply be assumed, based upon what we know to be plausible causal narratives about the world (Gerring 2005). The causal chains are the mechanisms through which categorical units such as women, low-income men or Christians – for example – impact the outcome of a causal chain. The members of a categorical unit may share characteristics but not be interconnected (Danermark et al., 2019). A categorical unit will be the carrier of an attribute with a specifc value, but without being a social corporate unit in which members are interconnected as a unifed force. Members of a categorical unit may share behaviour and receive homogeneous treatment. Think of discrimination by race, gender or other attributes. Black and white are categorical units. Black Lives Matter (the movement) is a social corporate unit. Women are a categorical unit who experience structural sexism, while feminist movements are social corporate units. Producing a causal model forces us towards a more inferential analysis – one that pulls together the data into a single summarising form. A causal model may contain one or more causal chains, which could be a journalist-constructed linear display of events, actions or states that together suggest a plausible sequence of causes and outcomes. However, to suggest ‘why’ something happened the way it did is an evidence-based assertion. Identifying the determining reality that lies beneath the surface of social phenomena becomes possible through theorising and empirical research. The causal explanation must go far beyond a speculative assertion. It must show the best possible empirical basis for the claim that (Y) is caused by (X). This empirical grounding will be facilitated using variables, relations and causal networks.

3.3.3 The variables of causal explanation The concept of a ‘variable’ can be described as a qualitative reasoning tool. A variable has a three-part defnition encompassing a unit, an attribute and a value. The value is not to be understood as some ethical or moral indicator. Instead, it specifes the attribution in an epistemic manner. An example of a variable may clarify this: ● ● ●

Unit: Boris Johnson. Attribute: British politician. Value: The Conservative Party.

Like units in general, Boris Johnson has many other attributes with specifc values. In Spring 2021, for example, his attitude towards EU (attribute) was resistance

60 The framework for causal explanation

(value), while his age (attribute) was 56 (value). This example also illustrates that variables are not constants. A constant is a unit with an attribute that takes only one value – not by defnition but by empirical existence. For example, there has never been a parliamentary executive in the USA, so there is no change to that variable (Gerring 2006). A unit may encompass several parts, which could also be regarded as units. Think of population as a unit, for instance. This could be divided into various smaller units based on age, gender, religion, ethnicity and combinations of these – such as women aged between 18 and 25 years. Or think of a family. It may be a unit with two parents and two children, but each could be a unit on their own. Several units may also be compiled into an overarching unit that also needs to be easily describable. If the observed phenomenon is variation between diferent units or variation over time within one unit, such variations are converted into a single unit with one value. The initial observation could be a triggering diference, such as that the French consume one-third more alcohol than the Italians. This observation has two units (the French and the Italians), which must be reduced to one unit with a single outcome. For example, the French consumption of alcohol is high. The value ‘high’ comes from comparison with the Italians and most other OECD countries (OECD 2022). The initial observation could also be the halving of French people’s alcohol consumption over a period of 50 years. Instead of variation over time, the French population’s current alcohol consumption is perceived as low, illustrating the dynamic value of cutting down. The French population’s current alcohol consumption may, therefore, be perceived as high in an international context and low in a national context. The attribute and value of a variable may difer in space between similar units, such as British politicians who are members of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or other parties. The attribute may vary in time for the same unit – so Boris Johnson was initially a journalist at The Daily Telegraph, but then he became a British politician. The value of a unit’s attribute may vary: Boris Johnson’s (unit) attitude towards the Covid-19 pandemic (attribute) was frst unconcerned (value) in the frst quarter of 2020, then concerned (value) in the second quarter. In between, he had the coronavirus. Variation is what enables data to be informative (Krippendorf 2013). The variable ‘sex’ has no descriptive signifcance unless we are able to distinguish between males and females. The notion of bias in journalism is meaningless unless journalists have the option of leaning towards one or the other side in a controversy. In other words, what makes an impact on other variables is the specifc value of a unit’s attribute. It matters for British policy if Boris Johnson is unconcerned or concerned in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. A change in the values of one variable may explain the change in the values of others. Equally, constants cannot explain a variable changing value; some other variable must change as well. According to the multilevel theory, variables exist at diferent levels, which are determined by the unit. Variables with diferent units may have the same

The framework for causal explanation

61

TABLE 3.1 Units at diferent levels, with similar attributes

Level

Mega

Macro

Meso

Unit

The European Court of Human Rights

The Danish population

The Danish Union The single of Journalists journalist

Attribute Value

Micro

The perception about journalists’ roles Disseminator, adversary, etc.

Disseminator, adversary, etc.

Disseminator, adversary, etc.

Disseminator, adversary, etc.

attributes, and the values may be the same or vary. This can be illustrated by the perceptions about the role of journalists (attribute). Units, at diferent levels, all have perceptions of the role of journalists – for example, they could be perceived as disseminators or as adversaries (see Table 3.1). Variables are created from events, states, factors, processes and structures (etc.) in the specifc case, with qualitative values. These values may difer – such as the roles of disseminator and adversary – or be rated as high or low. Data on variables can be retrieved from direct observation, through the retrospection provided by documents or databases being available or via interviews. The initial observed phenomenon in analytical journalism is conceptualised as a variable with only one value, which conceptually is the same as a single outcome of a single case. The determination in space and time for a variable with a unit, attribute and value is essential when explaining a particular phenomenon because it makes variables ‘local’ instead of ‘universal’. In addition to the stable background causes shared by multiple cases, the journalist needs to identify particular causes linked to the case at hand in order to explain the phenomenon observed. The journalist may fnd these causes in chains between the distant structural or historical causes in the background and the phenomenon that constitutes the outcome in the foreground.

3.3.4 The relations of causal explanation Relations difer from variables by dint of their intangible character. Causal relations are invisible apart from direct mechanical causes such as a stone resulting in a broken window (when thrown). Causal relations are the result of the cognitive process of inference, which positions one phenomenon as a cause and another as the outcome. In social science, the cause is synonymous with the independent variable, and the outcome is synonymous with the dependent variable. Apart from the independent variable (marked with (X)) and the dependent variable (marked with (Y)), a moderating variable (marked with (Z)) is the third type of variable used in the causal model. A moderating variable (Z) is what conditions

62 The framework for causal explanation TABLE 3.2 Types of relation between variables

(X1 ) → (X 2 ) → ( Y )

Chain relation

(X1) has an indirect relation to (Y) (X 2) has a direct relation to (Y)

(X)

Conditioning relation

The impact of (X) on (Y) depends on (Z)

Multiple relations

(X1) and (X 2) both cause (Y)

Spurious relation between (X1) and (Y)

The relation between (X1) and (Y) does not exists

(Y)

(Z) (X 1) (X 2)

(X2)

(Y)

(X1) (Y)

the relations between two other variables (Hansen et al. 2012). That is, the impact of (X) on (Y) changes with (Z). The three variables (X), (Y) and (Z) can be combined in diferent types of relation, as illustrated in Table 3.2. The frst chain relation shows variables in temporal order. (X1) exists before (X 2), which exists before (Y). The frst independent variable (X1) does not directly cause the variable of interest (Y), but it causes the value of (X 2), which in turn causes the dependent variable (Y). An example: the population’s strong trust in institutions (X1) causes students to be highly motivated (X 2) and have positive learning outcomes (Y). The second conditioning relation shows that the moderating variable (Z) impacts the relations between the independent variable (X) and the dependent variable (Y). The arrow from a moderating variable (Z) always points to the arrow between two other variables, and its impact on the relation between these depends upon the value of the variable. If the impact from an independent variable (X) on the dependent variable (Y) varies, then a moderator may be involved. If good teaching principles (X) do not always result in positive learning outcomes (Y), student motivation (Z) may moderate the relationship. Moderating variables are common in the social sciences. The third multiple relation fgure shows two independent variables (X1) and (X 2) simultaneously causing the dependent variable (Y). An example: the teacher’s efective pedagogic skills (X1) and the relevance of the curriculum (X 2) cause the positive learning outcome (Y). In the social world, monocausal (chain) explanations simplify the multitude of causes that generate the phenomena of interest to journalists. The fourth relation, called spurious, is an example of a missing causal relation between (X1) and (Y). These may seem to be connected causally, but (X1) and (Y) are actually both the outcome of another variable (X 2). The aim here is to avoid claims of causality based on spurious relations.

The framework for causal explanation

63

For example: staying at home (X1) heightens people’s anxiety levels (Y). In 2020, people stayed at home more than before, and anxiety levels rose. However, this seems like a false relationship. The changes in the variables were caused by the COVID-19 lockdown (X 2), which forced people to stay home and created a situation of unpredictability, uncertainty and misinformation that led to anxiety. The assessment as to whether a relation is causal or spurious is based on methods of justifcation (see Chapter 6) but is nevertheless characterised by degrees of uncertainty, too. The frst three types of relation may be combined in the causal model, which minimally encompasses a phenomenon (Y) to be explained by a cause (X). The causal model is an inferred picture of reality, with variables logically and coherently organised. Formal models are highly benefcial for clarifying thinking and developing internally consistent theories (King et al. 1994). The causal model may reveal internal inconsistencies in a causal hypothesis based on the logic of coherence before assessing the evidence for each part of the model (see Chapter 5 for narrative validation of the causal model). Variables and relations based on qualitative methods provide no information about the strength of the causal relation. The only claim is that the cause variable (X), among other variables, impacts the outcome variable (Y).

3.3.5 Separating cause and evidence A helpful step in causal explanation is to distinguish explanation and argument as tools for reasoning. An explanation has the linguistic form: cause, therefore outcome. It shares this form with an argument: evidence, therefore conclusion/claim. However, they pursue diferent objectives (Mayes 2010). Explanation attempts to establish understanding by supplying causal connections between accepted facts. An explanation answers the question, ‘why does it happen?’ By contrast, an argument attempts to establish knowledge by providing evidence that reduces doubt. Arguments seek to convince people about a claim which is doubted by a real or anticipated audience. An argument answers the question ‘what is the evidence?’ Explanations and arguments are complementary, and all elements of an explanation may be the subject of argument. The explanation as to why a phenomenon exists requires at least four answers: a cause and three arguments for believing each element of the explanation. The diferent functions of explaining and arguing are illustrated in Figure 3.2, based on the claim that newborn infants have increased their average weight in Denmark. The upper part of the fgure shows the explanation. It consists of three elements: an outcome, a relation and a cause. The explanation answers the question of why the average weight of newborns has gone up (outcome) by relating it with a decrease in the number of women smokers (cause). The elements of the explanation are marked with metatext in bold. Each element of the explanation is a claim or part of an argument providing evidence. The lower part of the fgure shows the arguments, which give the evidence for each of the three

64 The framework for causal explanation

One explanation Question 1: Why does this happen?

Outcome

Newborn infants in Denmark weigh more

Claim 1

Cause Relation Claim 2

Fewer pregnant women smoke

Claim 3

Question 2: What is the evidence?

Evidence 1

Average weight 1973: 3.36 kg 2003: 3.54 kg

Evidence 2

Children born to smokers weigh on average 174 grams less than children born to non-smokers

Evidence 3

Female daily smokers 1973: 47% 2003: 23%

Three arguments FIGURE 3.2

The distinction between explanation and argument illustrated by answers to newborns’ weight

explanatory elements. The elements of the arguments are marked with metatext in italics. The evidence concerning women who smoke on a daily basis (cause) and the average weight of newborns (outcome) consist of ofcial data from Statistics Denmark. The cause and outcome are related by scientifc studies showing that children born to smokers weigh an average of 174 grams less than children born to non-smokers (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2217 /17455057.2.3.389). The questions used to identify an explanation (‘Why does it happen or look like this?’) and arguments (‘What is the evidence for the outcome, the cause and the relation?’) are helpful when analytical journalists: 1. Seek to identify the causes of a phenomenon in the media’s coverage of topical issues. 2. Seek to identify causes of and relations to a phenomenon in scientifc studies. 3. Self-critically examine the justifcation of their causal hypothesis. This chapter focuses on the explanatory component and uses concepts, tables and models to display causality. The arguing aspect is part of most chapters. This chapter touches upon evidence in terms of specifying causes based on empirical data (the creation of variables, section 3.4.1). Chapter 4 creates evidence for a map of causes in media coverage of the phenomenon the analytical journalist is interested in. Chapter 5 concerns the evidence that makes a causal hypothesis plausible. Chapter 6 provides several methods used to test the causal hypothesis with evidence from the case at hand. Finally, Chapter 7 focuses on evidence that

The framework for causal explanation

65

might convince the audience to believe the explanation created by the analytical journalist.

3.4 Practical guide to the elements of causal explanation and the frst phase The rest of this chapter consists of a practical guide to the use of the explanatory framework. The four tools of the causal framework are the concept of variable, the concept of relation, the level table and the causal model. These tools are the building blocks for investigating causality. The causal framework underlies the frst phase of analytical journalism, namely the selection of a phenomenon for causal explanation (Table 3.3). These fve guides are described below.

3.4.1 The variables A variable is a description of a unit, an attribute and its value. These three elements are standardised, including the level of the unit (Figure 3.3). TABLE 3.3 Guide to working tools for causal explanation and the frst phase

3.4.1 The variables

A) Standardise the variable B) Identify stated variables C) Convert data to variables

3.4.2 The relations

Add relations between variables

3.4.3 The level table

Add dimensions and variables from the explanation generated

3.4.4 The causal model

Make a display of variables and relations

3.4.5 Phase 1: The observed phenomenon

A) Select a phenomenon B) The relevance of the issue C) Specify the ‘why’ question

U (unit): … X/Z/Y (attribute): … V (value): … L (level): … FIGURE 3.3

The standardised variable is displayed in the variable box:

U: Boris Johnson X: Attitude to COVID-19, Q2 2020 V: Concerned/Unconcerned L: Micro FIGURE 3.4

The statements above about Boris Johnson standardised as a variable:

66 The framework for causal explanation

A) Standardise the variable ● ●

●

●

The Unit (a person, group, organisation, institution, state, etc.) The attribute is marked as either cause (X), outcome (Y) or mediator (Z) depending on the position in the causal model. The Value is the characteristic of the (X), (Y) and (Z), which is simplifed to two (dichotomous) values (e.g., high/low, presence/absence, yes/no …) The Level of the unit depends upon the place in the level table.

The (X) in the variable box indicates that this is an independent variable with an impact on other variables, such as the British Government’s policy towards the COVID-19 pandemic. The underscored ‘concerned’ shows the present value, and ‘unconcerned’ is the opposite dichotomic value.

B) Identify stated variables Statements of variables often appear as facts documented in ‘conventional’ journalism and in various other sources – such as reports, websites etc. from public authorities, organisations, scientifc sources, etc. An example would be a statement in  American Ethnologist, from Carole McGranahan (2017), in her journal article, ‘An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage’. She writes that, ‘Three newspapers’ fact-checking operations found Trump’s false claims to far surpass those of any other candidate in the 2016 presidential election’. This statement encompasses the elements of a variable, which may be standardised like this: U: Donald Trump X: False claims V: High/low L: Micro

The value ‘high’ is based on comparing statements from the other candidates in the 2016 US presidential election, as carried out by three newspapers and summarised by the academic. Such referred variables quoted from trustworthy sources can be used by the analytical journalist in the causal model.

C) Convert data to variables If a variable is not defned explicitly by someone, two methods can be used to convert empirical data into variables and to assign value to a unit’s attribute. The data can either be compared or condensed. 1) The method for comparing data starts with a unit that has an attribute, such as Boris Johnson’s attitude to COVID-19. The unit and the attribute are less time- and place-dependent than the value, which is more sensitive to the specifc

The framework for causal explanation

67

circumstances of a topical case. The value is more volatile than the attribute and the unit. ●

●

The value is decided by comparing data on the same variable at diferent times, such as Q1 with Q2, or diferent years, to identify any change within the variable. At a specifc time, the data may be higher or lower than at other times (a diachronic comparison). The value is decided by comparing data on similar variables at the same time, such as the attitude to COVID-19 among a range of states’ leaders (a synchronic comparison).

The comparison method makes the value relative as opposed to absolute. Premier Minister Boris Johnson was concerned compared to his earlier, more relaxed attitude. At a specifc time, the data may be higher or lower than at other times. For a specifc variable, the data may be higher or lower than for other variables. Boris Johnson’s attitude to COVID-19 was concerned compared to the attitude of President Donald Trump. Data can be compared within diferent dimensions – e.g. legal, cultural, economic and political – and often consists of quantitative fgures. The method of comparing national data over time in the economic dimension is illustrated in the following example. The unit of Denmark has the attribute GDP growth (Figure 3.5). In 2021, the value ‘high’ may be assigned to the growth in Danish GDP based on comparing the preceding ten years. Two other examples (based on Hassanain 2019) illustrate the method of comparing national data over time. The frst is in relation to the economic dimension. 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3

2011

FIGURE 3.5

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

The annual growth of Danish GDP (per cent). Source: https://www.statistikbanken.dk/20515

68

The framework for causal explanation

The Egyptian population’s (unit) awareness of the crisis in 2013 (attribute) is assigned the value ‘high’ based on two opinion polls conducted by Arab Barometer. In March 2013, 77.2 per cent said they felt unsafe (up from 48 per cent in 2011), and 93.1 per cent described the economy as bad or very bad (up from 77 per cent in 2011). These are signifcant increases, hence the value ‘high’ for the variable in 2019 based on empirical data. The second example is for the political dimension. Egyptians’(unit) desire for a strong leader (attribute) is assigned the value ‘high’, based on the comparison of three surveys by the Pew Global Research Centre. When Egyptians were asked to choose between democracy or a strong leader to solve the country’s problems, 33 per cent chose a strong leader in 2012, rising to 36 per cent in May 2013 and 43 per cent in 2014. The values assigned by the comparison method are always relative, implying that the assigned value at any given time difers from values at other times. This new value is crucial when it comes to the impact on other variables. ‘High’ has a diferent impact from ‘low’. 2) The condensing method summarises and categorises data, often qualitative data such as statements, events, etc. The data acts as an indicator of the unit, variable and value. An example (based on Hassanain 2019) illustrates the method of assigning values by condensing data. The Egyptians’ (unit) charismatic bond with president al-Sisi (attribute) was ‘high’ in 2018. The concept of ‘charismatic bond’ is based on Max Weber’s charisma theory: a community of followers believes that their leader ‘possesses extraordinary powers’, evolving into a relation ‘deeply anchored in an emotional afection’. Events and statements prove  the ‘extraordinary power’ and ‘emotional afection’: By the end of 2013, president al-Sisi’s photo was everywhere – posters, t-shirts, necklaces etc. – and he was depicted in cartoons as a superhero and strongman. Songs were written to honour and thank him and the army. Chants like, ‘You are the father, you are the brother, we chose you …’ were common. In the 2018 elections, some were still shouting, ‘We love you, Sisi, and we will elect you forever’. All of these different types of data constitute evidence of the Egyptians’ attitude towards their president, al-Sisi. Condensing collects various forms of data to assign a value to a variable. The empirical grounding of the variables depends upon the availability of relevant data.

3.4.2 The relations At this point, there is not much more to write about adding relations between variables. Analytical journalists draw upon established scientifc knowledge in the cognitive process of inferring causal relations concerning the case at hand. In analytical journalism, causal relations are based on explanatory theories adapted from scientifc studies. Chapter 5 elaborates the creative abductive strategy, which results in a causal hypothesis with relations between variables in order to explain a phenomenon of current interest to journalists. Chapter 6 elaborates the methods used to justify these causal relations.

The framework for causal explanation

69

3.4.3 The level table The level table is a tool to handle variables at several levels and with several dimensions. It has four levels and unspecifed dimensions (for example, politics, economy, religion, law, public discourses, health, etc.) These are adjusted to suit the explanation of the particular phenomenon of interest (Table 3.4). The level table has a double function. It serves as a creative tool when it is flled with causes detected in the media coverage of an issue (Chapter 4). It is then used to identify potential blind spots (symbolised in the table with questions marks) in dominant ways of explaining a phenomenon (Table 3.4). Such ‘missing’ dimensions or variables may inspire the creative abductive strategy (Chapter 5) in the search for causal explanations, which are absent in existing media coverage of a topical phenomenon. The level table also serves as the validation of a causal explanation when it is flled with variables from the causal hypothesis generated by the analytical journalist. The variables from the hypothesis are placed at a level determined by the unit of the variable. Then, the ‘level’ is added to the standardised variable as the fourth element in addition to unit, attribute and value. When standardised variables are related in the causal model, the level indicator is used to identify any bottom-up relations between variables (e.g., from micro to meso) that need additional justifcation according to the multilevel theory (see Chapter 5 for an example of bottom-up justifcation). The use of a level table is illustrated below in an example of a causal explanation of the decision by the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, to stay in power by resetting the number of his presidential terms to zero (Carta and Shamonova 2020) (Table 3.5). This level table encompasses nine variables, which have been given consecutive numbers. There are three variables at the macro-level, two at the mesolevel and four at the micro-level, including the dependent variable (9Y). These variables are distributed across the three dimensions: psychology, politics and media. The level of the dependent variable (Y) infuences the level of the other variables. Following the logic of the multilevel theory, independent variables at lower levels are less probable than variables at the same level or upper levels, but they are not impossible. As a result, micro-level variables are less common in explaining social phenomena on the meso-level or macro-level. In the Putin example, TABLE 3.4 The level table

Mega Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 Dimension ?

? ?

Macro

Meso

?

?

Micro

70

The framework for causal explanation

TABLE 3.5 Level table with three dimensions and eight variables

Macro

Meso

Micro

Psychological

3X: The cult of personality round Putin

8Z: The political elites’ fear of failure

1X: Putin’s narcissistic tendencies 2X: Putin’s need to be in the spotlight 7X: Putin’s will to stay in power

Political

4X: Russian government’s corruption and nepotism

6X: The political elites’ personal proft

9Y: Reset Putin’s term to zero

Media

5X: Russian government’s propaganda

the dependent variable (Y: Reset the number of Putin’s terms to zero) is on the micro-level, making independent variables at the same level probable (e.g., 1X: Putin’s narcissistic tendencies).

3.4.4 The causal model Draw a causal model with boxes and arrows to visualise the hypothesis. The causal model is constructed with independent variables (X), moderating variables (Z) and the dependent variable (Y). The variables are used in a standardised form (unit, attribute, value and level). The variables are also given consecutive ID numbers to ensure coherence during the various phases of analytical journalism. To save space in the model, these numbers may be added to the unit (1U, 2U, etc.) or to the attribute (1X, 2X, 3Z, 4Y). The causal model is dynamic. It takes its shape from the causal hypothesis and is adjusted to take into account the subsequent justifcation. Figure 3.6 shows an example with six variables. This model has one dependent variable (6Y), four independent variables (1X), (2X), (3X), (5X) and one moderating variable (4Z). The presence of one dependent variable (Y) is common in analytical journalism because it aims to explain a current phenomenon, i.e. the single outcome (Y). The rest of the model consists of causes of this specifc phenomenon. The boxes and arrows with solid lines indicate that these are inferred by the analytical journalist, while boxes and arrows with dotted lines are referred directly from sources. Hence, the variables are generated by the methods of comparing or condensing data. The relations are inferred from the scientifc studies of something other than the current phenomenon. In analytical journalism, a central part – if not all the parts – of the causal model is created by the journalists. A referred part is quoted directly from sources’ statements regarding the current case. In this example, the journalist

The framework for causal explanation

1U: X: V: L:

71

2U: X: V: L:

3U: X: V: L:

6U: Y: V: L:

4U: Z: V: L: 5U: X: V: L:

FIGURE 3.6

The causal model.

observes the dependent variable (Y) as described in detail by a source. Hence, the variable is referred directly from a source. The relation (5X→6Y) is also referred from a source, who has stated this causal relation in the current case. Quoting sources for explanations is common in ‘conventional’ journalism, and in analytical journalism they may serve to enhance the trustworthiness of the causal explanation from a narrative perspective (see below). The design of the causal model consists of: ●

● ● ● ●

A unidirectional plotting of relationships (not bidirectional, with arrows pointing in both directions and correlation with quantifed fgures). Clear (standardised variables, specifying unit, attribute, value and level). Transparent (no intersecting arrows). Ranging from left to right, following the chronological order of variables. Balanced between simplicity (few variables) and complexity (many variables).

The guide to the causal model makes it a manageable tool for journalists. It reduces the complexity of the causal context by focusing on the distinctive explanatory values of the variables. All the variables included are solely there to explain the phenomenon that interests the journalist. The causal reality is also reduced by the number of variables included in the causal model. Given that we know from the metatheory that all phenomena in the social world are generated by a multitude of causes (Chapter 3), the causal model must include causes that will add to the general public’s understanding of the issue. As a rule of thumb, a model with two variables is too simple, and one with ten variables may be too complex to research and publish in journalism. The causal model is illustrated in Figure 3.7 by the example of Vladimir Putin’s decision to remain in power.

72

The framework for causal explanation

4U: The Russian Government X: Corruption and nepotism V: Present/Absent L: Macro

1U: Putin X: Narcissistic tendencies V: Yes/no L: Micro

FIGURE 3.7

6U: Political elites X: Personal profit V: Yes/No L: Meso

7U: Putin X: Will to stay in power V: Strong/Weak L: Micro

5U: The Russian Government X: Propaganda V: Present/Absent L: Macro

3U: Russian citizens X: Cult of Personality around Putin V: Yes/No L: Macro

8U: Political elites Z: Fear of failure V: High/low L: Meso

9U: Putin Y: Reset term to zero V: Yes/no L: Micro

2U: Putin X: Need to be in spotlight V: Yes/no L: Micro

Example of a causal model (based on Carta and Shamonova 2020).

This model has seven independent variables (Xs), one moderating variable (Z) and the dependent variable (Y). It includes macro, meso and micro variables (shown in Table 3.5 above). Boxes and arrows with solid lines are inferred by the students, and dotted boxes and arrows are referred to as variables or relations stated by sources. The explanatory framework is pivotal in discovering causal explanations in Phase 4 (Chapter 5), which do not currently feature predominantly in the general public knowledge base, including news media coverage of topical issues (Chapter 4). The explanatory framework is also essential for documenting causal explanations by citing empirical data that makes them credible (Chapter 6).

3.4.5 Phase 1: The observed phenomenon Guidelines for each of the fve phases relates to teaching analytical journalism to students and are therefore organised to ft a meta-report. The frst phase of analytical journalism is gathered in a starting point section of the meta-report (see Chapter 8). The frst phase of choosing a phenomenon for causal explanation is highlighted in Table 3.6. Experienced journalists may use some or all of the points below in less formalised ways. These initial steps in analytical journalism address (A) the observation of phenomenon, (B) the relevance of the problem and (C) the ‘why” question. The text about the starting point contains some of the elements of a pitch for a story. However, instead of presenting an ‘angle’ for a story that is aligned with an already known theme, it will be more open and exploratory from the very beginning.

Deliberative

Selection

Particularising

Public relevance

Journalistic scanning

Role

Strategy

Principle

Criteria

Methods

Phase 1 Observing phenomena

•

•

•

Collecting media examples Content analysis Issue frame table •

•

•

Science-based inference Causal model validation •

•

•

•

•

•

Similarity model Covariation model Refexive evaluation

Pattern matching Covariation Expert assessment

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Ethos model Explorative storytelling Modality tables Narrative whole Analytical storyline

Trust Comprehension Engagement

Convincing

Verifcation

Hypothesising

Categorisation Public novelty Plausibility

Rhetorical

Deductive

Abductive

Inductive

•

Deliberative

Inferential

Inferential

Deliberative

Representativeness

Phase 5 Adding divergent issue frame

Phase 4 Justifying hypothesis

Phase 3 Applying theory to hypothesis

Phase 2 Mapping causal explanations

TABLE 3.6 The phase of observing a phenomenon

The framework for causal explanation 73

74

The framework for causal explanation

A) Select a phenomenon The initial observation can be nearly anything that requires an explanation: ● ● ● ● ● ●

Something said or done by a person. A number in a table. A document. An event of the day. A persistent occurrence. A situation.

In other words, any kind of information or data of journalistic interest that with suitable causal explanation will add to a public knowledge base. (see Table 3.7)

B) The relevance of the issue The text about the starting point is not about highlighting the absence of the piece of journalism created by the analytical journalist. It is about telling why the subject to which the observed phenomenon belongs is relevant and signifcant, why it has an impact on society, government or nature. (Table 3.8)

C) Specify the ‘why’ question Next, research on an observed phenomenon is guided by questions. However, only one type of question is central, organising all the others: the ‘why’ question TABLE 3.7 Examples of observed phenomena (students 2020)

Qualitatively measured phenomena • • • • • • • •

The German government banned Hezbollah on 30 April 2020. Saudi Arabia will buy Newcastle United Football Club in England. The Danes shame each other during the COVID-19 crisis. Nazarene devotees participate physically in a religious feast, despite the threat of terror. Putin decides to stay in power by resetting his presidential terms to zero. Indian travellers evade screening and escape from quarantine centres. Antibiotic abuse in Bangladesh. The Dutch government introduces cannabis trials.

Quantitatively measured phenomena • • • • • •

The increase in the use of cocaine by young Danes. The increasing number of tourists arriving in Japan. The increase in xenophobia among Danes during the COVID-19 crisis. The increase in the use of Marie Kondo’s Japanese decluttering method in Germany. The increase in the number of Danish basketball players. The increasing strength of the right in Portugal.

The framework for causal explanation

75

TABLE 3.8 Examples of students’ starting point section in relation to these issues

(Memon and Evans on the tourist boom in Japan, 2020) The past decade has seen a remarkable rise in the number of overseas tourists visiting Japan. According to the United Nations’ World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO), 28.7 million people visited the country in 2017, an increase of more than 20 million since 2012 (Kopf, 2018). According to UNWTO, this was the largest surge ever recorded (Kopf, 2018). In 2018, Japan surpassed the 30 million mark (UNWTO 2019), with a total of 31.2 million tourists visiting the country (Kopf and Wolfe, 2020). Providing the latest fgures, the Japan National Tourism Organisation ( JNTO) reported the arrival of 31.88 million tourists in the year 2019 (Yamamoto, 2020). (Polizzi and Freysson on French President Emmanuel Macron’s plans to return African art, 2019) French President Emmanuel Macron’s claim that plans are in place to return African art stolen by colonists and currently kept in the European country’s museums. This issue is particularly relevant because almost 90% of African art is currently outside the continent (5.2.1.30). Even though similar debates are ongoing in other regions, there is a particular focus on France’s return of art because most of the African art currently found abroad is actually in French museums, which hold around 90,000 pieces of African art. TABLE 3.9 ‘Why’ questions for analytical journalism (students 2017–2020)

Society

Why is corruption Brazil’s modus operandi of doing business? Why are cases of sexual harassment against women at work under-reported in India? Why has the Italian Democratic Party lost support?

Government

Why, after 50 years, is France only now planning to return African art stolen during colonisation? Why is North Korea threatening to start a nuclear war?

Group

Why do Germans of Russian descent support Putin’s Russia? Why is the maternal mortality rate (MMR) in Nigeria so high?

Organisation

Why are zoos supposed to be contributing to biodiversity through breeding programmes?

Individual

Why is Aung San Suu Kyi seemingly indiferent to violent dissent in her country?

is the one that requires a causal explanation. The causal character of this question is key because it sets the course for the research and because the journalistic product needs to answer this question. The ‘why’ question corresponds to the discursive function of the issue frame, with its focus on causes and solutions. Below are examples of ‘why’ questions taken from a corpus of reporting by students of analytical journalism and focusing on various phenomena related to society, governments, groups, organisations or individuals (Table 3.9). The ‘why’ question has traditionally featured among the four w-questions of journalism. The ‘why’ question in analytical journalism emphasises what exists

76 The framework for causal explanation

and what creates or generates this reality (its epistemic aspects). Some ‘why’ questions that should be avoided are those focusing on the reasons for making one or another moral judgment (its ethical elements), as illustrated in this example: ‘Why should the French state repatriate Jihadists?’ It is a ‘why’ question, but the answer to such a question will be an argument that provides reasons for a moral duty that advocates a specifc opinion. This question requires advocacy journalism rather than deliberative journalism. Instead, a ‘why’ question should be focused specifcally on seeking a causal explanation: ‘Why is the French state very hesitant to repatriate Jihadists?’ This question asks for an explanatory, less opinionated, account of the reality that gives rise to the attitude of the French government. The observed phenomenon of journalistic interest is pivotal in all of the fve phases of analytical journalism elaborated on in this book. In this frst phase, observation is the starting point for the journalist’s research. In the second phase, the journalist uses issue frames to map the phenomenon in the public knowledge base about topical issues. In the third phase, the phenomenon is formulated in general terms, leading to the abductive discovery of scientifc explanations, which are specifed as outcome variables in causal models. In the fourth phase, the journalist documents the phenomenon as a variable with factual characteristics in the case at hand. In the ffth phase, the phenomenon is presented as a fact, for which a new causal explanation is provided. The guidelines for selecting phenomena in analytical journalism provide a template for a causal mindset for observing the events of the day and their context. The guidelines encourage the analytical journalist to select phenomena to which it is worthwhile adding a causal explanation in order to expand the knowledge in the public sphere.

References Arnoldi, Jacob. 2003. “Making Sense of Causation.” Sociale Welt 54–4, 105–127. Baden, Christian and Katsiaryna Stalpouskaya. 2020. “Maintenance of News Frames: How US, British and Russian News Made Sense of Unfolding Events in the Syrian Chemical Weapons Crisis.” Journalism Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X .2020.1843066. Barnhurst, Kevin G. and Diana Mutz. 1997. “American Journalism and the Decline in Event centered Reporting.” Journal of Communication 47(4), 27–53. Carey, James W. 1986. “Why and How? The Dark Continent of American Journalism.” In Reading the news edited by Robert k. Manof and Michael Schudson, 146–196. New York: Pantheon. Carta, Susanna and Daria Shamonova. 2020. “Infnite Power, Infnite Ego.” Students at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Danermark, Berth, Mats Ekström and Jan Ch. Karlsson. 2019. Explaining Society. Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. New York: Routledge. Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing. Toward Clarifcation of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43–4, 51–58.

The framework for causal explanation

77

Esser, Frank and Andrea Umbricht. 2014. “The Evolution of Objective and Interpretative Journalism in the Western Press: Comparing Six News Systems since the 1960s.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 91(2), 229–249. Findahl, Olle and Birgitta Höijer 1984. Begriplighetsanalys - En forskningsgenomgång och en tillämpning på nyhetsinslag i radio och tv. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Fink, Katherine and Michael Schudson. 2013. “The Rise of Contextual Journalism, 1950s–2000s”, Journalism 15(1), 3–20. Forde, Kathy Roberts. 2007. “Discovering the Explanatory Report in American Newspapers.” Journalism Practice 1-2, 227–244. Garnier, Marie, Margit van Wessel, Peter A. Tamás and Severine van Bommel. 2019. “The Chick Difusion: How Newspapers Fail to Meet Normative Expectations Regarding Their Democratic Role in Public Debate.” Journalism Studies. https://doi .org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1707705 Gerring, John. 2005. “Causation: A Unifed Framework for the Social Sciences.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 17–2, 163–198. Gerring, John. 2006. “Single-outcome Studies: A METHODOLOGICAL PRIMER.” International Sociology 21(5), 707–734. Gerring, John. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Godler, Yigal and Zvi Reich. 2013. “How Journalists Think About Facts. Theorizing the Social Conditions Behind Epistemological Beliefs.” Journalism Studies. https://doi.org /10.1080/1461670X.2012.689489 Hanitzsch, Thomas, Folker Hanusch and Corinna Laurer. 2015. “Setting the Agenda, Infuencing Public Opinion, and Advocating for Social Change. Determinants of Journalistic Interventionism in 21 Countries.” Journalism Studies 17(1), 1–20. Hansen, Kasper Møller, Henrik Lolle and Robert Klemmensen. 2012. “Typer af sammenhænge.” In Metoder i statskundskab, edited by Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Kasper Møller Hansen and Robert Klemmensen, 385–388. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Hassanain, Yasmine. 2019. “Why is Egypt Disputing Presidential Term Limits?” Student at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Scientifc Inference in Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Princeton University press. Krippendorf, K. 2013. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. 2012. “Forklaringstyper.” In Videnskabsteori i statskundskab, sociologi og forvaltning, edited by Michael Hviid Jacobsen, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen and Peter Nedergaard, 423–460. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag Mayes, G. Randolph. 2010. “Argument-Explanation Complementarity and the Structure of Informal Reasoning.” Informal Logic 30(1), 92–111. Memon, Rida Fatima and Matthew Evans. 2020. “Why is the number of visitors to Japan booming?” Students at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman and Johnny Saldaña. 2011. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage. Notkin, Arne. 1987. “Forklaringer i pressen.” Pressen Årbog 1987, 91–99.

78

The framework for causal explanation

OECD. 2022. Alcohol consumption (indicator). doi: 10.1787/e6895909-en. Accessed on 16 April 2023). Oloruntoba, Faith. 2017. “The Throes of Womanhood.” Student at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Parisi, Peter. 1999. “Astonishment and Understanding: On the Problem of Explanation in Journalism.” New Jersey Journal of Communication 7–1, 44–64. Polizzi, Luca and Juliette Freysson. 2019. “Why is France Really Returning the African Looted Art?” Students at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Russo, Federica 2009. Causality and Causal Modelling in the Social Sciences. Measuring Variations. Cham: Springer. Salgado, Susana and Jesper Strömbäck. 2011. “Interpretive Journalism: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings.” Journalism 13(2): 144–161. Salgado, Susana, Jesper Strömbäck, Toril Aalberg and Frank Esser. 2017. “Interpretive Journalism.” In Comparing Political Journalism edited by C. de Vreese, F. Esser and D. N. Hopmann, 50–70. New York: Routledge. Schmid, Alex P. 2013. “Radicalisation, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual Discussion and Literature Review.” ICCT Research Paper, https://www .icct.nl/download/fle/ICCT-Schmid-Radicalisation-De-Radicalisation-Counter -Radicalisation-March-2013.pdf. Svith, Flemming. 2011. Nyhedsjournalistik - Bedre end sit rygte? Et sociologisk og diskursanalytisk studium af forklaringer i danske aviser gennem 40 år. Aarhus: Politica. Svith, Flemming, Peter From Jacobsen, Steen K. Rasmussen, Jakob Linaa Jensen, and Helle Tougaard Andersen. 2017. Lokal- og regionalmediers indhold, rolle og betydning i lokalområder, Rapportering om mediernes udvikling i Danmark. København: Slots- og Kulturstyrelsen. Turner, Jonathan H. 2013/2005. “A New Approach for Theoretically Integrating Micro and Macro Analysis.” In The SAGE Handbook of Sociology, edited by Craig Calhoun, Chris Rojek and Bryan Turner, 405–424 London: SAGE Publications.

4 THE STRATEGY FOR MAPPING CAUSES IN MEDIA COVERAGE

Chapter aims ● ● ●

●

To provide an understanding of the deliberative role of journalism. To encourage critical thinking about public truth. To communicate the understanding that a fair account of an issue enhances existing public discourse. To legitimate new representations of reality in journalism rather than familiar ones.

Learning outcomes At the end of this chapter, readers should have the following: ●

●

A deepened critical understanding of how journalism can improve the public knowledge base about current issues. Skills in inductively mapping media coverage as ‘issue frames’.

4.1 Introduction This chapter describes analytical journalism as the practice of ‘mapping’ the causes of phenomena of journalistic interest in the public sphere in order to add to the sum of causal explanations. The second phase of analytical journalism consists of mapping the existing causal explanation in a specifc public knowledge base, showing the journalist what territory to ‘invade’, as it were. The initial analysis of the mapping shows causal explanations already in the public sphere. The point is to avoid repeating them and instead add new ones to the public knowledge base. The strategy used to map media content is ‘induction’ (see DOI: 10.4324/9781003300977-4

80 The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

Chapter 2 for details of induction). Induction begins by collecting media pieces about a specifc phenomenon and continues by identifying causes mentioned in these pieces and creating categories of issue frames based on their diferent causes. An issue frame is a portrait of a particular segment of reality that highlights some causes of a phenomenon at the expense of others. Therefore, the issue frame table constitutes the map of causal explanations of the phenomenon in which the journalist is interested. The inductive strategy creates a map of the highlighted causes of a specifc phenomenon in the public knowledge base, which paves the way for identifying new causal explanations. The practice of mapping causal explanations is part of the deliberative role, which leads to the analytical journalist directing attention towards overlooked causes of current phenomena in the public sphere. Table 4.1 shows the second mapping phase of analytical journalism. The practice of mapping causal explanations of a particular phenomenon in the public sphere: ●

●

●

is governed by the principle of ‘categorising’, which controls how single items are grouped together. Categorising assigns media items to groups according to what causes the specifc phenomenon. An item is defned as a piece of news on television or radio, in a newspaper, on the Internet or in a social media post. is based on the criteria of ‘representativeness’, which decides what pieces to include. The point is to ensure adequate representation of the various forms of media content. is carried out using the following methods: ‘collecting media items’, ‘analysing media content as issue frames’ and ‘organising the categories in the issue frame table’.

The analytical journalist creates an overview of causal explanations from items in news media and/or social media for the phenomenon concerned. The map reduces myriad items to a few categories. The map represents what the general public is supposed to know about the causes of a particular phenomenon. The aim is not an in-depth mapping of the vast material in the news media and social media but a less ambitious mapping that indicates the most common causal explanations. To make sure that a causal explanation generated by analytical journalism is new to the existing media coverage, it is necessary to know what already exists. The map identifes and documents the explanatory ‘added value’ to the communicative public landscape of analytical journalism. Hence, the news value of analytical journalism has to do with the level of causal explanation. As pointed out in Chapter 2, phenomena in the social world are generated by a multitude of causal factors without any certainty about their impact in particular cases. This is the ontological argument for adding overlooked causes of current issues to the public knowledge base. This chapter starts with a presentation of the theoretical background to the deliberative role of analytical journalism. It then introduces framing theory as a

Deliberative

Selection

Particularising

Public relevance

Journalistic scanning

Role

Strategy

Principle

Criteria

Methods

Phase 1 Observing phenomena

•

•

•

Collecting media examples Content analysis Issue frame table

Representativeness

Categorisation

Inductive

Deliberative

Phase 2 Mapping causal explanations

•

•

•

Science-based inference Causal model validation •

•

•

•

•

Similarity model Covariation model Refexive evaluation

Pattern matching Covariation Expert assessment

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Ethos model Explorative storytelling Modality tables Narrative whole Analytical storyline

Trust Comprehension Engagement

Convincing

Verifcation

Hypothesising •

Rhetorical

Deductive

Abductive

Public novelty Plausibility

Deliberative

Inferential

Inferential

•

Phase 5 Adding divergent issue frame

Phase 4 Justifying hypothesis

Phase 3 Applying theory to hypothesis

TABLE 4.1 The phase of mapping causal explanations in media coverage

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage 81

82

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

perspective on media content before describing the three steps of the inductive strategy for mapping media. The frst step consists of selecting the target audience for a piece of analytical journalism. Step two consists of collecting all media content or a representative sample about the observed phenomenon about which the target audience may be aware. Step three consists of creating a general map based on the causes of the phenomenon identifed in the media examples. The fnal part of the chapter consists of practical guidelines, which are illustrated with examples by students of how to complete the second phase (mapping issue frames in the media coverage).

4.2 The theory behind the deliberative role of analytical journalism The role for journalism outlined here is specifed by the adjective ‘deliberative’. That is to say, the main service provided by the deliberative role of journalism consists of improving the public knowledge base about current issues as the foundation for deliberation. In political philosophy, the term ‘deliberation’ is particularly associated with the philosopher Jürgen Habermas. He has advocated a ‘deliberative’ view of democracy in which people forming a community discuss social problems and solutions before coming to collective decisions about policy. The tie-in between ‘deliberation’ and ‘rational discussion’ is solid within this tradition. Deliberation is a vital activity as part of everyday life. ‘Deliberation within’ is the type of deliberation which goes on inside people’s heads privately as they engage with a particular issue – focusing on it, acquiring information about it and thinking hard about it (Goodin and Niemeyer, 2003). People engage in discussion with others in private or in public in order to weigh the pros and cons of potential social planning decisions and to discover and support reasons for making practical choices. Within this process, convincing arguments are acknowledged, and if they cannot be countered rationally, objections to them will be rejected. According to the theory, deliberation posits that our opinions and judgments are not given and unchangeable. Rather, they are formed and transformed in dialogue and communication by acquiring and assessing other people’s arguments. Deliberation plays several roles in a democracy, including helping to justify decisions made by the people and their representatives, to achieve greater consensus and to enable people to respect each other despite ongoing disagreements. ‘Strong reasons’ and ‘good arguments’ are at the core of the idea of deliberative democracy (Floridia, 2017). More generally, the theory of liberal democracy emphasises an informed and educated citizenry’s ability to represent a wide range of perspectives in such a way as to make deliberation not only genuine but also successfully adaptable to changing circumstances (Gutmann and Thomson, 2004, 35–36). However, the results of deliberation are no better than the arguments involved and the implied understanding of reality. This is an essential point for analytical journalism. Depictions of reality are the knowledge dimension of deliberation.

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

83

According to Floridia (2017, 335), deliberation should be based upon reliable and verifable information (as opposed to a fanciful imagination); or even, if possible, upon evidence produced by science. Public deliberation leads to ‘better’ results insofar as it activates the full social potential of the kinds of knowledge, information and experiences which can both enrich and qualify decision-making and planning. A good, rational discussion requires relevant facts, a clear and agreed-upon defnition of the issues and problems involved, and a willingness to fnd potential solutions to these problems. The quality of deliberation depends on well-informed deliberators (Gutmann and Thomson 2004, 11). Uninformed deliberation leads to a lack of clarity about issues and problems, making it less likely that solutions will be found to the problem, and any solution found can be either inefective or even harmful. The quality of the way in which arguments are made and listened to is determined, in part, by the quality of the underlying knowledge base. Deliberation regards not only the realm of political systems or political communication, which are only parts of the public sphere. Social media have dramatically expanded the range of issues discussed in the public sphere, making aspects of people’s life public that would previously have been treated as private or of no public interest. Deliberation can also function independently of the political system because arguments and discussions are part of the interactions between most individuals and groups in civic society on a whole variety of issues. People who do not have direct experience and knowledge of particular issues will rely on the representations of those realities as mediated through the generally available public knowledge base. The term ‘public knowledge base’ is used in the singular as a theoretical concept inherited from social theory and communication theory. In fact, however, it is a plural concept since diferent communities have access to various kinds of media coverage, all of which overlap and co-exist in a patchwork of shared communication and knowledge. Even though the world is globalised and digitalised, the knowledge bases of communities difer and possess distinctly local characteristics at both a national and a local level. Conceptually, ‘current issues’ reference the contents of some public knowledge base or other. Journalism constitutes a considerable part of the publicly shared knowledge base on current issues, that is, knowledge that is accessible to a broader and general audience. Being provisional haunts the ideal of a perfect public knowledge base for argumentation and reasoning. The public knowledge base is a restricted repertoire of understandings of current issues. Much of what we now accept as knowledge started out as a rebuttal of a commonly held certainty. One factor generating the preliminary character of the general knowledge base is that current afairs and topical issues become more and more complex in an interconnected world. This makes it ever more difcult to generate an exhaustive representation of these issues. A second factor is that the most comprehensive attempts to create understanding, as in the sciences, lag years behind the emergence of current phenomena. Analytical journalism undertakes the function of

84

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

adding causal explanations to the public knowledge base in the light of its generally defcient nature. Analytical journalism only aims to widen the general public knowledge base on current issues and not to the specialised knowledge bases of other disciplines, such as mathematics, or of professions such as medicine and engineering. As such, analytical journalism adds causal knowledge targeted at diferent public bases, which are separated in time and space and constructed and accessed by diferent communities (or audiences for journalism). The deliberative role seeks to supply science-based causal knowledge generated by the analytical journalist as a contribution to the public knowledge base about current issues. In doing so, the analytical journalist enhances the quality of the shared foundation upon which deliberation takes place. In this sense, analytical journalism operates as an extension of the widespread idea that deliberation consists of dialogue and discussion.

4.2.1 Public knowledge on current issues as basis for deliberation The public knowledge base about topical issues consists of a range of portrayals of issues and events in the media. Social scientists call these portrayals ‘frames’ (Druckman, 2010 xiii; D’Angelo and Shaw, 2018). Framing is unavoidable in news production (Boesman and Van Gorp 2017). The way language makes sense of particular phenomena is through discourses or frames, terms that refer to two similar lines of thought developed by academic traditions in both the social sciences and the humanities. Both concepts have multiple defnitions designed to demonstrate the power of language to the understanding of social reality. The input of journalism and other kinds of communication into the public knowledge base may be conceived of as ‘discourses’ or ‘frames’. Here, the concept of discourse is used in its general sense to indicate patterns of representation and their efects – such as discursive structures, news discourses or discursive power. Frames are treated as instruments of discursive power: that is, frames suggest specifc courses of action that serve some purposes better than others (Baden and Springer 2017, 178). The concept of the issue frame, or issue framing, is used to focus on causality, which will be outlined in detail in the section below. Overall, framing refers to a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives showing how individuals, groups and communities organise, understand and communicate about reality. There is, as it were, competition between diferent frames in the public knowledge base and some frames will be highlighted at the expense of other potential frames. However, more important in this context is the fact that representations of reality inevitably highlight some attributes pertaining to particular issues at the expense of other attributes – suggesting how to understand, think and talk about these issues. Frames emphasise specifc values, facts and other considerations, endowing them with greater apparent relevance to the issue than they might appear to have when placed in an alternative frame. In other words, frames afect opinion merely by making certain considerations seem more important than others (Nelson et al. 1997, 569).

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

85

In general, representations of reality are communicative structures designed to encourage belief. A successful picture of reality infuences people’s thoughts and actions through the way language makes sense of our surroundings. That is the ‘discursive power’ of frames. The degree to which representations are naturalised or normalised is the degree to which they are successful. Such representations gain symbolic power, which enables those who present them to obtain what would otherwise be obtained through physical or economic force (Bourdieu, 1991/1977). Symbolic power is the work of naturalised or normalised representations of reality: ones that appear as true and neutral representations of reality, even though they are not. These publicly shared representations of reality become the lenses through which people see, believe and behave. Such representations of reality have potential causal efects, too. That is, they may bring about changes in our knowledge, beliefs, values, attitudes and relations (Fairclough, 2008/2003, 8). They contribute to the collective imagination that binds communities together (Anderson, 2006/1983, 25) (see Figure 4.1). This issue-framing model is inspired by de Vreese (2005). It illustrates the relations between the production and consumption of news. Issue frames are not ‘given’; someone creates them. Issue frames in journalism are generated by the interplay between sources and journalists, under the impact of the specifc persons involved – and, more importantly, the organisational and structural circumstances both within the news media and within society at large. Unsurprisingly, agents or groups will seek to make their own framing the commonly accepted way of understanding reality. The capacity to put the world into words and to legitimise and empower specifc perceptions is a source of symbolic power. It makes other people do what you want. According to Robert Entman (2007), elites care about what the mass of ordinary people thinks because they want the populace to behave in specifc ways that support (or at least tolerate) the elite’s activities. Carlson (2017, 131, 127) argues that elite source-oriented articles in the new media are the norm. The constant reproduction of elite voices in news content has the efect of naturalising and normalising particular ideologies. The repetition of second-hand knowledge from elites by journalists creates a sense Frame-building

Frame-setting

Framing in the newsroom

The public knowledge base

Effects of framing on community and individuals

- Internal editorial policies, news values - External power structures, cultural values, strategies of communication, etc.

- Issue frames in the news

- Sense making - Deliberation - Social planning

FIGURE 4.1

An integrated model of issue framing

86 The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

that there is no alternative to these ideologies. Powerful players have massive resources at their disposal to advance their interests precisely by imposing their own desired patterns upon mediated communications. It is through framing that political actors advance their cause. According to Habermas (1996), civil society can mobilise counter-knowledge and draw on the pertinent forms of expertise. This book seeks to empower the analytical journalist to create issue frames visa-vis sources and external power structures as interventions into the business of setting frames in the public realm. The analytical journalist’s independence is grounded in the inferential role, which is outlined in Chapters 5 and 6. The public knowledge base does not consist of a set of certainties but rather a feld of struggle in which agents compete to make their preferred representations popular or even dominant. A recent illustration of the depth of this battle – even about facts – is provided by former American president Donald J. Trump. His denunciation of reports about inconvenient facts as ‘fake news’ (from his perspective) is equalled by his endorsement of ‘alternative facts’. It could be said that the example of Trump illustrates a powerful agent’s ability to attack the symbolic power of mass media in order to make the media and their representations of reality less legitimate in the public eye whenever that reality does not align with the interests of the American president. By calling the news media ‘the enemy of the people’ and their productions ‘fake news’, Trump has attempted to detach the power of representations emerging from mass media as ‘the standard truth’, and thereby enhance his public support (Carlson 2020). Representations of reality mediate people’s understanding of that reality, and deliberation depends upon what is believed to be the truth. People rest their arguments on their knowledge of ‘facts’, including theories, beliefs and ideas. The commonly available representations are part of people’s perception of reality, upon which they anchor their arguments and decisions. Analytical journalists intervene in the setting of the issue frames for various aspects of life in order to have an impact on individual and collective deliberations. Adding issue frames to the public knowledge base about current issues is the fnal phase of analytical journalism and will be outlined separately in Chapter 7.

4.3 Collecting representative media items from the public knowledge base The knowledge base for current issues includes media content, such as articles in news media and/or posts on social media. Collecting the ones that meet the representativeness criterion indicates what the general public may know about the phenomenon in which the analytical journalist is interested. As noted above, there are several diferent publics with limited knowledge of issues. Germans in Berlin have one knowledge base, Nigerians another and the people of the West another. People may, of course, know more if they interact with other publics, or less if they do not share the public’s knowledge base about an issue. However,

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

87

a representative collection of media content is the best indication of what a target audience knows. If the audience for a piece of analytical journalism is not given, it may be determined by the media from which the phenomenon is being observed, e.g., a top news website in Italy, which will correspond to an Italian public knowledge base. Or it may be guided by the scope or relevance of the phenomenon for the audience concerned. In the media industry, freelance journalists are freer to select the phenomenon and audience than journalists working for media with an established audience. A collection of content representative of the entire public knowledge base should include all of the main causal explanations of the phenomenon in the specifc public sphere. A biased collection of media content may omit common causal explanations, which increases the risk of confrming rather than expanding the public knowledge base for consideration. The collection must be manageable. The items may be small if the issue is unusual or the audience for analytical journalism is narrow. In that case, all of the items can be included in the analysis. A large collection may be too time-consuming to analyse, in which case the journalist may wish to select a smaller sample. Sampling refers to the process of selecting materials such that the items selected are representative of the whole group (the population). One type of sampling is probabilitybased selection, in which each item in the population has an equal chance of being selected. One technique is to select individual items at random from a population. This requires a ‘list’ of all of the items in the population, which is often not available for media coverage. However, random sampling can also be used for large groups of items that are strategically selected as representatives of a population of media items that are not easy to specify and demarcate, for example, choosing items from specifc media as representative of a knowledge base.

4.3.1 Methods of collecting media items in analytical journalism Ideally, all media products related to the phenomenon in the selected public knowledge base should be included in the collection. However, this is often unrealistic. Instead, specifc media and periods are selected. These depend on the phenomenon observed by the analytical journalists and the target audience. Collecting media items from the specifc public knowledge base on the observed phenomenon involves four steps: choose keywords with which to conduct searches, choose relevant media, choose the time period and choose the techniques that will generate an appropriate sample. ●

Choose the keywords used to identify media coverage of the phenomenon in question. This search must refect an open, exploratory strategy that allows various issue frames to be created from the available examples. The search should follow the inductive strategy in order to refect the diversity of

88 The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

●

●

●

the public knowledge base. Searching with diferent keywords and a combination of keywords to include a specifc type of news item in the collection may be too deductive because it refects the journalist’s prior knowledge rather than the public knowledge base. Choose the media that contribute to the relevant knowledge base on current issues. Stipulate the database(s), specifc mass media or social media from which examples are selected. To construct the dominant issue frames, the journalist will select the main media that represent a community, country or region (Europe and Asia, for example). There is no one authoritative and updated list of news media, but various lists may serve as relevant resources for selection, such as (accesses December 2022): https://www.4imn.com/ https://www.thebigproject.co.uk /news/european%20newspapers %20in%20english.html#.Xjvn6lBCeL5 https://www.turbinelabs.com/blog/10-most-viral-news-outlets https://www.w3newspapers.com/ Choose the period of coverage. This may be related to public interest in the phenomenon, and it may vary from a few weeks to several years. Choose the techniques that will generate an appropriate sample when the initial collection is too large for qualitative analysis. To make issue frame analysis manageable, use sampling selection methods to reduce the number of entities available for qualitative analysis. For instance, this may be done by selecting leading mass media or social media, by deselecting small entries, by reducing the time frame, or by randomly selecting an appropriate number of items from the larger group. If too few entities are found in relation to the chosen phenomenon, it may be that the keywords are too exclusive or consist of unusual terms for something that is more common. The use of synonyms within the search may end up extracting more examples. The sample will be of an adequate size when new examples provide no additional issue frames.

4.4 The analysis of media content Content analysis is a method used to generate an overview of how various issues are covered by media. Content analysis can be used to investigate the way a phenomenon is presented. It looks at general patterns rather than the depth of a phenomenon. Media content analysis is based on the principle of ‘categorising’, which groups media items according to features that depend on the purpose of analysis. These categories should be defned and described in a way that either includes or excludes certain content from the category. In analytical journalism, the content category is an issue frame, which conceptualises the phenomenon and its causes as a single unit (described in the next section). As such, the content analysis identifes variations in the category of issue frames, that is, the presence of one or more issue frames in the media content.

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

89

4.4.1 The issue frame as category of media content The issue frame is a concept referring to media content about a particular segment of reality (de Vreese 2005). An issue frame includes the four frame functions proposed by Robert Entman (1993, 2007). The analysis of media content in analytical journalism uses Entman’s issue frame concept to categorise media content but emphasises that causal factors exist at several levels (see Chapter 3 for the multilevel theory). The issue frame: a) Defnes current structures, institutions, situations, events or behaviour which may pose a problem to the journalist (or to others) in understanding the appearance or presence of a particular phenomenon. b) Diagnoses causes by identifying the forces creating this phenomenon. c) Makes moral judgments by drawing upon shared cultural values. d) Suggests remedies when the phenomenon is problematised by ofering and justifying treatments and predicting their likely efects. The elements of an issue frame are logically interrelated and, in that sense, are neither pre-determined nor arbitrary. Instead, they make cultural sense. These framing elements are, to diferent degrees, explicit or implicit in a particular text. An issue frame is the unit of analysis. The theory of the issue frame was developed to measure the epistemic diversity of the public knowledge base on current issues (Entman 1993), and it has been used to conceptualise the diversity of viewpoints in news media (Baden and Springer, 2017). Several studies (Baden and Stalpouskaya 2020; Garnier et al. 2019; Svith et al. 2017) apply Entman’s issueframing concept in the analysis of journalistic coverage of phenomena (Garnier et al. 2019) and diferences between online news coverage and user commentary (Baden and Springer 2014). Coders have reached an acceptable degree of agreement (intercoder reliability) about analysing the manifest content of news (Garnier et al. 2019; Svith et al. 2017). Any non-trivial segment of reality can be controversial, in the sense that it is susceptible to two or more framings. As an example, one issue frame defnes poverty by explaining the phenomenon as something caused by individual laziness. The treatment is, therefore, to change individuals’ habits and motivate them to become wealthier. Another issue frame defnes poverty by explaining that it is caused by political regulations and the nature of the labour market. These things must be reformed, therefore, in order to improve the lifestyle of the individual. These two simplifed issue frames on poverty illustrate the power of such frames to determine perspectives on problems. Each issue frame includes (as well as omits) causal factors and related solutions. Each encourages target audiences to think, feel and decide in particular ways. In general, issue frames are not neutral (Baden and Springer, 2017). The issue frames on poverty answer, in the causal sense, the question of why people are poor. This ‘why’ is the central question for

90 The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

deliberative journalism to answer, as will be elaborated on later in this chapter. An issue frame entails both epistemic and moral components, both of which rest upon the assumption that facts can be abstracted and separated from opinions, but also the assumption that this separation is not absolute. Causes have moral implications and vice versa, as the example of poverty illustrates. Analytical journalism focuses on the causes of issue frames, and it derives the moral judgment from these, not the other way around. Journalism textbooks (and journalists) seldom talk about ‘the frame’ and ‘framing’, or at least they rarely talk about it in any formal way. To journalists, stories convey facts, not frames (D’Angelo and Shaw 2018, 222). In a study of Dutch newsrooms, Boesman and Van Gorp (2017) found opposition to the concept of framing. Journalists associate it with the strategic framing that comes from their sources and the newspapers’ explicit attempts no longer to view the world in a single ideological frame. However, frames are part of the norms and routines into which the news business inserts its content (Lawrence 2010, 265). Much more common in practice than ‘the frame’ is the concept of ‘angle’, which has emerged within the news industry as a tool with which to select information for a viewpoint or claim and with which to focus a news story. The concept of ‘angle’ difers from the ‘issue frame’ concept in two ways. First, an angle is indiferent to descriptive or explanatory accounts of a phenomenon, whereas the concept of issue framing necessarily implies an explanatory statement. Second, the concept of ‘angle’ was developed within the media industry as a practical text-organising tool (Boesman and Van Gorp, 2017, 562). In contrast, the concept of ‘the issue frame’ was developed within the social sciences as an embedded feature in theories of communication, power and infuence. Analytical journalism specifcally advances framing theory and framing as an analytical tool (cf. Davis and Kent, 2013) rather than the concept of ‘angles’.

4.4.2 Identifying issue frames in media content The collection of media content only includes items in which the phenomenon observed by the analytical journalist is present. This phenomenon is a defning feature of the issue frames. However, the journalist must uncover the other elements of an issue frame inductively via qualitative analysis of the items. According to Baden and Springer (2017), an issue frame analysis of news coverage is relatively straightforward when it comes to news articles because of their orderly, professional structure. A news item may simply present a single primary issue frame based on the prominence of the location, of the causes of the phenomenon in the story (i.e., headline, lead, frst few paragraphs) and the amount of space given to the explanation. However, a news item may contain more than one causal explanation of the phenomenon of interest, which indicates that such an item presents more than one issue frame. The issue frame analysis highlights the causal factors in the frame underlying otherwise diferent stories. Due to the lack of framing elements, especially of causes of the phenomenon of interest, not

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

91

all media items can be categorised as issue frames. This is common when the emphasis in the content is simply a description of, for example, an event, action or situation. The elements of an issue frame are identifed using the process called coding. In analytical journalism, this process extracts from an item any causes, moral judgments and remedies related to the defning phenomenon. These elements are logically interrelated into one or more issue frames. One item can represent several issue frames when the frame elements are too diferent to be considered as a single frame. On the other hand, many items can represent a single-issue frame when the elements are similar. Causes in a media item are identifed in sentences with ‘why’, ‘because’ and ‘due’ or are marked by ‘efect’, ‘cause’, ‘caused by’, ‘reason to’, ‘generated by’ and ‘produced by’. Moral judgments are often found in phrases with modal verbs, such as ‘should’ or ‘must’, or adjectives, such as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Moral judgments are often implied in news that adheres to the ideal of objectivism and needs to be interpreted. Solutions are identifed in sentences with verbs such as ‘solve’, ‘fx’, ‘cure’ and ‘deal with’ or nouns such as ‘solution’ or ‘treatment’. The analysis seeks to endow each issue frame with the following: ● ● ● ● ●

●

A label that expresses the content of the issue frame. The phenomenon that is identical for all issue frames. One or more causes of the phenomenon. A moral judgment associated with the phenomenon and the explanation. One or more solutions to the phenomenon if the observed phenomenon is perceived as a problem in the example – otherwise there are no solutions. If possible, an indication of the favouring/disfavouring of agents or organisations whose interests are ratifed or negated by the explanation presented.

Of these six features, the defning phenomenon and its related causes must be stated directly in the media items in order to constitute an issue frame. These crucial elements must be manifest, while the others can be more latent. Implied elements can be added by the analytical journalist on the basis of an interpretation based on logical reasoning. These six features of an issue frame are then transferred to the issue frame table.

4.4.3 Mapping the issue frames in a table The issue frame table maps the media’s representation of the causal context of the phenomenon the analytical journalist is observing. The journalist creates the map. These issue frames and their causal explanation are the public knowledge that guides the audience’s deliberations. It is important information because an issue frame encapsulates core elements of deliberation because the causes, consequences and appeals to a set of moral claims are themselves reasoning devices (Gamson and Modigliani 1989, 2–4).

92

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

TABLE 4.2 The issue frame table

Dominant frame 1 Frame label

[Text…]

Phenomenon

Dominant frame 2 [Text…]

…

Divergent frame [Text…]

[Text…]

Main cause(s)

[Text…]

[Text…]

[Text…]

Moral judgment

[Text…]

[Text…]

[Text…]

Solution(s)

[Text…]

[Text…]

[Text…]

Favours

[Text…]

[Text…]

[Text…]

Disfavours

[Text…]

[Text…]

[Text…]

Media items

Example 1, 2, 3… Example 4, 5, 6…

Another reason that the map is important to the analytical journalist is that it makes it possible to assess the news value of the pieces they produce. The aim is ‘public novelty’, which means that the table has to show that the public is totally unaware or rarely aware of the causal explanation. The issue frame table does not point out blind spots in the causal explanations of a phenomenon by the media, but it does point out whether an issue frame is common, rare or absent in media coverage. Absence indicates that an issue frame improves public understanding of daily life or society, while a common issue frame repeats what is already known about the causes. (Table 4.2) The analytical journalist draws up the table with the issue frames represented in the media items. The number of issue frames is determined by the specifc public knowledge bases on current issues. The issue frame table is constructed with an empty column intended for the issue frame to be created by the analytical journalist. This is the divergent issue frame that widens the public knowledge base. The issue frame table consists of one or more dominant issue frames and the divergent issue frame. The columns can be deleted or added according to the result of the issue frame analysis. Each issue frame may be based on one or more media items. The issue frames presented in most media items are the dominant ones. Issue frames represented in a single or a couple of media items are peripheral in the media coverage. The inductive analysis of issue frames only shows ones in the media coverage and not all possible issue frames referring to the phenomenon. The next phase involves the analytical journalist seeking to create a divergent issue frame, that is, one not represented in the existing coverage directed at the target public.

4.5 The legitimacy of the deliberative role The analytical journalist’s deliberative role difers from other roles within journalism because it consciously contributes by mapping and extending the explanations

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

93

of current phenomena. The deliberative role supplements other roles such as disseminator, watchdog, mobiliser and facilitator. The deliberative role legitimises analytical journalism in not reinforcing the existing media bias towards the elite. Entman (2007, 165–166) points out that media bias relates to power, not to the accuracy of representations concerning reality. Bias is the result of issue frames within the public knowledge base – ones that systematically favour some interests, positions or groups at the expense of others. Bias should, therefore, be defned as consistent patterns of favouritism displayed by the dominance of particular issue frames. This bias primes audiences to support specifc interests, positions or groups. Journalists participate – knowingly or unknowingly – in the struggle to legitimise particular frames as commonly accepted representations of reality, reinforcing the distribution of understanding, power and voice in society. The legitimacy of deliberative journalism originates from its reaction to the bias and one-sidedness of dominant issue frames. Its discoveries are directed against certainties and fxations within dominant issue frames. This creates a new explanatory space that makes intellectual movement possible (cf. Poerksen 2011/2006, 43–44). The legitimation strategy of deliberative journalism contradicts the strategic ritual of ‘objectivity’ in journalism, as described by the sociologist Gaye Tuchman (1972). According to her, this is characterised by presenting conficting possibilities in a news piece as though it was a courtroom and then leaving it to the consumer (the ‘jury’) to decide which opinions or facts to believe. Deliberative journalists do not cast themselves in the role of an unbiased judge. They present themselves as active participants, advocating for their frame and its relevance to the public knowledge base. A single piece of deliberative journalism may be slanted towards particular values or interests and may, therefore, appear partisan. However, the function is quite the opposite. The premise is that deliberative journalists intervene in a particular public knowledge base only to make it a better basis for deliberation and without seeking to advance any other values, interests or positions. Deliberative journalists abandon the judge’s role of letting the audience play the jury’s part in deciding between contrasting information within a single news story. Instead, they seek to make a divergent issue frame as convincing as possible so that the audience can compare their understanding of the issue against this frame before deciding on its validity within the existing repertoire of issue frames.  This explicit ‘additional’ function of deliberative journalism may be more easily accepted by the audience than a total rejection of issue frames that the audience had previously believed. When an audience is confronted with corrections that undermine what it believes, it will often engage in ‘motivated reasoning’ in an attempt to maintain its previous beliefs (Nyhan and Reifer, 2010). Analytical journalism increases the diversity of the public knowledge base about topical issues by adding overlooked causal explanations. Such heterogeneity at the level of causal explanation in media content is in the public interest, especially when it stresses the values of pluralism and diversity – a set of values broadly shared among journalists, researchers and other media critics (Karppinen, 2018;

94

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

Masini et al., 2018). The study of media output makes the idea that there should be a diversity of content a democratic imperative (Sjøvaag, 2016). In journalism studies, diverse perspectives are an indicator of news quality because news media can only be considered to fulfl their democratic role of upholding a ‘marketplace of ideas’ if they present diverse content and provide space for a wide range of ideas and viewpoints (Masini et al., 2018). According to Helberger (2019), it is not enough for journalism ‘simply’ to inform people. Media must also proactively confront audiences with diferent and challenging viewpoints, including ones that they have not considered before. This challenges users to compare, contrast and modify their opinions. It broadens their horizons, enabling them to engage in critical refection for themselves and deliberation with others.

4.6 Practical guidelines for mapping issue frames The following guidelines for the mapping strategy are based on the sections. These guidelines were drawn up to teach students about analytical journalism and are, therefore, arranged to ft a meta-report (see Chapter 8 for details of the meta-report). These two aspects of collecting and mapping are part of the inductive strategy outlined above and illustrated below with examples by students of analytical journalism. (Table 4.3)

4.6.1 Collate the media content The public knowledge base on a current issue indicates an audience may know or not know. Five steps are used to select a public knowledge base and collect the media examples:

A) The audience and the media for the analytical journalism product In our analytical journalism classes, the intended audience has been international (global, western, European, Asian), national (from specifc countries around TABLE 4.3 Guidelines for mapping issue frames and testing news value

4.6.1 Collate the media items

A) The audience and media for the analytical journalism product B) Specify the search keywords C) Specify media and databases searched for content D) Specify the search period for media content E) Specify the process of collecting the media items

4.6.2 Draw up the issue frame table

A) Specify the analysis technique B) Fill the table with dominant issue frames C) Add missing elements to dominant issue frames D) Fill the table with the journalist’s issue frame E) Test the public novelty of the journalist’s issue frame

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

95

TABLE 4.4 Example of an audience for a story about Marie Kondo’s Japanese declutter-

ing method in Germany (Oltersdorf, 2020) My feature targets readers between 25 and 34 years because they are likely to be familiar with Kondo and the related pop culture and to be confronted with their possessions, e.g., when they are moving. For most Germans at this age, the Internet is the primary news source (Hölig and Hasebrink 2019, 20 →A). Accordingly, the feature will be written for an online news outlet.

the world) and local (parts of specifc countries). A specifc media or type of media used for publication will, therefore, correspond with a targeted audience. Table 4.4 shows an example of selecting a young German audience for a publication about Marie Kondo’s Japanese decluttering method.

B) Specify the search keywords State the keywords used to identify media coverage of the phenomenon in question. The intention is to identify relevant media examples.

C) Specify media and databases searched for content Stipulate the database(s), specifc mass media or social media from which examples are selected.

D) Specify the search period for media content Select and disclose the period of coverage. The three steps, B, C and D, are illustrated by the example of the Philippines physically participating in a religious feast (Table 4.5) (this example was presented in Chapter 1, and the student’s issue frame table is shown below in Table 4.10) and an example concerning the return of works of art from France to Africa (Table 4.6) (The students’ issue frame table is shown below in Table 4.11). TABLE 4.5 The method of collecting media examples targeting an international audi-

ence (Macaraig 2020) Media

Stories were selected by searching on Google News, Lexis Nexis and international news websites. Top international news outlets like CNN and BBC were chosen, based on rankings in 4imn.com, alexa.com and thebigproject.co.uk.

Period

From 7 January 2017, the date foreign embassies frst warned of terror attacks, until 12 January 2020, in order to identify coverage of the latest feast (Mateo 2017).

Keywords

The keywords were ‘Philippines Black Nazarene’ and ‘Philippines Nazarene’.

The sample From 75 articles, the sample was reduced to 50, in order to exclude stories that republished wire reports, pieces not answering the ‘why’ question, and niche Catholic websites not in the rankings. The sample included photo galleries in which captions answered the ‘why’ question.

96 The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage TABLE 4.6 The method of collecting examples targeting a French and French-speaking

African audience on France returning African art (Polizzi and Freysson 2019) Media

Based on our target audience, we decided to select written articles from French media outlets in order to identify the existing, dominating frames. We selected our outlets based on the ones that are read the most. According to the ‘France’ section of the Digital News Report of 2018, the most consumed media outlets are ‘20 Minutes Online’, ‘Le Monde Online’, ‘France Info Online’, Regional/Local Newspaper Websites, ‘Le Figaro Online’, ‘MSN News’, ‘Hufngton Post’ and BFM TV Online (Antheaume, 2018). We excluded regional and local newspaper websites, because although they rank highly as a whole, taken individually these outlets do not have such a large audience and outreach. Moreover, upon a search of some of the most-read local newspapers, we were unable to fnd any articles dealing with the topic, since it is a matter of international concern rather than regional or local. We also excluded MSN News because it collates articles from other media outlets and so does not provide original content. Therefore, our fnal outlet sample consists of ‘20 Minutes Online’, ‘Le Monde Online’, ‘France Info’, ‘Le Figaro’, ‘Hufngton Post’ and ‘BFM TV Online’.

Period

Our time frame for consideration is from 2 November 2017 to 27 March 2019. The start date was chosen because it was the day when President Macron gave a speech in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, in which he expressed his intentions to return the art stolen from Africa during colonial times.

Keywords

The keywords we typed into the search engines of each of the selected media outlets were ‘Art africain + France’ (African art + France), ‘retour art africain’ (returning African art), ‘Macron + art africain + colonization’ (Macron + African art + colonization).

The sample

We found 70 articles published on the topic. We chose to focus on articles that we considered more analytical and explicative about the issue and excluded articles that we considered to be insufciently relevant, of-topic, referring to diferent countries or that we were unable to access. This narrowed down our sample to 40 articles. Out of 7 items found on ‘20 Minutes Online’, we kept 5; 19 out of 35 articles were kept from ‘Le Monde Online’ and 8 out of 23 were kept from ‘Le Figaro’; 6 articles were found on ‘France Info, 1 on ‘Hufngton Post’ and 1 on ‘BFM TV Online’.

E) Specify the process of collecting the media items The initial collection of media items may be too small to identify dominant issue frames, or it may be too large and time-consuming. Specify how the collection is made appropriate by extending it, reducing it or by keeping the original search result. Our students worked with a maximum of 50 media examples.

4.6.2 Draw up the issue frame table The issue frame table has nine rows and columns corresponding to the issue frames found, plus one intended for the analytical journalist’s own issue frame.

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

97

It takes three steps to create the table and two additional steps to complete the issue frame table in a later phase of analytical journalism once the journalists have created their own issue frame.

A) Specify the analysis technique This step is illustrated in Table 4.7 with an analysis that extracts only the primary explanation from each example and not more secondary explanations, meaning that the examples represent a single-issue frame.

B) Fill the table with dominant issue frames Number all media examples. Read (or listen to) the frst example and note any directly stated causes, moral judgments and solutions related to the phenomenon of interest. The frst causal explanation of the phenomenon of interest constitutes a frst issue frame. Fill in a column of the table with the frame elements from the example. Continue reading examples. Either they represent the same issue frame, in which case the journalist adds the number of the article in the last row of that column, or a new issue frame with another causal explanation. Analyse all examples in the collection and add the number of an article to an existing frame or create an issue frame. Issue frames tables feature up to fve to six issue frames based on tables by hundreds of students. Once the dominant issue frames have been entered into the table in this second phase of analytical journalism, the last fnal column is empty and awaits the analytical journalist’s own issue frame. It is important not to start flling in the divergent issue frame column at this point in the research because it will refect the journalist’s preconceptions rather than the science-based issue frames that emerge from the next phases of analytical journalism.

C) Add missing elements to dominant issue frames Some elements of the dominant issue frames may be missing. The indication of whose interests are ratifed or negated by the explanation presented in the issue frame can be added by the analytical journalist in the row in which the journalist indicates who or what are favoured or disfavoured. Phenomena that are not framed as a problem in the media items are not linked to a solution.

TABLE 4.7 An example of the analysis technique (Macaraig 2020)

Prominence was the criterion used to identify dominant frames (DF), as stories had more than one explanation. This was judged based on the explanation’s position in the story (i.e., headline, lead, frst few paragraphs), the amount of space given and the number of mentions in the piece.

98

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

D) Fill the table with the journalist’s issue frame The journalist completes the table with their issue frame, which is based on the phases 3 and 4. The journalist returns to the issue frame table in Phase 3, when they generate a causal hypothesis, in order to assess its intended deviation from the dominant issue frames. At this point, the news value of the journalist’s own issue frame can be determined by comparing it with the dominant issue frames. The causes in the divergent issue frame should difer from those in the dominant issue frames. Variations in moral judgment between the divergent issue frame and the dominant issue frames only make the journalistic story more opinionated and do not add to the explanatory diversity of the public knowledge base about the phenomenon. The journalist may return to the issue frame table in Phase 4 if the causal explanation changes as a result of the empirical test in order to assess the newsworthiness of the revised issue frame.

E) Test the public novelty of the journalist’s issue frame The journalist may test the news value of their issue frame, which is based on a comparison with the dominant issue frames identifed in the existing media coverage. The inductive mapping may have overlooked items representing the analytical journalist’s issue frame. Repeat the search in the same media and the same period as for the dominant frames, using keywords signalling the divergent issue frame. Specify the keywords and any examples found within the divergent issue frame. The number of examples indicates whether the issue frame is absent, rare or common. Of course, ‘absent is the aim. If the issue frame is shown to be common, then the issue frame analysis missed the frame as a result of narrow selection criteria or fawed analysis of the examples. Such an issue frame is no longer divergent and, therefore, does not fulfl the deliberative purpose, even if it does add a scientifc basis to the explanation. Two examples illustrate the testing of the newsworthiness of the analytical journalist’s issue frame in the selected public knowledge base (Tables 4.8 and 4.9). TABLE 4.8 The test for the newsworthiness of the issue frame on the bomb-defying faith

of Filipino Catholics in physical crowds (Macaraig 2020) Search for divergent frame in same media: Keywords: Philippines Nazarene lived religion; Philippines Nazarene social identifcation Results: Absent, Novel TABLE 4.9 The test for the newsworthiness of an issue frame regarding young Danes’

cocaine use (Dalbøge and Bækgaard 2020) We have performed a control search of our divergent frame, using the search string ‘young* AND cocaine* AND (increase OR increased OR more) AND (performance* OR perfect*)’ in the same two periods that we have already searched, with the same criteria for length and medium. We found three articles that were not already included in the issue frame mapping. None of them contained our divergent frame.

Asking forgiveness

Dominant Frame 3 Identifying with Christ’s sufering

Dominant Frame 4

Devotees must avoid the risky event None Critics Devotees

Devotees must stop joining the unsafe procession

None

Critics

Devotees

1–2,4–5,8,10–13, 15–17,20–22,24,26, 28–32,35–42,46–50

Moral judgment

Solution

Favours

Disfavours

Media examples

3,9,18,23,33, 34,43,45

Showing near-suicidal passion; keeping faith

Belief that the statue heals; showing pagan, fanatic, cultic worship

Main causes

6,14,19,27

Critics

Devotees

Secure procession but let devotees be

Devotees must be left to practice faith

Redemption from sins Nazarene eases pain

7,25,44

Devotees

Critics

Stop participating in the procession

People must stay away from the event

Statue symbol of Filipino struggle; icon patron of poor, dark-skinned devotees

Devotees insist on physically participating in feast

Showing religious fervour

Believing statue is miraculous

Frame label

Phenomenon

Dominant Frame 2

Dominant Frame 1

 

TABLE 4.10 The issue frame table for the bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics in physical crowds (Macaraig 2020)

Critics, abusive police

Devotees

Balance security with faith, avoid police abuse

Authorities must understand, respect faith

Religion practised by ordinary people for daily concerns; embodied faith crowd identif cation leads to safety expectations

Lived religion, social identif cation

Divergent Issue Frame

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage 99

Lobbyists (museums, collectors) in France French government African countries

French government

African countries who want their art to return

2-7,10,11,13,14,16–19,21–23,25,26,28,29, 31,33,36,38–40

Favours

Disfavours

Media examples

1,8,9,12,15,20,24,27,30,34,35,37

No return of the art but development of partnerships to expand art exchange between France and African countries.

African countries need infrastructures to ensure the protection of art. The restitution of African patrimony requires the modif cation of the code of patrimony.

Actors among colonial powers (museums, art collectors…) make profts and beneft from keeping the art in France. Lobbyists argue that more people can see the ‘primitive’ art if it is in European museums. Macron’s decision to return the art is based on guilt about being the representative of a colonising country.

Solution

•

The art should not be returned because it is independent of historical events. It does not matter whether it was stolen or not.

African countries didn’t have the infrastructures/ capabilities to preserve the art. Inalienability of public collections in French Law made it legally complicated to return the art. Experts were writing an inventory to know how the art was taken to France, if it was bought or stolen, and who to give it back to.

The art should be returned when African countries meet high standards of art conservation, and only if that art was stolen.

•

•

Moral judgment

Main causes

Realpolitik: a shift from ‘Françafrique’ to ‘AfricaFrance’

Divergent Issue Frame

The global context is changing: Francophone African countries are frustrated with France’s wide sphere of infuence, and at the same time they are developing ties with other countries, mainly China. France wants to maintain a sphere of infuence on former African colonies. Satisfying African desires to have the art returned. Trying to contain China’s infuence in Africa.

Actors who want to impose their infuence on African countries through infrastructure building and support of African culture

Francophone African countries

Giving back the art would contribute to restoring France’s image in Africa and enable it to compete to be the main infuencer in Africa.

Considering the context, France should return the art if it wants to restore its image in Africa and therefore preserve its interests.

•

•

•

•

France waited 60 years to return African art stolen after colonisation, and is now planning to do so

Lobbyists pressured the government not to return the art

Practical obstacles to the return of the art

Frame label

Phenomenon

Dominant Frame 2

Dominant Frame 1

 

TABLE 4.11 The issue frame table for France’s decision to return African art (Polizzi and Freysson 2019)

100 The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

101

The four steps (B–E) are illustrated below by two examples of fnal versions of issue frame tables. The examples are from the Philippines and France. The collection and analysis techniques are specifed above (Tables 4.7–4.9). The frst issue frame table has four dominant issue frames for the bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics and the student’s divergent issue frame (Table 4.10). The second issue frame table has two dominant issue frames on France’s decision to return African art and the journalist’s own issue frame (Table 4.11). The distribution of media examples in the two issue tables shows that there are no media examples representing the divergent issue frames based on the test of newsworthiness (as illustrated in Tables 4.8 and 4.9). These completed issue frame tables exemplify the purpose of mapping the existing issue frames to add new ones that the analytical journalist knows are new to the target public.

References Anderson, Benedict. 2006/1983. Imagined Communities: Refections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Baden, Christian and Nina Springer. 2014. “Com(ple)menting the News on the Financial Crisis: The Contribution of News Users’ Commentary to the Diversity of Viewpoints in the Public Debate.” European Journal of Communication 29(5), 529–548. Baden, Christian and Nina Springer. 2017. “Conceptualizing Viewpoint Diversity in News Discourse.” Journalism 18(2), 176–194. Baden, Christian and Katsiaryna Stalpouskaya. 2020. “Maintenance of News Frames: How US, British and Russian News Made Sense of Unfolding Events in the Syrian Chemical Weapons Crisis.” Journalism Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1843066 Boesman, Jan and Baldwin Van Gorp. 2017. “An Insidious Poison or a Door to the Story?” Journalism Practice 11(5), 559–576. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991/1977. Language and Symbolic Power. Cornwall: Polity Press. Carlson, Matt. 2017. Journalistic Authority: Legitimating News in the Digital Era. New York: Columbia University Press. Carlson, Matt. 2020. “Journalistic Epistemology and Digital News Circulation: Infrastructure, Circulation Practices, and Epistemic Contests.” New Media & Society 22, 230–246. D’Angelo, Paul and Donna Shaw. 2018. “Journalism as Framing.” In Journalism, edited by Tim P. Vos, 205–234. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Dalbøge, Jonas and Simon Bækgaard. 2020. “Kokain-lege, gymnasiefester og byture: Når de unge holder pause fra præstationsræset.” [”Cocaine games, high school parties and city trips: When young people take a break from the performance race”]. Students at Analytisk Journalistik. Master of Arts in Journalism. Davis, Dennis K. and Kurt Kent. 2013. “Journalism Ethics in a Global Communication Era: The Framing Journalism Perspective.” China Media Research 9(2), 71–82. de Vreese, Claes H. 2005. “News Framing: Theory and Typology.” Information Design Journal + Document Design 13–1, 48–59. Druckman, James N. 2010. “Foreword.” In Doing News Framing Analysis, edited by Paul D’Angelo and Jim A. Kuypers, xiii–xiv. New York: Routledge. Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing. Toward Clarifcation of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43–4, 51–58. Entman, Robert M. 2007. “Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power.” Journal of Communication 57–1, 163–173.

102

The strategy for mapping causes in media coverage

Fairclough, Norman. 2008/2003. Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Floridia, Antonio. 2017. From Participation to Deliberation. A Critical Genealogy of Deliberative Democracy. Colchester: ECPR Press. Gamson, Willam A. and Andre Modigliani. 1989. “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power.” American Journal of Sociology 95–1, 1–37. Garnier, Marie, Margit van Wessel, Peter A. Tamás and Severine van Bommel. 2019 “The Chick Difusion: How Newspapers Fail to Meet Normative Expectations Regarding Their Democratic Role in Public Debate.” Journalism Studies. https://doi .org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1707705 Goodin, R.E. and Niemeyer, S.J. 2003. “When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Refection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 51, 627–49. Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Helberger, Natali, 2019. “On the Democratic Role of News Recommenders.” Digital Journalism, 7–8, 993–1012. Karppinen, Kari. 2018. “Journalism, Pluralism, and Diversity.” In Journalism, edited by Tim P. Vos, 493–510. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Lawrence, Regina G. 2010. “Researching Political News Framing: Established Ground and New Horizons.” In Doing News Framing Analysis, edited by Paul D'Angelo and Jim A. Kuypers, 265–285. New York: Routledge. Macaraig, Ayee. 2020. “Bomb-defying Faith. Why Filipino Catholics Insist on Physical Devotion.” Student at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Masini, Andrea, Peter Van Aelst, Thomas Zerback, Carsten Reinemann, Paolo Mancini, Marco Mazzoni, Marco Damiani and Sharon Coen. 2018. “Measuring and Explaining the Diversity of Voices and Viewpoints in the News.” Journalism Studies 19, 15. Nelson, Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson and Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Confict and its Efect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91–3, 567–583. Nyhan, Brendan and Jason Reifer. 2010. “When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.” Political Behavior 32-2, 303–330. Oltersdorf, Anna-Lena. 2020. “Searching for Joy in Attics and Closets.” Student at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Poerksen, Bernard. 2011/2006. The Creation of Reality. A Constructivist Epistemology of Journalism and Journalism Education. Exeter: Imprint Academic. Polizzi, Luca and Juliette Freysson. 2019. “Why is France Really Returning the African Looted Art?” Students at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Sjøvaag, Helle. 2016. “Media Diversity and the Global Superplayers: Operationalising Pluralism for a Digital Media Market.” Journal of Media Business Studies 13(3), 170–186. Svith, Flemming, Peter From Jacobsen, Steen K. Rasmussen, Jakob Linaa Jensen and Helle Tougaard Andersen. 2017. Lokal- og regionalmediers indhold, rolle og betydning i lokalområder, Rapportering om mediernes udvikling i Danmark. København: Slots- og Kulturstyrelsen. Tuchman, Gaye. 1972. “Objectivity as Strategic Ritual: An Examination of Newsmen's Notions of Objectivity.” The American Journal of Sociology 77–4, 660–679.

5 THE STRATEGY FOR GENERATING CAUSAL HYPOTHESES

Chapter aims ● ● ● ●

To elaborate a framework for generating knowledge in journalism. To place inferential journalism within the framework of knowledge. To introduce creative abductive inference. To encourage readers to be creative.

Learning outcomes At the end of this chapter, readers should know how to: ● ● ● ● ● ●

Apply abductive reasoning to generate an explanatory hypothesis. Find relevant scientifc research. Identify the causal explanations in scientifc research. Justify scientifc research. Infer from scientifc theories to current phenomena. Make the hypothesis a plausible causal model.

5.1 Introduction This chapter outlines analytical journalism as the practice of generating causal hypotheses of social reality. A hypothesis is a prediction of how reality looks like. It is a qualifed guess based on that which we already know. The strategy used to generate knowledge in analytical journalism is creative abduction, which is the frst step in creating knowledge about cause and efect. It starts with the phenomenon of journalistic interest and an overview of common explanations in the public sphere. Using the creative abductive strategy, the journalist then DOI: 10.4324/9781003300977-5

104 The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

goes on to search for relevant and divergent explanations approved in academic journals and publications. The process culminates in the journalist suggesting a causal hypothesis concerning the initially observed phenomenon. It is the analytical journalist, and not someone else, who generates the causal hypothesis. The term ‘generation’ is used for the creative process of selecting and choosing potential causes of current phenomena. The causal explanation of social phenomena consists of knowledge of complex matters, which analytical journalism bases on philosophy and social science. The practice of generating causal knowledge is: ●

● ●

Governed by the principles that control how creativity works when it comes to knowledge creation. Based on criteria to process and assess ideas about reality. Consists of methods and techniques to suggest qualifed hypotheses.

The third abductive phase in the methodology of analytical journalism is shown in Table 5.1. The generation of causal knowledge in analytical journalism is governed by the principle of ‘hypothesizing’, that is, devising hypotheses that are tentative and possible causal explanations for social reality. A norm in social science is to separate knowledge creation into two processes. Generating causal hypotheses is Phase 1, testing these hypotheses and their likely validity is Phase 2 (Hammersley 2014, 141–142). This chapter outlines the phase during which hypotheses are generated. Chapter 6 outlines the phase during which hypotheses are examined as explanations of phenomena in the specifc case at hand. The causal hypotheses are guided by the criteria of ‘public novelty’ and ‘plausibility’. The term public novelty means that the causal explanation is absent or rare in the public sphere according to the issue frame table, which shows the dominant causes of the phenomenon of journalistic interest (see Chapter 4 for the issue frame table). The term plausibility means that the hypothesis is worthy of serious examination in the case at hand. The causal hypothesis should appear to be a promising proposal of ‘overlooked’ causes of the phenomenon observed by the journalist. The methods used to generate causal hypotheses are ‘science-based inference’ and ‘causal model validation’. Science-based inference applies causal explanations found in scientifc publications to the phenomenon observed by the journalist. This method addresses the criterion of plausibility by adopting causal relationships that are approved by the academics. Scientifc causal explanations may also fulfl the criterion of public novelty because academics are concerned with unseen causes that underpin the consciousness and intention of the individual and which may be less known by the general public. The validation of the causal model consists of two methods. The frst is narrative validation, which involves checking the meaning of causal sequences in the causal model in light of common rationality and cultural norms. The second method is level validation,

Deliberative

Selection

Particularising

Public relevance

Journalistic scanning

Role

Strategy

Principle

Criteria

Methods

Phase 1 Observing phenomena

Hypothesising

Categorisation

•

•

•

Collecting media examples Content analysis Issue frame table •

•

•

Science-based inference Causal model validation

Public novelty Plausibility

Abductive

Inductive

•

Inferential

Deliberative

Representativeness

Phase 3 Applying theory to hypothesis

Phase 2 Mapping causal explanations

TABLE 5.1 The abductive phase of analytical journalism

•

•

•

•

•

Similarity model Covariation model Refexive evaluation

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Ethos model Explorative storytelling Modality tables Narrative whole Analytical storyline

Trust Comprehension Engagement

Convincing

Verifcation

•

Rhetorical

Deductive

Pattern matching Covariation Expert assessment

Deliberative

Inferential

•

Phase 5 Adding divergent issue frame

Phase 4 Justifying hypothesis

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses 105

106

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

which involves checking if the sequences of causes make sense according to the multilevel theory outlined in Chapter 2. The abductive phase generates causal knowledge intended to qualify the public knowledge bases on current issues. This perception of analytical journalism as knowledge generation paves the way for drawing upon the epistemology of philosophy and the methodology of social science, in other words, ways of exploring the world. This chapter begins from the perspective of knowledge in journalism studies. It provides an overview of epistemological diferences between ideal types of journalism. The review forms the background for highlighting the similarities and diferences between analytical journalism and the kinds of journalism identifed by journalism studies. These also point to weaknesses in ‘conventional’ journalism and opportunities in the digital production of news for which analytical journalism presents solutions. The chapter then draws a distinction between knowledge about how to attain knowledge (e.g., methods such as interview procedures, search guidelines, etc.) and knowledge about the object of inquiry (e.g., a political decision, a company’s behaviour, a trend, etc.). The chapter then goes on to defne knowledge as justifed true belief. The beneft of this philosophical concept is that it combines knowledge with diferent degrees of certainty given by the object of inquiry and the methods employed. These introductory steps pave the way for a closer focus in the next part of the chapter on the generation of knowledge within analytical journalism. Knowledge generation is conducted using the creative abductive strategy to infer a causal hypothesis from scientifc studies of phenomena similar to current ones of journalistic interest. This book uses the concepts of ‘knowledge’, ‘research’, ‘study’ and ‘theory’ in combination with ‘scientifc’ to cover the corpus of relevant scientifc sources, ones which have already been approved by other academics in peer reviews before publication. The inference of this ‘creative abduction’ has the status of an explanatory hypothesis about the case at hand. The creative abductive inference generates new ideas and suggestions for further inquiry and testing (Paavola 2005). Formulating a hypothesis of causal relationships in the case at hand based on the detection of a scientifc explanation is the magic moment of creativity in analytical journalism. The hypothesis is illustrated in a causal model that predicts the causes of the observed phenomenon (see Chapter 3 for guidelines of the causal model). The abductive strategy treats the case at hand as a single outcome in a single case (see Chapter 2 for the defnition of this kind of case study). The ‘case at hand’ means the specifc case studied by the analytical journalist. Cases found in scientifc studies are base cases, which remain crucial for exploring and justifying explanations of the observed phenomenon in the case at hand. A base case consists of a detailed causal explanation which does not refer to the journalist’s case. The second half of the chapter presents practical guidelines for generating knowledge via the creative abductive strategy, which justifes the hypothesis as a plausible prediction of the case at hand.

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

107

5.2 The study of journalism from a knowledge perspective Academics have occasionally studied journalism from the perspective of knowledge. This research encompasses the journalistic methods of looking for truth and evidence (the journalistic process) and the portraying of reality (the journalistic product). The research reveals diferent kinds of journalism with varying research practices and pictures of reality. This helps to clarify the identity and distinctiveness of analytical journalism from the knowledge perspective. For most of its history, Western journalism has explained itself to others by a narrative that deploys only a minimum of theory and philosophical complexity (Ward 2018). The activities of journalists are presumed to provide factual and reliable public information, which has made journalism one of the most infuential knowledge-producing institutions in society (Ekström and Westlund, 2019). However, academics have studied various aspects and forms of journalistic knowledge production in response to digitalisation and the blurring of boundaries between journalism, social media and audiences. The social role and authority of journalism have been challenged, and questions have been raised about the continued capacity of journalism to produce reliable information, even if journalists have refned their knowledge-based practices to ft the potential ofered by digitalisation. A general question concerns how the epistemologies of journalism – that is, knowledge claims, norms and practices – are shaped by the changes and challenges in digital news production (Ekström, Lewis and Westlund 2020). Fundamentally, three questions need to be posed here: ● ● ●

How do journalists know what they know? How are their knowledge claims justifed? What picture of reality is refected in the knowledge communicated by journalism?

These questions concern both the content of journalism and the way it has been produced by journalists. This epistemological perspective captures the various dimensions of journalism, such as the knowledge base of the journalists, the process of creating knowledge and the kind of knowledge about the world expressed in and through journalism. Former journalist and sociologist of knowledge Robert Park, in his seminal article ‘News as a Form of Knowledge. A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge’ (1945) focuses primarily on the journalistic portrait of reality. He applies a continuum within which all kinds and sorts of knowledge fnd a place. At one end, he places ‘common sense’: that is, intuitive, unsystematic and frst-hand acquaintance with; cognitive habits that come from everyday experiences and habitual engagement in diferent activities. At the other end, he places ‘knowledge about’, which is systematic, rational and often second-hand – like that of the sciences. In this continuum, news has a location of its own – because, like history, it is

108

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

concerned with events but, unlike history, it embraces an episodic perspective instead of seeking an overview of an interconnected reality. Journalism deals with isolated events and does not seek to relate them to one another. Journalism was thick on registering events and thin on causality (why it happened) and teleology (what it means). Nielsen (2017), following Park, focuses on the portrayal of reality in journalism, and he identifes three ideal-typical forms of public journalism’s knowledge creation in digital news-making: ●

●

●

The frst is ‘news-as-impression’, that is, ‘decontextualized snippets of information’ such as are found in, for example, headline services, news alerts and social media. At its epistemic best, such forms of news may provide a mediated, second-hand form of ‘acquaintance with’ (this, that and the other happened). At its worst, it may not make sense to think of it in terms of knowledge at all but rather as a ‘torrent of impressions’ – all noise, no signal. It is left to the audience to make sense of the stream of content and turn the news into knowledge. In other words, the news conveys an impression but says little about relations, causation or teleology. The second form is ‘news-as-items’. This is the archetypical form of daily news conveyed through individual articles and broadcast news reports. The third form of news is ‘news-about-relations’. This ofers more in-depth, contextual and explanatory journalism, providing knowledge closer to the ‘knowledge of ’ end of the spectrum. According to Nielsen, this type of journalism comprises the established genres of investigative reporting from the twentieth century and new data journalism genres and interactivity, combined with on-the-ground reporting. This third form of journalism provides causal explanations reminiscent of explanations in the academic world but which are far timelier than, for example, the humanities and the social sciences as other forms of ‘knowledge of ’ current afairs. The third form of knowledge enables journalism to occupy a greater span of the continuum between ‘acquaintance with’ and ‘knowledge about’.

Analytical journalism shares its portrayal of reality with Nielsen’s description of the third form of journalism. This ofers up-to-date causal explanations of current afairs that are based on scientifc explanations, but with analytical journalism adding a new discipline (or genre, using Nielsen’s notion) based on an epistemology that difers from the genres mentioned by Nielsen, which are investigative journalism, data journalism or interactive reporting. Meditsch (2005) encourages the view of journalism as a mode of knowledge instead of simply a mode of communication. Journalists ‘produce and reproduce knowledge, and not only in a way that is valid but also in a way that is useful to societies and their individuals’ (Meditsch 2005, 10). He argues that journalism is a form of knowledge in its own right instead of viewing it as a mere instrument for conveying the knowledge of others. Meditsch points out seven diferences

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

109

between journalism and science with regard to their research processes and the research product: four concern the research process, that is, the start, the framework, the procedures and the originality, and three concern the product, that is, the focus, the certainty of claims and the procedure transparence. Analytical journalism is closer to science than ‘conventional’ journalism, as illustrated by the arrows in Figure 5.1. Analytical journalism resembles science in fve of the seven instances emphasised by Meditsch (2005). These are the causal focus, the framework, the procedures, the originality in science-based causal knowledge and a representation of reality that refects the uncertainty of causal knowledge. Analytical journalism is closer to ‘conventional’ journalism than science in two instances, which are the start from an observation and the lack of transparency about methods and guidelines. Wihbey (2017) focuses on how journalists know what they know. He perceives ‘conventional’ journalism as mainly the reproduction of other people’s knowledge. Based on a survey of US journalists, Wihbey states that, in terms of knowledge, journalists remain primarily ‘appliers’ or ‘transmitters’ of knowledge. Journalists ‘ordinarily do not generate new knowledge, although occasional pieces do add to what is known about a subject’ (Wihbey, 2017, 1269). Many journalists frequently draw upon research studies and believe strongly that academic research can support quality news stories across several dimensions. Wihbey points out that, in the online world, journalists have the opportunity to move into new intellectual spaces, moving up the information value chain or writing higher-order, knowledge-based reporting. These are afordances that go beyond ‘conventional’ journalism’s transmission of knowledge. Wihbey draws

Ideal type Start Framework Procedures Originality Focus

Journalism Meditsch 2005 An observation

Analytical journalism

Pre-theoretical thoughts Less rigorous No, premises derived from common sense (what audience knows) Knowledge of the facts themselves

Explanatory scientific research and theories Mostly rigorous Yes, deliberative value derived from scientific theories Causal explanation in individual cases

Representation News is reality of reality Transparency of the process FIGURE 5.1

Closed decisionmaking criteria

An observation

Probable, depending on studies and evidence Degree of closedness depends on genre

Science Meditsch 2005 A hypothesis or a chosen theoretical system Scientific theories Rigorous Yes, premises derived from scientific theories Laws that govern the relationships between the facts Conditional, depending on testing and falsifiability Open methods and guidelines

Analytical journalism: between conventional journalism and science.

110 The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

on Patterson (2013), who argues that when it comes to more complex relationships, ‘the truth’ in the news typically comes from outside the world of journalism. In other words, journalists do not possess the expertise to model the deeper forces at work in a current situation (Patterson 2013, 67, 74). Likewise, Undurraga (2017) found that elite Brazilian journalists are mainly transmitters of other people’s knowledge. He asked these journalists whether and how they experienced themselves as knowledge-makers. The journalists concerned saw themselves as part of the world of practice as opposed to the world of theory. For many, the type of ‘authored reasoning’ that might produce knowledge was seen as beyond the reporter’s professional purview. They stressed the absence of a distinctive method for making knowledge claims. ‘Not being “specialists” was linked to the issue of method. Making a genuine contribution to “knowledge” that would be recognized by the relevant experts, some felt, needed methods more formal, replicable and sophisticated than those journalists employ’ (Undurraga 2017, 69). Instead, journalists possess ‘interactional expertise’; that is, the expertise found in synthesising and translating the specialised knowledge of others to non-experts. Journalists are ‘brokers of knowledge’ when they transcend the boundaries of other disciplines, mixing diferent sources, experts and types of knowledge. Undurraga’s suggestion highlights the compilation of knowledge from disparate sources as the primary knowledge-producing goal. This kind of journalism is often called ‘original reporting’, in contrast to journalism that aggregates published news and sources in a new and reshaped version (Coddington 2018). The studies mentioned above make the distinction between knowledge created by the journalist and the sources used. Analytical journalists draw strongly upon academic research, like the American journalists in Wihbey’s survey and the Brazilian journalists in Undurraga’s interview. However, they do so not as transmitters or translators of other people’s specialised knowledge to non-experts but rather as generators of knowledge – of a truth that comes from the journalist, not from outside journalism. This chapter develops opportunities provided by the online world to move up ‘the information value chain’ beyond ‘conventional’ journalism, as pointed out by Wihbey (2017). It elaborates on the creative phase of knowledge creation via the more formal, replicable and sophisticated methods that Undurraga (2017) fnds are absent. This chapter also elaborates on the third explanatory form of timely news about the causal relationships of current phenomena, as mentioned by Nielsen (2017).

5.3 The theoretical background to knowledge generation in analytical journalism This section draws frst upon philosophical epistemology, which studies how humans seek knowledge and justify their claims to knowledge. In practice, it refers to the norms people use to evaluate beliefs and methods of inquiry for generating truth and evidence (Ward 2018). It is common to talk about ‘diferent

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

111

kinds of knowledge’. The knowledge that people build up by living their daily lives is called ‘common sense’, by which is meant both knowledge about their surroundings and knowledge about how to behave in these surroundings. Some of this common-sense knowledge is implicit. It leads to purpose-driven behaviour without necessarily being the result of a calculated strategy. The knowledge that is produced and archived by academics is known as ‘scientifc knowledge’. In between common-sense and scientifc knowledge lie the kinds of knowledge professionals of various types build up in modern expert systems, e.g. journalists, schoolteachers and healthcare professionals.

5.3.1 The justifed true belief One dominant way of conceptualising knowledge in philosophy is through the notion of the ‘justifed true belief ’, which has also been used in studies of journalism (e.g., Barnoy and Reich 2019). The three premises for this kind of knowledge are: a belief that a given claim is true; the justifcation of that belief, grounded in accepted methodology; and that the claim is indeed true. ●

●

●

The frst condition of belief states that one can only know what one believes. Not believing something precludes knowing it. Some philosophers make a distinction between belief in a full sense and belief in a weak sense – i.e. being pretty confdent that it is probably true (Ichikawa and Steup 2017). Belief in a full sense means being convinced beyond any doubt. Prediction of the future relates to weaker belief but (depending on the justifcation) beliefs about the past and present may also be weak. The second condition is what separates knowledge from a guess or pure speculation. Justifcation is the process that makes the reasons for believing something acceptable. When we claim to ‘know’ ‘a’, we mean that we can point to some justifcation as to why we believe ‘a’. The justifcation of a belief need not be absolute: there are degrees of this, from poorly justifed to highly justifed, upon which our claims rest. What counts as justifcation varies between diferent frameworks as, for instance, between that of a scientifc community and that of a community of ordinary people who do not possess any particular expertise. This leaves room for diferent kinds of justifcation and diferent kinds of justifed belief (Frické 2019). Having scientifc knowledge requires that scientifc beliefs are produced by methods likely to make the belief true according to academics. This is the ‘knowhow’ of evidence and reason, which exists in diferent versions, even in the scientifc community. Finally, to know that ‘a’ means that ‘a’ is true. For example, Barack Obama won the 2008 US Presidential election. Consequently, nobody ‘knows’ that Barack Obama lost the election. However, what is true at any one time is often not obvious or is impossible to judge from the facts and methods at hand. In philosophy, there are diferent theories of truth with which to

112 The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

address this issue: truth as correspondence, communicative truth, truth as coherence or pragmatic truth (see Glanzberg 2018), all used by journalists (Godler 2020). The justifed true belief is a theory that says knowledge of not-easily-observable phenomena cannot be absolutely certain (Ichikawa and Steup 2017). Thus, knowledge in the sciences is compatible with there still being some room for uncertainty (De Ridder 2020). The degree of certainty of knowledge depends upon the knowledge aimed at (its accessibility, complexity, comprehensibility, etc.) and the eforts invested in creating this knowledge and making it credible (the design, the methods, quantity of research, etc.). Consider the contrast between the defning questions from two distinct disciplines – the sociology of crime and criminal justice. The former looks at what causes crime; the latter seeks to ascertain who committed a particular crime. Sociological answers would usually be less certain than those required in a criminal court (Gerring, 2006). Quantum mechanics and the standard model of particle physics are among the most frmly established results of science. Even so, this knowledge is less certain than whether there is cofee in a cup on the table. Even if scientifc knowledge sufers from the inevitable uncertainties, it is the most reliable type of knowledge about the underlying nature of reality and of human beings (De Ridder 2020, 5). At the same time, the reliability of science should not be overestimated because published scientifc results may be false. Although not infallible, science is signifcantly more reliable in the long term when it comes to complex matters. Science is the most trusted source of knowledge because it is based on facts, systematically collated by a community through detailed observation and experiment, which are used to support the rest of science, its laws, theories and models (Kourany 2020). Social science and humanities publications often signal relatively high degrees of uncertainty and use conditional statements such as ‘proposing’ or ‘suggesting’ for ideas or hypotheses. This knowledge perspective is important for analytical journalism. It tells us that there are unavoidable degrees of uncertainty concerning the truth of knowledge about complex matters. This includes the causes of current phenomena that form the core of the divergent issue frames that analytical journalism adds to the public knowledge base (see Chapters 4 and 7). Journalists who wish to improve the public knowledge base with causal explanations of current issues need to accept that causal explanations are not strictly factual. However, when aligned with the justifed true belief, the causal claims become knowledge when justifcation increases the level of certainty and the degree of acceptance of the truth. The knowledge-producing practices in science both generate knowledge and validate knowledge (Schickore 2014). The knowledge refected by a hypothesis is important but more tentative than that of a tested hypothesis. Analytical journalism encompasses guidelines and methods of justifcation that provide sufcient reason for the general public to believe them. Part of this justifcation comes from the strategy of creative abduction, which

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

113

provides the created explanatory hypothesis with its plausibility (see below). Another part of the justifcation comes from the deductive strategy of testing the hypothesis in the case at hand (Chapter 6 outlines this strategy).

5.3.2 The knowledge-producing practice of inference Knowledge about reality comes from observations (in a broad sense) by the human senses, and from the brain making sense of both those observations and the unobservable phenomena such as causal relations. Inference is about reasoning to produce knowledge. People do not infer something that they already consciously know. An inference separates ‘the known’ from the ‘unknown’. The known is used to say something about the unknown. Inferences make up the main body of science (Hayakawa, 2006/1990). The social sciences usually seek to investigate beyond the specifc data and make inferences in order to move from something examined to something unexamined. The matter under discussion may be something that cannot be investigated directly, such as causality. We cannot observe whether one variable afects another. However, social scientists nevertheless infer from observed relationship to the existence of cause and efect (Klemmensen et al. 2012, 32). (See Chapter 2 for the three strategies of inference: induction, abduction and deduction). Peirce’s (1931/1903) introduction to the idea of abduction was characterised by a certain degree of ambiguity, which has led to two diferent notions of abductive inference in philosophy and research. These two versions are called ‘the creative abduction’ and ‘the evaluative abduction’ (Magnani 2001). Of the two, analytical journalism applies creative abduction. However, to avoid confusion, the more common evaluative version of abduction needs to be described in brief. It is known as ‘inference to the best explanation’ (cf. Alvesson and Skjölberg 2018; Magnani 2001; Tavory and Timmermans 2014). This evaluative version has been developed in the context of documentation (Douven 2017), which is the stage of scientifc inquiry in which the explanatory power of various theories is assessed. In social science research, evaluative abduction entails: (1) considering all possible theoretical explanations for the observation, (2) forming hypotheses for each possible explanation, (3) checking them empirically by examining the observation and (4) pursuing the most promising explanations  (David and Sutton 2011/2004, 198). Donsbach (2013) recommends the ‘inference to the best explanation’ as a strategy for journalism students in their routines for knowledge-tested reporting. The practice seeks truth in the scientifc sense and provides evidence that is always tested against alternative explanations. Eldridge and Bødker (2019) also base their idea of an inferential community of journalists on the concept of ‘inference to the best explanation’. Evaluative abduction or ‘inference to the best explanation’ is not proposed by analytical journalism because it demands exhaustive knowledge of all relevant explanatory theories, which is rarely part of the journalist’s knowledge base.

114

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

5.3.3 The method of the science-based inference The science-based inference method in analytical journalism is based on the creative version of abduction. Based on explanations in scientifc publications, it creates a causal hypothesis for the phenomenon observed by the journalist. The creative version of abduction is developed in the context of discovery, which is the stage of scientifc inquiry during which potential explanations are suggested. The creative abductive inference strategy features a logic of exploration and discovery (Magnani 2009, 95). Peirce’s philosophical formulation of creative abduction reads as follows: ‘The surprising fact, C, is observed; But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true’ (1931/1903 §2). Below, this is restated in a more research-oriented version, with symbols typically used in social science. The symbols are (X) for cause, (Y) for an efect and (X→Y) for an explanation (see Chapter 3 for details on this). The observed phenomenon is called (Y-observation), which positions it as the outcome of causes in the case at hand. An explanatory theory’s outcome is called (Y-theory). The creative abductive inference strategy in analytical journalism is as follows: 1. The observation of an unexpected or under-explained phenomenon (Y-observation). 2. But if the explanation (X→Y-theory) is true, then the phenomenon (Y-observation) is explained. 3. Therefore, it is possible to claim (X→Y-observation), at least tentatively. The three elements of the creative abductive inference (the observation, the scientifc explanations and the hypothesis) are the core of the generative practice. Each is detailed below.

5.3.3.1 The observation The frst element in the abductive inference strategy is an observation that is interesting from a journalistic point of view. This initially observed phenomenon (Y-observation) is located in time and space under such traditional rubrics as the ‘who’, ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘what’ of statements, quantities, events, occurrences, relations, situations and tendencies. However, in this creative phase of abduction, the phenomenon is made more general to include a number of scientifc studies. The specifc phenomena are rephrased in more general terms to make their similarity with other phenomena outside the area of immediate interest more obvious. The more that the details of a phenomenon are restricted to the specifc circumstances of a country, group or individual, the more difcult it will be to fnd relevant scientifc studies to compare it with (Gerring 2006). The phenomenon becomes searchable in the scientifc databases when expressed

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

115

in general terms that are less dependent on the immediate context in time and space. The process of detecting relevant scientifc research should be guided by the observed phenomena clearly stated in general terms (examples are given in the guide section below).

5.3.3.2 The scientifc explanatory theory The second element in the abductive inference strategy is the explanatory theory (X→Y-theory). The search for theories is ambiguous in the sense that there is no fxed, predetermined list of explanatory theories from which to choose. The journalist should not expect that there is scientifc research on the specifc current phenomenon of interest. Instead, there may be studies of previous phenomena. These are theories that already exist and seem to explain the observation. The identifcation and selection of explanatory theories is the creative moment in the abductive strategy. It is articulated by setting the goal as something to ‘look for’, ‘to fnd’, in other words something to ‘infer’ from. Considerable academic research is now available on the Internet. It is even available to journalists who do not have institutional access to collection systems via public libraries and institutions of higher learning. A cursory look identifes the Directory of Open Access Journals (13,000 journals and 4 million articles at https://doaj.org/) and Core (135 million articles at  https:// core.ac.uk/). Google Scholar gives restricted access to more than 100 million peer-reviewed online academic journals and books, conference papers and other academic literature. There are also national open-access databases, such as Persée (France) and Narcis (the Netherlands). For a journalist seeking to understand contemporary life and current issues, knowledge of how to use this overwhelming abundance of peer-reviewed academic knowledge is now a professional requirement. The generalised term(s) of the observed phenomenon can be used to search the available research databases. At public libraries and institutions of higher learning, EBSCO and JSTOR are the databases most commonly subscribed to and used. Wide full-text searches, or topic searches, yield a good deal of information in these databases. The search results may be reduced by choosing the main subject area databases, such as the life sciences, humanities, law, medicine, natural sciences, social sciences and religion/theology. These search results may be narrowed by adding criteria within the search process. In these collections, the normal procedure is to include subject tabs to make academic papers easy to search – and often (on the main body of text) a resume of the argument, the fndings or maybe some questions. These resumes allow the journalist to fnd relevant studies more quickly and to exclude non-relevant studies. The crucial criterion in selecting studies is the presence of a causal explanation. The introduction and the word index (look for ‘explanation’ or

116 The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

‘cause’) may help detect causal explanations in books. Analytical journalism applies studies that are based on diferent ideas of causality, which will be applicable if they fulfl the minimal defnition of causality: causes are events or conditions that raise the probability of an outcome (see Chapter 2 and 3 for outlines of causality). Quantitative studies are often more explicit about causal relations and variables than qualitative studies. The experimental and statistical models of causal explanation are the dominant models of causal explanation in the social sciences (Lofand et al. 2006, 159). In studies measuring the correlations between factors, causality is established through cause(s) and outcomes that appear easy to identify and extract. Lofand et al. (2006, 159) point out that qualitative studies, such as feld research, have causal arguments which are more implicit. Such studies argue that the event, state or condition in question owes its occurrence, at least in part, to the prior or synchronic occurrence of some other event, state or condition. The ‘why’ is often embedded in the ‘how’ in qualitative studies. The causal explanation in a scientifc study must be extracted and formalised as causal variables (X), moderating variables (Z) and outcome variables (Y). It may take more interpretation to extract the cause and efect from qualitative studies than from quantitative studies Additional searches can be used to extend an initial explanation with further variables. The searches can be made in order to identify overlapping theories, so that the result of one theory is the cause of another theory (examples are given in the guide section below).

5.3.3.3 The hypothesis of the journalist’s case The third element is the hypothesis of the case at hand. This is inferred from known theory (X-theory→Y-theory) to the unknown case at hand (X→Y-observation). This inference adapts an external theory towards an explanation that is restricted in time and space to the specifc phenomenon. A variable is labelled according to its position in the hypothesis and its position in the applied theory. (see Table 5.2) The label (2X=Y-theory1=X1-theory2) tells that the variable is the second cause ‘2X’ in the hypothesis and is the outcome of the frst theory ‘Y-theory1’ and a cause of the second theory ‘X1-theory2’. These three elements of observation, scientifc explanation(s) and hypothesis are organised in the creative abductive inference table in order to make the method of creative science-based inference systematic and transparent. The frst row contains the observed phenomenon (Y-observation) to be explained. The second row contains the variables of scientifc explanation(s), which are named (X-theory1) and (Y-theory1) to show the cause and outcome variables of this frst theory, and (X-theory2) and (Y-theory2) for a second theory, etc. The third row displays the inference that combines the two frst rows into a causal hypothesis of the case at hand. This row makes transparent the combination of one or more theories and the observed phenomenon in the creation of the hypothesis (examples are given in the guide section below).

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

117

TABLE 5.2 The creative abductive inference table

1. Observation (Y-observation)

The observed phenomenon (Y-observation)

2. Explanatory theory (X-theory)→ (Y-theory)

The variables of a (frst) theory are labelled as causes and the outcome: cause one (X1-theory1) leads to cause two (X2-theory1), which leads to the result (Y-theory1). The same procedure for a second theory (X1-theory2), (Y-theory2), etc.

3. Hypothesis of case at hand (X-theory)→ (Y-observation)

The hypothesis combines the variables of two previous rows plus adding labels with consecutive numbers of the hypothesis (with bold): (1X=X-theory1) leads to (2X=Y-theory1=X1theory2), which leads to (3X=X2-theory2), which leads to (4Y-observation=Y-theory2)

5.4 The public novelty of the causal hypothesis The criterion for public novelty in analytical journalism is addressed by this method of creative inference. Finding relevant scientifc studies involves ‘thinking outside the box’ and away from the explanations given by dominant issue frames within the public knowledge base (see Chapter 4 for the mapping of issue frames). Peirce describes creative abductive inference as the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis, which is the only logical operation that introduces any new idea and creates learning and understanding (Peirce 1931/1903 §4, 171). Reality is more than any one person, or the collective, can spontaneously experience and observe. Most human action is determined by forces beyond the awareness or control of the actors themselves (Lofand et al. 2006, 165). These forces can be made apparent in the explanatory theories of scientifc research (Tavory and Timmermans 2014, 18). If society were transparent to its members, we would not need social science (Danermark et al. 2019). The scientifc causal explanations may fulfl the criterion of public novelty because academics are concerned with signifcant causes behind the consciousness and intention of the individual, which may be less known by the general public. Margaret Boden (referred to by Schickore, 2018) has suggested that creativity be defned in terms of three diferent levels of novelty. First, psychological creativity makes a new inference that is surprising and vital to the particular circle of the person who devised it. Second, historical creativity makes an inference that is radically novel, surprising and essential within the whole historical paradigm within which the researcher is located. This is the aim of science. In between is public creativity, which makes an inference that is new to the public knowledge base about current issues – which is, of course, the aim of analytical journalism. The public novelty of the hypothesis is outlined in Chapter 4. Comparing the hypothesis with the explanations in the issue frame table indicates its public novelty. Such novelty is shown in the issue frame table

118 The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

for the bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics (Chapter 4, Table 4.10), and in a focused search on the frequency of the causal explanation in the general public databases (Chapter 4, Table 4.8).

5.5 The plausibility of the causal hypothesis The criterion for plausibility of the hypothesis is worth considering. Being the most creative of the three strategies of inference, abduction is also the riskiest in the sense of making erroneous inferences. The plausibility of the proposed hypothesis is, therefore, crucial in deciding on the more time-consuming test of the hypothesis in the case at hand. The causal hypothesis in analytical journalism derives plausibility from reliable scientifc explanations relevant to the observed phenomenon and from adhering to the causal logic outlined in the causal framework in Chapter 3.

5.5.1 Quality of the selected studies The immediate plausibility of the inferred hypothesis depends upon the quality of the applied studies, which has to do with their credibility. This may be assessed before the theory is applied in the hypothesis to subsequent work on causal theories that it would be best to avoid. The journalist is not seeking to critique the individual scientifc studies but rather to fnd proper scientifc research that aligns with the creative abductive strategy. The journalist may access the validity of the scientifc study directly, which resembles the peer review it has been through already. However, the quality of scientifc research may also be assessed indirectly through indications of quality such as research showing similar results, citations by other academics or published peer review of the selected study. Here, ranked in order of priority are four diferent ways of assessing the quality of the selected scientifc research. ●

●

Check if research shows the same result Look for other research that shows the same results. Studies that elaborate on idea-based causal theories can be supplemented with empirical studies of the same causal relationships. The degree of validity of the explanation ofered will be refected by the number of times it is verifed in other studies. Systematic meta reviews make the results that appear in more than one study more credible (Choudry and Farooq 2017). Check any reviews If only one study is found, then indications from the academic community may be used to justify the selected research. Academics may address research after publication in reviews or commentaries assessing the quality and validity of specifc articles or books. Such reviews point towards strengths and weaknesses that may impact the credibility of the research and its usefulness in the creative abduction process.

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses ●

●

119

Check the citations Another indication of quality is the extent to which the research is cited in other studies. One quick shorthand result available on Google Scholar is the number of times the article has been cited. Regularly cited articles are usually considered the top tier of research in the feld. As such, research with many citations appears more reliable than research that appears to have been ignored by the academic community. Of course, older research may have more citations than newer. Research concerning issues studied regularly is cited more often than that into less popular issues, and research in English is cited more often than fndings in other languages. These reference fgures are highly relative, but still give a journalist who is not an expert in the feld an indication of the credibility of the fndings. Check the journal Journals and publishers have various painstaking pre-publication processes of review, comprising two or more blind peer reviews, all resulting in rejections of, or improvements to, the proposed research. The ranking of journals may also be an indicator of the review process. Journal ranking can be searched here: https://www.scopus.com/sources.uri. Choose ‘Title’ and write the title of the journal or the subject (showing more journals). The ‘highest percentile’ indicates the relative standing of a serial title in that subject area, showing where it performs best. An example of a search in early 2020 on ‘journalism’ shows that Digital Journalism is ranked number 7 among 309 journals in the area of communication.

The science-based inference transmits validity to the hypothesis from the scientifc explanations approved by the academic community. Peer-reviewed causal relationships appear more credible than causal relationships created ad hoc by journalists in response to the case at hand. Journalists who work with science-based inferences produce more plausible causal hypotheses than the causal ideas journalists invent based on what people say or on their own general knowledge.

5.5.2 Relevance of the selected scientifc research The scientifc explanations must be appropriate for the case at hand. Studies that elaborate on idea-based causal theories may have an explanatory relevance to many diferent cases, including the one at hand. Idea-based causal theories are justifed by their broad or abstract causal perspective. How empirical cases and their causal details relate to other cases may be less obvious. When selecting empirical scientifc studies, the journalist can apply analogical reasoning. Analogies have a justifcatory role, which convinces people to take an idea seriously (Bartha 2016/2013). The ‘scientifcally acceptable causal connections’ are the base case of an analogical argument (Hesse 1966). An analogical argument may reveal hidden causes by transferring causality from a base case (the case in a

120 The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

scientifc study) to a target case (the journalist’s case at hand). Identifying a base case does not require in-depth familiarity with the whole variety of explanatory theories in order to fnd and select scientifc explanations. Instead, it requires the journalist to search and select among existing theories which seem to promise an explanation of the phenomenon. The selected one supplements other public and better-known explanations of the observation, but it is not the only explanation and may not even be the most powerful one. Detailed empirical studies are justifed by the similarity between the scientifc case and the case at hand in other aspects than the causal explanation. This is the analogical argument. It cites accepted similarities between two cases to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists. Causality in a target case is plausible because of well-known causality in a base case with similar properties (Hesse 1966). These features may be surface-level artefacts or the underlying structures. The similarities to the case at hand that will be inaccurate and incomplete yet add to the plausibility of a hypothesis. This is illustrated in Table 5.3 with an example from Bartha (2016/2013). This analogy suggests the causal relations of the base case, that is, the known characteristics that Earth supports life may suggest life on Mars based on its similarities with Earth. The known similarities other than the causal variables between a scientifc case and the journalist’s case at hand are listed in the context table 5.4. TABLE 5.3 Analogical reasoning from base case to target case

Base case ‘Earth’

Target case ‘Mars’ Known similarities:

orbits the sun has a moon revolves on axis subject to gravity

Similarities between domains

orbits the sun has moons revolves on axis subject to gravity

Inferred similarity: ⇒

supports life

may support life

TABLE 5.4 The context table in analytical journalism

Base case

Case at hand

Feature

Evidence (data, source)

Feature

Evidence (data, source)

[1. Text…]

[Text…]

[Text…]

[Text…]

[2. Text…]

[Text…]

[Text…]

[Text…]

[…]

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses  121

Such an analogy makes the hypothesis more plausible but does not constitute direct evidence of the explanation of the journalist’s case at hand. This is created by empirical tests (see Chapter 6 for details of testing).

5.5.3 The causal model validation The causal hypothesis expressed in Table 5.2 above can be made more plausible by adhering to the causal logic outlined in the framework for causal explanation in Chapter 3. Connecting the variables of the hypothesis in a causal model may reveal internal inconsistencies when validated for multilevel consistency and narrative coherence. First, in terms of multilevel consistency, the variables of the hypothesis are placed in the level table (see Chapter 3, Table 3.6) according to their levels and dimensions derived from the studies. This procedure adds a level to each variable. In this abductive phase, the completion of the level table depends on whether the units of the variables appear in the scientific explanations. Variables are detailed more often by empirical studies than by idea-based explanatory theories. If the units are missing and the level table cannot be completed during this abductive phase, it can be filled in during the next deductive phase based on data from the test. Level validation can be performed for both the hypothesised causal model and the tested causal model. The levels of variables are used to reveal any bottom-up relationships in the causal model that require special attention according to the multilevel theory. Second, the variables must be organised in a causal model (see Chapter 3 for details on the causal model). The hypothesised causal model makes transparent the applied scientific explanations. The causal model in Figure 5.2 illustrates a

Study 2 1U: X: V: L:

2U: X: V: L:

Study 3

6U: Y: V: L:

Study 4 3U: X: V: L: FIGURE 5.2

4U: Z: V: L:

Study 1

5U: X: V: L:

The causal model based on scientific studies

122

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

model with six standardised variables (the boxes) and fve relations (the arrows) based on four scientifc studies (squares with dotted line). The overlap between the scientifc studies makes each of the fve relations in the model based on a study. This overlap is preferable in analytical journalism. It adds to the plausibility of causal relationships when they are accepted by the scientifc community. In the absence of scientifc studies, the journalist may infer ad hoc relations between variables in the model. Such ad hoc variables or relations lack the plausibility derived from academic approval but may still be tested during the deductive phase of analytical journalism. The hypothesised causal model is essential to the deductive phase of analytical journalism because the model consists of the prediction for the case at hand, for which the journalist is testing the truth. Third, the hypothesised causal model may now be checked for multilevel consistency and narrative coherence. The logic of levels says that top-down relationships and same-level relationships are probable, while bottom-up ones are less probable (see Chapter 3 for the multilevel theory). Use the level indicator of the variables to detect any bottom-up relationship, which goes from a lower level to a higher level. Bottom-up relations need justifcation independently of the subsequent empirical test. If no justifcation is possible, the model must be adjusted. Higher level causes may be suggested to achieve top-down or samelevel relationships. These variables are then used for the subsequent match with the real data from the case at hand. The logic of narratives says that sequences of causes must make sense. The causal model displays the temporal dimension of the causal hypothesis, which brings in the question of time. Prior phenomena are assumed to connect with the following ones, even though the link may not be neat and clear. A chain of variables is a story with an accompanying theme. Does the narrative make sense? (Miles et al. 2011: 235). Narratives are validated with what we know about the world, everyday discourse and ‘common sense’ (Carr 2008). These validating methods make the hypothesis more plausible – to the journalist and to others – without being an exact empirical test of the causal model. This indirect evidence of the truth of the hypothesis makes it worthwhile seeking evidence to directly verify the hypothesis as an explanation of the observed phenomenon.

5.6 The distinctiveness of the creative abductive inference in journalism The methodology of analytical journalism enhances journalists’ analytical inferences and their legitimacy by means of a coherent epistemology. It is geared towards explaining empirical observations by applying scientifc explanations. The creative abductive inference strategy makes analytical journalism diferent from other ideal types of knowledge production in journalism. Data journalism is based primarily on the inductive inference strategy (Parasie and Dagiral 2013). The authors fnd that data journalism conventionally accords to a consistent epistemological model, whereby the reporter must fnd the hidden ‘story’ in the data. ‘Most stories are

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

123

driven by the releasing of data, and the reporter identifes paths in those data, based on statistics’. However, data journalism supplements this ‘data-driven’ path with a ‘hypothesis-driven’ path (Parasie 2015). Hence, it applies both inductive and deductive strategies. Analytical journalism also difers from news journalism that follows the strategy of evaluative abduction as ‘inference to the best explanation’ (Eldridge and Bødker 2019). Investigative journalism may be based on the deductive strategy exemplifed by the manual for investigative journalists (Hunter et al. 2011), which states that the core of the investigative method involves verifying a hypothesis taken from an ofcial statement or an anonymous tip. This and other textbooks (e.g., Kovach and Rosenstiel 2001) advise journalists to infer very rarely, if at all, and recommend sourcing every claim in a story. Investigative reporting has always been more about assembling and publicising knowledge than creating it (Coddington and Molyneux 2021, referencing Ettema and Glasser 1998). Media academic Robert Entman (2010) expresses a diferent opinion: ‘The public would arguably be better served if every reporter was getting the same license as scientists to honestly draw and seriously support their best analytical inferences’. The application of scientifc explanatory theory to a hypothesis that explains a current phenomenon fts the purposes of analytical journalism: the deliberative objective of explanations that difer from the dominant issue frames in the public knowledge base (see Chapter 4) is more easily achieved by drawing upon the world of scientifc knowledge rather than that of shared ‘common sense’ knowledge. The creative level of analytical journalism difers, therefore, from that of both daily life and science.

5.7 Practical guidelines for the abductive inference strategy The creative abductive strategy is elaborated upon in the three steps set out in Table 5.5. Students show how they follow this practice in the meta-report (see Chapter 8). The two steps of the abductive strategy are detailed below. TABLE 5.5 Guidelines for the creative abductive strategy

5.7.1) Select the scientifc explanations A) Search the academic databases. B) Justify the credibility of the selected scientifc explanations. C) Justify the relevance of the scientifc explanation for the case at hand. 5.7.2) Generate the causal hypothesis of the case at hand

A) Fill out the abductive inference table. B) Fill out the level table. C) Draw the causal model. D) Justify the causal model with narrative validation. E) Justify the causal model with level validation.

124 The strategy for generating causal hypotheses TABLE 5.6 The general terms of specifc phenomena (analytical journalism students

2017–2019) Events

‘The presidential election of a comedian’ in the frst round in Ukraine. The announcement of ‘restitution of art’ by France to the country of origin.

Situations

The dispute about ‘presidential term limits’ in Egypt. ‘Social mobility’ in Germany. The ‘missing women’ in India. The high rate of ‘psychologists per capita’ in Argentina. The high ‘Maternal Mortality Rate’ in Nigeria.

5.7.1 Selecting scientifc explanations A) Search the academic databases Search academic databases using general terms for the phenomenon in order to detect relevant scientifc research. Table 5.6 shows examples with the general term marked by ‘’. The search may be repeated with synonyms for the general keyword(s).

B) Justify the credibility of selected scientifc explanations Justify the credibility by stating any replicated results in studies, reviews, citations and/or journal credentials. Below, the student example of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos is provided to show the justifcation of selected theories. (Table 5.7)

C) Justify the relevance of the scientifc explanation for the case at hand For detailed empirical case studies: Fill out the context table with well-known and similar features from the base case and the case at hand. The context table is illustrated by the example of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos, which shows similarity between Guatemala (a scientifc base case) and the Philippines (the case at hand). (Table 5.8) The result obtained by assessing the credibility and relevance of the chosen scientifc studies adds plausibility to the hypothesis and informs the decision to continue with an empirical test of the hypothesis in the case at hand.

5.7.2 Generating the causal hypothesis of the case at hand A) Fill out the abductive inference table Below, the student example of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos is provided to show the creative abductive inference table. (Table 5.9)

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

125

TABLE 5.7 The justifcation of applied theories about devotees (Macaraig 2020)

Theory 1. Lived Religion In her 2008 book Lived Religion: Faith and Practice in Everyday Life, sociologist Meredith McGuire defnes lived religion as religion used by ordinary people in their daily lives for practical concerns like healing within a local context. She adds that embodiment is important for spirituality, leading to throngs in religious events. McGuire is a retired sociology professor at Trinity University in the USA. With 1,408 Google Scholar citations, her book earned many positive journal reviews as a text that ‘should become essential reading for students’ (Tremlett, 2010). Jan Kapusta’s ethnographical study of Mayans’ pilgrimage to Guatemala’s Black Christ in its annual January 15 feast, published as an Anthropos journal article in 2016. Anthropos is among top-ranked 355 anthropology journals (ERA 2018, Garfeld 1984). Theory 2. Social Identifcation. In a 2014 journal article with 99 Google Scholar citations, psychologists Hani Alnabulsi and John Drury found that social identifcation moderates safety threats from crowd density. Using crowd psychology and a survey to study the 2012 Hajj pilgrimage, they argue that pilgrims identifying with the crowd expect others to help them in times of danger. The higher the crowd density, the safer pilgrims feel about potential threats. Drury is a psychology professor at the University of Sussex in the UK, where Alnabulsi obtained a PhD in social psychology.

TABLE 5.8 The context table of Guatemala and the Philippines (Macaraig 2020)

Base case: Guatemala’s Black Christ

Case at hand: Philippine Black Nazarene

Feature

Source

Feature

Source

Image of a Black Christ venerated in the annual feast

Kapusta, Jan. 2016. ‘The Maya Pilgrimage to the Black Christ’. Anthropos, Vol. 111, No. 1, 83–98

Image of a Black Christ venerated in the annual feast

Go, Fe Susan. 1980. ‘The Philippine Independent Church’. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 8, no. 2/3: 590 150–167.

Catholicism came to Guatemala through Spain’s colonisation

Kapusta, J. 2016

Catholicism came to the Philippines through Spain’s colonisation

Go, F.S. 1980

Catholicism blended with Mayan cosmology

Kapusta 2016 (ibid, 84)

Catholicism blended with Filipino culture

126

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

TABLE 5.9 The Filipino devotees in the creative abductive inference table (Macaraig

2020) Observation (Y-observation)

Devotees insist on physical participation in the Nazarene feast (Y-obs).

Explanatory theory (X→Y-theory)

Theory 1: Lived religion situates faith in ordinary people’s daily concerns (1X-theo1) in a local context (3Z-theo1). Embodiment is part of spirituality (2X-theo1), leading believers to form huge crowds during religious events (4Y-theo1). Theory 2: Social identifcation (1Z-theo2) moderates the negative efect of crowd density on safety. Thus, people insist on physically participating in religious events (2Y-theo2).

Case (X→Y-observation)

The Nazarene devotion is a form of lived religion stemming from ordinary people’s daily concerns (1X=1X-theo1) in the Philippine context (4Z=3Z-theo1). Embodiment is part of spirituality (2X=2X-theo1), leading devotees to form huge crowds during the procession (3X=4Y-theo1). Social identifcation (5Z=1Ztheory2) moderates the negative efect of crowd density on safety. Thus, devotees insist on physically participating in the feast (6Y-obs=2Y-theo2).

B) Fill out the level table State all variables from the hypothesis in the level table. The level table is illustrated by the example of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos. (Table 5.10)

C) Draw the causal model Include all variables from the hypothesis causal model. The example of devotees in the Philippines illustrates the causal model. All relations in the causal model stem from two overlapping scientifc theories (Figure 5.3).

TABLE 5.10 The level table of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos (Macaraig 2020)

Macro

1X: Devotees want to practice lived religion 2X: Devotees practice embodied faith 6Y: Devotees insist on physical participation in Nazarene feast

Religious

Cultural Social

Meso

4Z: Physicality is important in Philippine culture 3X: Devotees form high crowd density 5Z: Devotees identify with crowd

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

U: Nazarene devotees 5Z: Crowd identification V: Yes/No L: Meso

Theory 1 U: Nazarene devotees 1X: Desire to practice lived religion V: Yes/No L: Meso

U: Nazarene devotees 2X: Practiceembodied faith V: Yes/No L: Meso

U: Nazarene devotees 3X: Crowd density V: High/Low L: Meso

U: Filipinos 4Z: Physicality important in culture V: High/Low L: Macro FIGURE 5.3

127

U: Nazarene devotees 6Y: Insist on physically participating V: Yes/No L: Meso Theory 2

The causal model predicting the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos.

D) Justify the causal model with narrative validation Read the units, attributes and values of variables along causal chains in the causal model to formulate narratives. Sense-making narratives add to the decision to test the hypothesis on the case at hand. When the narrative does not make sense, consider adjusting the causal model to align it more closely to common understandings. An example of narrative validation is shown Table 5.11.

E) Justify the causal model with level validation Read the levels of connected variables in the causal model to detect any bottomup relations, which are either justifed or changed. An example of the justifcation of a bottom-up relation is given below. The causal model of Vladimir Putin’s decision to stay in power (Chapter 3, Figure 5.5) has nine top-down relations and one bottom-up one. It relates Putin’s narcissistic tendencies (1X) at the microlevel and a cult of personality around him (3X) at the macro-level. The justifcation of this bottom-up relation is shown in Table 5.12. TABLE 5.11 The justifcation of the causal model of Putin’s decision to stay in power

(Chapter 3 Figure 3.5) with the logic of narratives (Carta and Shamonova 2020) Theme 1: Despotic rule. Putin’s narcissistic tendencies (1) create a personality cult among Russians (3), leading him to reset his presidential term to zero (9). Theme 2: Corrupt political system. The Russian Government’s corruption and nepotism (4) create personal proft for political elites (6), which leads to a strong desire for Putin to stay in power (7), and the fear of failure of the political elites (8) causes him to reset his presidential term to zero (9). These narratives are sensible and do not give rise to any further considerations.

128

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

TABLE 5.12 The justifcation of Putin’s bottom-up impact on the Russian people (Carta

and Shamonova 2020) Political psychology scholars have analysed the relationship between political leaders and their followers. As explained by Post (2015, 75), political leaders with a narcissistic personality ‘require a continuous fow of admiration from their audience in order to nourish his famished self’. They can elicit this admiration by conveying a sense of ‘grandeur, omnipotence, and strength’. Individuals seeking ‘idealised sources of strength’ are particularly attracted to narcissistic leaders, and they form personality cults around them. Thus, it is shown that a macro-level psychological process can be elicited by the personality of an individual, leading to a bottom-up relationship.

The justifcation of the causal model adds plausibility to the hypothesis and informs the decision to continue with the empirical test by investigating the case at hand. Summarising the guidelines for abductive generation The guidelines for knowledge generation in analytical journalism ofer a plausible causal hypothesis explaining the phenomenon of journalistic interest by: ●

●

Creatively discovering academic research that serves as a causal explanation of phenomena of journalistic interest that are new to the public (and the journalist). Systematically basing hypothetical causal models that have narrative and multilevel meaning on justifed scientifc studies.

The guidelines encourage the analytical journalist to independently create causal explanations that expand the public’s knowledge of current issues based on timely, in-depth explanations of present phenomena. The next phase is to ‘prove’ the hypothetical causal model in the journalist’s case at hand, which is outlined in Chapter 6.

References Alvesson, Mats and Kaj Sköldberg. 2018. Refexive Methodology. London: Sage. Barnoy, Aviv and Zvi Reich. 2019. “The When, Why, How and So-What of Verifcations.” Journalism Studies, 20(16), 2312–2330. Bartha, Paul. 2016/2013. “Analogy and Analogical Reasoning.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016 Edition). Edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/win2016/entries/reasoning-analogy Carr, David. 2008. “Narrative Explanations and its Malcontents.” History and Theory 47–1, 19–30. Carta, Susanna and Dasha Shamonova. 2020. “Infnite Power, Infnite Ego.” Students at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Choudry, Abid and Saeed Farooq. 2017. Systematic Review into Factors Associated with the Recruitment Crisis in Psychiatry in the UK: Students’, Trainees’ and Consultants’ Views. BJPsych Bulletin 41(6), 345–352.

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

129

Coddington, Mark. 2018. “Gathering Evidence of Evidence: News Aggregation as an Epistemological Practice.” Journalism 21(3), 365–380. Coddington, Mark and Logan Molyneux. 2021. “Making Sources Visible: Representation of Evidence in News Texts, 2007–2019.” Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080 /17512786.2021.1949629. Danermark, Berth, Mats Ekström and Jan Ch. Karlsson. 2019. Explaining Society. Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. New York: Routledge. David, Matthew and Carole D. Sutton. 2011/2004. Social Research. An Introduction. London: Sage. De Ridder, Jeroen. 2020. “How Many Scientists Does It Take to Have Knowledge?” In What is Scientifc Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science, edited by Kevin McCain and Kostas Kampourakis, 3–17. New York: Routledge. Donsbach, Wolfgang. 2013. “Journalism as the New Knowledge Profession and Consequences for Journalism Education.” Journalism 15(6), 661–677. https://doi.org /10.1177/1464884913491347 Douven, Igor. 2017. “Peirce on Abduction.” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https:// plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/abduction/. Eldridge, Scott A. and Henrik Bødker. 2019. “Confronting Uncertainty: The Contours of an Inferential Community.” Journalism & Communication Monographs 21(4), 280–349. Ekström, Mats and Oscar Westlund. 2019. “Epistemology and Journalism.” In Oxford Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ekström, Mats, Seth C. Lewis and Oscar Westlund. 2020. “Epistemologies of digital journalism and the study of misinformation.” New Media and Society 22-2, 205–212. Entman, Robert. 2010. “Introduction to the Keynote Speaker.” School of Media and Public Afairs. The George Washington University. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=HY6v70IlXXc. Ettema, James and Glasser, Theodore. 1998. Custodians of Conscience. Investigative Journalism and Public Virtue. New York: Columbia University Press. Frické, Martin. 2019. “The Knowledge Pyramid: The DIKW Hierarchy.” KO Knowledge Organization 46–1, 33–46. Gerring, John. 2006. “Single-outcome Studies: A Methodological Primer.” International Sociology 21(5), 707–734. Glanzberg, Michael. 2018. “Truth.” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https://plato .stanford.edu/entries/truth/. Godler, Yigal. 2020. “Post-Post-Truth: An Adaptationist Theory of Journalistic Verism.” Communication Theory 30(2), 169–187. Hammersley, Martyn. 2014. The Limits of Social Science. Causal Explanation and Value Relevance, Los Angeles: Sage. Hayakawa, S. I. 2006/1990. “Reports, Inferences, Judgments.” In Journalism. The Democratic Craft, edited by G. Stuart Adam and Roy Peter Clark, 256–262. New York: Oxford University Press. Hesse, M. 1966. Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press. Hunter, Mark Lee, Nils Hanson, Rana Sabbagh, Luuk Sengers, Drew Sullivan, Flemming Tait Svith and Pia Thordsen. 2011. Story-Based Inquiry: A Manual for Investigative Journalists. UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and -information/resources/publications-and-communication-materials/publications/ full-list/story-based-inquiry-a-manual-for-investigative-journalists/. Ichikawa, Jonathan Jenkins and Matthias Steup. 2017/2001. “The Analysis of Knowledge.” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ knowledge-analysis/#LigKno.

130

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

Klemmensen, Robert, Lotte Bøgh Andersen and Kasper Møller Hansen. 2012. “At lave undersøgelser inden for statskundskab.” In Metoder i statskundskab, edited by Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Kasper Møller Hansen and Robert Klemmensen, 19–41. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Kourany, Janet A. 2020. “What Grounds Do We Have for the Validity of Scientifc Findings? The New Worries about Science.” In What is Scientifc Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science edited by Kevin McCain and Kostas Kampourakis, 212–225. New York: Routledge. Kovach, Bill and Tom Rosenstiel. 2001. The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and The Public Should Expect, Committee of Concerned Journalists. New York: Three Rivers Press. Lofand, John, David Snow, Leon Anderson and Lyn H. Lofand. 2006. Analyzing Social Settings. A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, 4th ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. Macaraig, Ayee. 2020. “Bomb-defying Faith. Why Filipino Catholics Insist on Physical Devotion.” Student at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Magnani, Lorenzo. 2001. Abduction, Reason, and Science: Processes of Discovery and Explanation. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Magnani, Lorenzo. 2009. “Creative Abduction and Hypothesis Withdrawal.” In Models of Discovery and Creativity, edited by J. Meheus and T. Nickles, 95–126. Dordrecht: Springer. Meditsch, Eduardo. 2005. “Journalism as a Form of Knowledge: A Qualitative Approach.” Brazilian Journalism Research 1–2, 1–14. Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman and Johnny Saldaña. 2011. Qualitative Data Analysis, London: Sage. Nielsen, Rasmus Kleist. 2017. “Digital News as Forms of Knowledge: A New Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge.” In Remaking the News Essays on the Future of Journalism Scholarship in the Digital Age, edited by P. Boczkowski and C. W. Anderson, 91–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Paavola, Sami. 2005. “Peircean Abduction: Instinct, or Inference?” Semiotica 153-1/4, 131–154. Parasie, Sylvain. 2015. “Data-driven Revelation? Epistemological Tensions in Investigative Journalism in the Age of ‘Big Data.’” Digital Journalism 3(3), 364–380. Parasie, Sylvain and Eric Dagiral. 2013. “Data-driven Journalism and the Public Good: “Computer-Assisted-Reporters” and “Programmer-journalists” in Chicago.” New Media & Society 15(6), 853–871. Park, Robert E. 2008/1945. “News as a Form of Knowledge: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge.” In Journalism: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies, edited by Howard Tumber, 201–214. New York: Routledge. Patterson, Thomas E. 2013. Informing the News: The Need for Knowledge-based Reporting. New York: Vintage Books. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931/1903. The Collected Papers Vol. V.: Pragmatism and Pragmaticism. §2. Abduction and Perceptual Judgments. http://www.textlog.de/7664-2.html. Schickore, Jutta. 2014. “Scientifc Discovery.” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. http:// plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/scientifc-discovery/. Schickore, Jutta, 2018. “Scientifc Discovery.” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https:// plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/scientifc-discovery/. Tavory, Iddo and Stefan Timmermans. 2014. Abductive Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The strategy for generating causal hypotheses

131

Undurraga, T. 2017. ”Knowledge-production in Journalism: Translation, Mediation and Authorship in Brazil.” The Sociological Review 66(1), 58–74. Ward, Stephen J. A. 2018. “Epistemologies of Journalism.” In Journalism edited by Tim P. Vos, 63–82. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Wihbey, John. 2017. “Journalists’ Use of Knowledge in an Online World. Examining Reporting Habits, Sourcing Practices and Institutional Norms.” Journalism Practice 11–10, 1267–1282.

6 THE STRATEGY FOR JUSTIFYING CAUSAL EXPLANATION

Chapter aims ●

● ●

To outline the principles, criteria and evidence used in the process of justifcation. To outline social science validation logic in journalistic practice. To outline a science-based justifcation of causal explanation.

Learning outcomes At the end of this chapter, readers should know how to: ● ● ●

Apply a deductive justifcation strategy. Verify causal explanation in journalism. Create various forms of evidence that prove causal explanation.

6.1 Introduction This chapter outlines what it takes to justify a causal hypothesis in analytical journalism. The concept of justifcation is fundamental to knowledge. It answers the question of how we know that a knowledge claim is true. The strategy used for justifcation in this phase of analytical journalism is deductive (see Chapter 2 for an outline of deduction). It starts with the causal hypothesis from the preceding phase of the creative abduction process (see Chapter 5). The deductive strategy continues investigating the case at hand in order to acquire empirical details about the variables in the hypothesis. It ends with a confrmed causal explanation of the initially observed phenomenon. The practice of testing the causal hypothesis: DOI: 10.4324/9781003300977-6

The strategy for justifying causal explanation ● ● ●

133

Is governed by the principles that control how testing works. Is based on criteria for examining and making decisions about evidence. Is performed via methods that provide evidence to support belief in the truth of the claim.

Basically, analytical journalists seek to document the variables in their causal hypothesis. All journalists conduct research to document facts. When combined with social science principles and criteria for generating knowledge about causality, this type of research is a highly valuable way of testing the truth of a causal hypothesis (Gerring 2012). The phase during which analytical journalists justify hypotheses is highlighted in Table 6.1. The principle for justifcation that underpins analytical journalism is ‘verifcation’ – checking and proving that something exists, is true or correct. The deductive strategy is confrmatory because analytical journalism has no theoretical interest in qualifying scientifc explanations or falsifying theories, instead analytical journalism seeks causal explanation. The interest of analytical journalism is true causal explanations that inform the public about factual phenomena. The main criterion for justifcation is ‘pattern matching’. Matching compares a predicted result with a subsequent real-life result to look for similarities or differences. The prediction is the hypothetical causal model (from Phase 3), which is tested against the research result in the form of data from the case at hand in order to prove the existence of variables. This does not mean a match for a single variable but a match for the pattern of variables in the causal model. Pattern matching makes justifcation robust but depends on the availability of data about the variables concerned. Ideal data may need to be substituted by the best available data in order to provide indications of the predicted variables. The second criterion for justifcation is ‘covariation’ between variables, meaning that a change in one variable must occur before a change in another variable in order for the former to cause the latter. This covariation criterion is used together with the pattern-matching criterion to make justifcation more robust. The third criterion for justifcation is ‘acceptance’ of the causal explanation by experts on the subject or by people who experience the causal reality of it. In journalism, interviews are a well-known method of fnding out about sources’ assessments of claims. In analytical journalism, sources evaluate the causal explanation profered by the analytical journalist. Acceptance of the causal explanation by experts makes it more believable. The fourth phase of analytical journalism focuses on various phenomena such as structured data in registers and unstructured data in the news, aggregated data in statistics and individual data on social media, theorised data in reports and less theorised data in experiences and observations. All types of data pertaining to the case at hand may be used as evidence of a causal claim. The causal hypothesis specifes the time, space and focus of the case at hand, which originate from the levels of the units in the scientifc explanations (see Chapter 3, Table 3.1 for the mega-, macro-, meso- and micro levels). The period covered

Deliberative

Selection

Particularising

Public relevance

Journalistic scanning

Role

Strategy

Principle

Criteria

Methods

Phase 1 Observing phenomena

•

•

•

Collecting media examples Content analysis Issue frame table •

•

•

Science-based inference Causal model validation •

•

•

•

•

•

Similarity model Covariation model Refexive evaluation

Pattern matching Covariation Expert assessment

Verifcation

Hypothesising

Categorisation Public novelty Plausibility

Deductive

Abductive

Inductive

•

Inferential

Inferential

Deliberative

Representativeness

Phase 4 Justifying hypothesis

Phase 3 Applying theory to hypothesis

Phase 2 Mapping causal explanations

TABLE 6.1 The hypotheses justifcation phase in analytical journalism

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Ethos model Explorative storytelling Modality tables Narrative whole Analytical storyline

Trust Comprehension Engagement

Convincing

Rhetorical

Deliberative

Phase 5 Adding divergent issue frame

134 The strategy for justifying causal explanation

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

135

by the case at hand – days, months or years – and the geographical spread of it (e.g., several countries, one country or a local territory) and the focus on dimensions (economics, politics, culture, etc.) are determined by the variables in the hypothesis. The deductive strategy employs methods to generate and collate evidence of the variables in the hypothesis from the various qualitative or quantitative sources. The deductive strategy employs methods and techniques that allow the analytical journalist to infer the probable truth of causes of the observed phenomenon from the known hypothesis and relevant empirical data. An acceptable explanation is one that has empirical support. It is one that is underpinned by empirical evidence. An unacceptable explanation is one that contradicts empirical data. Analytical journalism thus applies a variety of criteria for justifcation and does not leave it solely up to experts to pronounce on the truth of the causal explanation. The chapter begins by reviewing the academic literature about justifcation in journalism. This literature is ambiguous and indicates a heterogeneous mix of contradicting norms and methods. When it comes to justifcation, journalism deploys a system of principles, criteria and types of evidence. These provide an overview of justifcation in journalism, which turns out to be insufcient to test the truth of causal hypotheses. The chapter therefore reviews theories of justifcation in social science that encompass principles and criteria of validity and reliability. Next, these social science logics and procedures are tailored to the need for a journalistic explanation of particular outcomes in particular cases (see Chapters 2 and 3 for these concepts) and outlines as principles, criteria and evidence used in justifcation in analytical journalism. The chapter also looks at external refexive acceptance as a criterion for justifcation, a criterion that is based on the reliability and relevance of the sources. The chapter ends with practical guidelines for justifying causal explanations in analytical journalism.

6.2 The study of justifcation in journalism Justifcation in journalism was rarely studied until recently. However, renewed interest has been fuelled by the challenges to the position and function of journalism from various structural changes, such as the digital media ecology and its social media and tech companies, business models and patterns of usage. Academic research indicates diferent procedures for justifcation within journalism. This heterogeneous picture and ambiguity may partly be due to the diverse theoretical assumptions in traditions such as cultural studies and critical realism (Godler and Reich 2013a). Academics agree on the widespread use of evidence in investigative journalism (Reich and Barnoy 2021) but dispute the extent to which evidence is used in the broader realm of news reporting. Those who study journalistic knowledge tend to agree that news reporters rarely rely on evidence, while those who study news sources and verifcation insist that journalists do use evidence (Reich and Barnoy 2021).

136

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

This ambiguity about justifcation in journalism is also attributed to the range of conditions faced, for example, news cultures, political regimes, news organisations, types of ownership, ideological and educational backgrounds, personal beliefs and various specialisations (Godler and Reich 2013a), levels of freedom (Godler and Reich 2017b), types of news outlets (Coddington and Molyneux 2021) and genres (Ekström and Westlund 2019b). The context in which justifcation takes place has been used to conceptualise the conditions within which journalists operate (Ettema and Glasser 2006/1985). There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the context is in fux in the era of social media and online journalism (Ekström and Westlund 2019b). The heterogeneous picture of justifcation outlined above may also highlight the diferent functions justifcation plays in journalism. In addition to the epistemic purpose of seeking truth and encouraging belief in the truth of claims and stories, justifcation also has to do with the legitimacy and authority of journalism in the public sphere. It serves the rhetorical purpose of avoiding criticism or building trust in the audience (this rhetorical function is elaborated upon in Chapter 7). The following section proposes three principles for epistemic justifcation and the associated criteria for justifcation in journalism based on a literature review. The point of this systematisation is not to embrace every practice used by journalists, but to show the norms, standards and types of evidence suggested or indicated in journalism studies.

6.2.1 The principles and criteria that underpin justifcation in journalism The principles on which justifcation is based are the basic norms that guide journalistic practice. These principles are covered in the academic literature. The three main ones seem to be verifcation, attribution and inference. They are displayed in Table 6.2 with the associated criteria and then described below.

6.2.1.1 The verifcation principle The frst principle of journalism is verifcation. Journalism has been named a ‘discipline of verifcation’ with various informal verifcation strategies, but TABLE 6.2 The principles and criteria that underpin justifcation in journalism

Principle

Criterion

Verifcation

Factuality Accuracy

Attribution

Authority

Inference

Interpretivism Inference to the best explanation

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

137

without any translation into standard rules of evidence (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2001). Verifcation is the primary justifcation for knowledge. Verifcation concerns technical details, conficts and investigations (Barnoy and Reich 2019). At times, verifcation strategies mirror social science methodology (source triangulation, analysis of primary data sources or ofcial documents, semi-participant observation) but include a range of pragmatic compromises when selecting various types of facts to verify and when conducting the actual verifcation (Shapiro et al. 2013). Journalists do not use a single standard for the verifcation of statistical information. They follow a range of practices, from simple reliance on the authority of sources (similar to the principle of attribution) to careful examination of the methods behind a quantifed fact claim. Earlier research suggested that numbers represent a form of unarguable truth to journalists (Witsen 2021). Journalists use evidence to decide which party is closer to the truth when there has been a confict about basic facts (Reich and Barnoy 2021). The investigative reporter seeks to justify the truth of the larger narrative arc of the story, a truth often greater than the sum of the facts in a news item (Ettema and Glasser 2006/1985). News production in data journalism may result in other forms of knowledge claims than is the case in traditional news journalism (Ekström and Westlund 2019a). Journalists use two criteria to verify evidence: empirical factuality and accuracy. ●

●

The frst criterion is factuality, that is the factual nature of the evidence. This standard considers evidence to be what empirically exists. Facts are acquired by observation, measurement, evidence and experience (Hanitzsch 2007). Journalism has developed various techniques and conventions for determining facts (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2001). Examples are considered to be empirical facts, which is in line with journalists’ tendency to be ‘suspicious of abstractions’ and ‘sensitive to the concrete’ (Darnton 1975 in Reich and Barnoy 2021). In their hierarchy of sources, data journalists tend to place databases above the most trustworthy institutional source (Lawson 2021), which is a criterion of attribution (see below). The second criterion is accuracy of evidence. This standard considers evidence to depend on precision or exact references to basic facts such as names, ages and locations and the necessity for more than one source when a charge of misconduct is made. The easier it is to verify a fact, the more likely it is to be verifed (e.g., verifying the spelling of a name or checking that a number given was correct). This is a kind of ‘pure’ accuracy (literal truth) (Shapiro et al. 2013).

6.2.1.2 The attribution principle The second principle of journalism is attribution. It is the norm for journalists to attribute knowledge to others. Interviewing and quoting sources are key knowledge-seeking and truth-telling practices. Journalists’ expertise and authority

138

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

have been described as primarily based on attribution and their unique access to important sources rather than expertise in the subject matters reported on in the news (Reich and Godler, 2017). Journalists possess a capacity and willingness to subordinate their views to the voices of their sources, which makes them generalists who ask questions and only make modest claims about their own knowledge (Schudson and Anderson 2009). Attribution means that journalists avoid responsibility for justifying their claims. Journalism is based on unique access to important sources (Ekström and Westlund 2019a). Institutional sources take precedence in the norm of attribution. ●

The verifying criterion is institutional authority, which justifes the reporters’ knowledge claims. They rely largely on sources in ofcial bodies– for example, in the police department, the ofce of the mayor, governor and senator, who provide pre-justifed accounts and information accepted at face value. This means that reporters avoid any responsibility for justifying their claims (Ettema and Glasser 2006/1985). Journalists often see documents as a superior form of evidence because they are validated by ofcial bodies (Coddington and Molyneux 2021). The university posts held by academics automatically justify their accounts, which are then accepted at face value. Elite sources dominate, and there is a related hierarchy of authorised sources (Ekström and Westerlund 2019b).

6.2.1.3 The inference principle The third principle of journalism is inference, which is the norm for justifying claims based on the journalists’ own personal assessments, experiences and, to some extent, attitudes. The journalist makes sense of issues independently. Assertions are not attributed to sources, which makes the story less reliant on sources for its credibility and momentum. The norm presupposes ‘knowledge about’ its subjects – for example, politics, crime and business. Two criteria are associated with this norm of inference. ●

●

The frst criterion is interpretivism. According to this standard, the journalist’s position justifes the knowledge claims. A credible insider status is probably the essential skill required of the political columnist (McNair 1999). Journalists interpret the reasons behind events or actors without explicit support from verifable facts or statements by sources (Salgado et al. 2017). These interpretations strongly emphasise subjectivity and opinion when tracing causes and predicting consequences (Hanitzsch and Vos 2018). Journalism has done less to develop a system for testing the reliability of journalistic interpretation than to check facts (Kovach and Rosenstiel 2001). The second criterion is inference to the best explanation (see Chapter 5 for an account of this type of inference). This standard justifes journalistic

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

139

explanations or predictions of actors’ behaviour and their motives with previously published information and by gathering an intertextual account from social media and other news organisations. The journalists engage in ‘practical inference’ or ‘inference to the best explanation’ to produce knowledge when they deal with information that is very difcult, even impossible, to verify, yet carries potential societal signifcance that cannot be ignored (Eldridge and Bødker 2019). Such a form of evidence is more transparent to readers as it has been mediated by at least one prior textualization and often publication (Coddington and Molyneux 2021). The next section concerns the types of journalistic evidence described in journalism studies.

6.2.2 The evidence used for justifcation in journalism The reliance on evidence to corroborate or refute claims, hypotheses and beliefs is considered a desirable practice in journalism. Some academics regard types of information in journalism as evidence per se. Others consider evidence only to be what strengthens the journalists’ belief in knowledge generated by journalists (Reich and Barnoy 2021). Evidence consists of information, testimony or sensory experiences that support the inferences on which knowledge can be based (Coddington and Molyneux 2021). Evidence is also associated with the ways in which journalists acquire knowledge (Godler, Reich and Miller, 2020). The reliance on evidence tends to emerge in epistemically challenging circumstances such as factual conficts, unscheduled events and publications with the risk of potential legal action against the journalists or their organisations (Reich and Barnoy 2021). However, the multiple principles and criteria establish two types of evidence, which are described below. (Table 6.3)

6.2.2.1 Direct and indirect evidence of claims The classifcation regards evidence of a claim that directly qualifes it and evidence that indirectly qualifes it by qualifying its source. For example, a statement by a source is used as direct evidence of a claim. ‘The fre started in the roof ’, says Julie. She was watching the fre from her apartment across the street. TABLE 6.3 Types of evidence in journalism

Direct evidence of a claim

Journalist’s sensory data Source testimonial Cross-verifcation

Evidence indirectly supporting a claim

Psychological information about a source Procedural information about a source Social position of a source

140 The strategy for justifying causal explanation

The last sentence qualifes Julie as a source because she witnessed the fre, which indirectly qualifes the claim of a fre. ●

●

Direct evidence directly justifes a knowledge claim, such as the evidence from journalists’ observation and experience. This is frst-hand evidence. Journalists may revere frst-hand observation – that which they sense and witness themselves – as the most reliable form of news evidence, but research suggests they do not use it often (Coddington and Molyneux 2021). Obtaining beliefs from the testimony of others as evidence is because individuals acquire knowledge not only from their own senses and reasoning. This second-hand evidence consists of interviews and documents passed from another human, organisational or technological source to the journalist. Most of the journalists’ evidence is second-hand, often from interviews (Coddington and Molyneux 2021). The most prevalent type of evidence is documentation. Although a traditional mode of evidence, and despite the growing capacity to doctor digital documents, they are still considered the ‘gold standard’ of proof in news reporting (Zvi and Barnoy 2021). Another ‘gold standard’ is evidence provided by cross-verifcation, which juxtaposes two news sources (for example, two documents, a document and an oral statement, two oral statements) (Godler and Reich 2017a). Indirect evidence relates to the credibility of sources of dire. It consists of signs of veracity that accompany disseminated information. This type of evidence is called ancillary evidence (Coddington and Molyneux 2021) and second-order evidence (Godler and Reich 2017a). It is an essential type of evidence without which the direct evidence is incomplete and cannot be properly weighed or understood in context (Coddington and Molyneux 2021). Indirect evidence often stands in for further verifcation (Lawson 2021). The theoretical framework of social epistemology is an approach to justify second-hand knowledge acquired from human testimonies and technology-based information from databases, algorithms and social media. Social epistemology has a strong orientation towards best practices in the realm of knowledge acquisition and truth seeking (Godler, Reich and Miller 2020). Evidence regarding the credibility of sources falls into three categories: psychological evidence (information about the sources’ sincerity, incoherence, overt bias), procedural evidence (the sources’ evidence and arguments in favour of a claim) and social evidence (the sources’ social or political position can be used in a rational evaluation of the likelihood of a claim’s veracity) (Godler and Reich 2017a).

6.2.3 The status of justifcation in journalism The diferent justifcation practices may be appropriate in diferent contexts of journalistic production. However, journalism studies are generally critical of the justifcation practices journalists use. Reich and Barnoy (2021) note that there is

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

141

a serious indication that the use of evidence in news reporting is quite erratic and ‘ad hoc-ish’. According to Coddington and Molyneux (2021), a common conclusion made by most academics who observe journalists’ epistemological practices is that they hardly engage in such practices at all – knowledge claims come to them pre-justifed. The knowledge contained in news texts may be incomplete at best. When combined with the general opacity of evidence, these representations make for a rather shaky foundation for public acceptance of the everyday knowledge claims that journalists make in their news texts. Undurraga (2017) argues that journalists are not knowledge creators, and their epistemological tools (lack of specialised methods) cast doubt on their knowledge credentials, particularly in contrast to scientifc disciplines. Instead, journalists are brokers of other people’s knowledge. They translate information between sources and audiences, which tends to count as a form of knowledge making. The standards of what counts as evidence and the types of evidence in journalism, as revealed by journalism studies, indicate that journalists work at various cognitive levels, from simple acquiring and referring of knowledge to sophisticated creation of it. Such diferences in intellectual behaviour may mirror the conditions faced in the various contexts in which they operate. Journalism justifcation has been studied from a sociological perspective that investigates the principles, criteria and evidence that journalists enact in the processing of facts and the justifcations of truth claims (Ekström and Westlund 2019b). Scholars have shown less interest in journalism justifcation in terms of epistemic validity or reliability  (Godler, Reich and Miller 2020). As noted by Godler and Reich (2013b), prominent scholars of journalism have elaborated on news-work procedures that failed to produce facts, without providing a comparably detailed account of what could constitute factual knowledge in journalism. Reich and Barnoy (2021) insist on a reform of justifcation in journalism, if journalistic cultures show combinations of frequent but inconsistent reliance on evidence. News reporting will require a comprehensive evidentiary reform to systematise its reliance on evidence, just as other disciplines such as science, law and philosophy strive to minimise such inconsistencies. Reich and Barnoy (2021) suggest a reform that includes a clear set of applicable guidelines that systematise the admission, evaluation and implementation of all sorts of evidence in news reporting. Ward (2018) suggests that the goal of a future journalistic norm for generating truth and evidence is to create journalists who are sophisticated knowledge workers and sense makers, and this requires a new philosophical foundation for journalistic epistemology. However, according to Örnebring (2017), the afordances of daily reporting are such that verifcation in the scientifc sense simply is neither possible nor desirable. A summary of this academic research on justifcation in journalism shows that journalists justify their belief in the truth of daily stories about the world to varying degrees. The variety of practices refects diferent principles such as verifcation, attribution and inference. The journalists’ considerations about what counts as evidence include empirical facts, accuracy, institutional authority, interpretation and inference to the best explanation. Evidence is obtained from frst-hand

142

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

sources to second-hand and sources further removed from the phenomenon of interest. Academics envision higher quality in knowledge production. Analytical journalism suggests one solution to the problem of justifcation in the production of knowledge by the profession. Some of these justifcation practices may be applied in analytical journalism. Refexive evaluation of journalists’ causal explanations consists of direct evidence from people experiencing and realising the causal relations and from competent experts. Assessing the credibility of sources is indirect evidence, which justifes knowledge acquired from human testimonies and information from databases, algorithms and social media. The verifcation practices of ensuring accuracy and determining facts may help acquire data that proves the presence of the predicted variables in the case at hand. However, the justifcation practices commonly used in journalism do not substantiate the empirical test of causal hypotheses. Reich and Barnoy (2021) point out the importance of the systematic use of evidence in journalism. Evidence does not emerge as a pure and labelled epistemic entity – pattern matching systemises pieces of information as evidence of variables contained in the hypothesis. In analytical journalism, validation in a scientifc sense is possible and desirable. However, the validation only covers explanations of single outcomes (or in other words a variable) and no other types of phenomena (see Chapter 2 for an account of single outcomes). The explanatory practice in analytical journalism applies social science criteria for justifcation, and the specifc causal explanations of analytical journalism are mostly accepted by academics, who appeared in the products of analytical journalism students. This contradicts the view of journalists, who do not think they themselves are capable of a genuine contribution to ‘knowledge’ that would be recognised by the relevant experts due to their methods being less formal, replicable and sophisticated than those scientists employ (Undurraga 2017). The next section outlines theories of justifcation espoused in areas of social science that are relevant to analytical journalism.

6.3 Methods of justifcation in social science This section outlines some justifcation methods in social science that can be adapted to the practice of testing the truth of causal hypotheses in journalism. Social scientists are particularly keen on causal explanations and have developed various research designs to study causality in social life. Roughly, these designs can be categorised as generating causal theories or justifying causal theories. The latter goes under various terms in social science, such as appraisal, assessment, demonstration, confrmation, evaluation, method, proof, testing or verifcation/ falsifcation. The justifying designs aim to validate causal claims and encourage greater belief in the truth of the causal explanation. However, qualitative research maintains some uncertainty, as pointed out by Miles et al. (2011, 223). Justifcation builds on research designs, their criteria and the associated methods of acquiring evidence. This section focuses on social science research designs that meet the needs of analytical journalism for justifcation. The premises are:

The strategy for justifying causal explanation ●

●

●

143

Single cases with single outcomes, that is, one variable in a single context. This limitation means that analytical journalism does not examine comparative issues or trends (see Chapter 2 for this defnition of phenomena of analytical journalistic interest). Confrmatory testing of hypotheses. This limitation means that analytical journalism does not seek to inform the public about causal relationships that the journalist suggests in the course of research, but which do not hold water (see Chapter 5 for the generation of hypotheses). An empirical interest in the case at hand. This is a limitation which means that analytical journalism does not seek to explain more than one case or develop broad theories that explain many cases (see Chapter 2 about dismissing generalisation that go beyond the case at hand in order to claim something for other cases as well or a theoretical interest in falsifying causal theories to assess their generality).

These premises make designs containing statistical analysis of many cases less relevant to analytical journalism because of their cross-case interest. The same is true of case studies with the inductive aim of generating hypotheses and case studies with the aim of generalising beyond the case at hand. Particularly relevant for analytical journalism are, therefore, designs based on pattern matching. Pattern matching validates by comparing a pattern predicted by theories and one created or found in empirical data from the case at hand. A pattern consists of variables. An example of a variable is ‘students with high motivation’. This variable consists of a unit (students), an attribute of the unit (motivation) and the attribute’s value (high). Another example of a variable is ‘teachers with high commitment’. When the pattern consists of changes in the value of variables (e.g., students’ motivation changes from high to low and teachers’ commitment changes from high to low), the journalist supplements pattern matching with covariation between variables. This criterion makes changes in one variable (teacher’s commitment) dependent on changes in another variable (students’ motivation). Research designs for pattern matching and for covariation are widely discussed in the methodological literature, in which there are disagreements regarding their utility when it comes to explaining social life. The following section presents these two types of design for qualitative research but leaves out the controversies.

6.3.1 The pattern-matching criterion Pattern matching is a relatively simple criterion used to justify a causal analysis. The methods of pattern matching compare two patterns to determine whether they match or not. One element does not make a pattern. Two or more elements make a pattern. Case study designs that employ the pattern matching criterion are well described in social science. The pattern matching design is recommended for qualitative case study research (Yin 2018). It compares an expected pattern with the pattern that could be observed. The expected pattern is hypothetical and envisaged before collecting data for the observed pattern.

144

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

The expected pattern is a prediction of what should be found in the observed pattern. The observed pattern is based on empirical data from a single case. A match confrms the predicted pattern, and a mismatch rejects it. This design works with variables and single cases. Expected and observed patterns consist of variables that all pertain to a single case. Hypotheses can be formulated as a ‘predicted pattern’ of causes (X’s) and an outcome (Y) which should be observable in a case if the hypothesis is true (Hak and Dul 2010). Pattern matching is confrmatory. It seeks to prove the causal hypothesis (Gerring 2006). It is important to notice that the logic of pattern matching implies that the predicted and observed patterns are based on diferent cases and data. An example can illustrate this point. Pupils in public schools with low motivation often drop out. The two variables are ‘public school pupils with low motivation’ and ‘public school pupils drop out before completing’. This case of a pattern in public schools may predict a pattern for the case of private schools. Data on pupil motivation and dropout rates for private schools will confrm or reject this prediction. Pattern matching can be used to test the prediction of spatial and/or temporal relationships (Hak and Dul, 2010). The observations made of units at particular points in time comprise the items of evidence relevant to the hypothesis. Each observation should record values for the relevant variable at a particular point (or period) in time (Gerring 2012). Variables that are related temporally are tested for both their presence and the order in which they occur in the case. This evidence takes the form of causal-process observations. Process tracing can enhance understanding of the causal dynamics that produce the outcome of a particular case. Using the empirical fngerprints left by the units in each part of the process strengthens the causal inferences about how causal processes actually work in real-world cases (Beach 2017). The empirical traces of activities are evidence of the variables that explain an outcome. Human agency, such as actions and behaviour, is characteristic of units such as the individual, organisation or group and can be displayed as a chain of variables in the causal model. Causal chains consist of variables, each of which logically leads to the next. These activities are the mechanisms that connect the social and material settings with the outcome of interest. This sort of evidence is especially valuable when attempting to make causal inferences about single (and perhaps highly singular) events (Gerring 2012). Pattern matching can generate evidence of causal chains, multiple causes or both. The general question addressed by pattern matching is: if hypothesis A is true, what does it imply for the world? (Gerring 2010). The pattern-matching design requires that variables are detailed and related to the outcome (Y). A causal model shows how to conduct an inclusive, explanatory analysis of single-case data. Pattern matching tests whether a pattern found in one case is replicated in others. Are the same patterns of core variables involved? Are the values of the variables (high, moderate, low) the same? (Miles et al. 2011). Data is qualitative or quantitative and qualifed as variables (e.g., numerical values changed to textual values) and analysed qualitatively (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998). The

The strategy for justifying causal explanation  145

purposeful application of pattern-matching logic will result in a more rigorous and structured research process (Hak and Dul, 2010).

6.3.2 Outline of the similarity model In analytical journalism, the process of matching patterns of detailed variables is called ‘the similarity model’. A detailed variable specifies the unit, attribute and value of the variable (e.g., pupils with low motivation). Similarity confirms the pattern; dissimilarity rejects it. The predicted pattern has been adopted by the journalist from a scientific study. The observed pattern stems from the journalist’s investigation of the relevant data in the case at hand. Figure 6.1 shows a design for matching a predicted pattern for three causes and one outcome and two examples for an observed pattern with the three causes and the outcome. Observed pattern 1 displays a match between the predicted pattern with four variables and data on each of the variables in the case at hand. Observed pattern 2 rejects the prediction due to a mismatch between the predicted and observed causes. Pattern-matching test enhances the validity of causal explanation in a single case via rigorous comparison with a case outlined by scientific studies. A research version of the similarity model for analytical journalism is shown later in the chapter. An example illustrating a predicted pattern of variables: Student background in a highly literate family (cause 1) → Student motivation is high (cause 2) → The teacher is highly engaged (cause 3) → Student learning results are high (outcome).

Cause 1

Cause 2

Cause 3

Outcome

Predicted pattern

Comparing the predicted and observed patterns of variables

Observed pattern 1 = match of prediction

Observed pattern 2 = mismatch of prediction

FIGURE 6.1

The similarity model for matching patterns of three causes and an outcome.

146 The strategy for justifying causal explanation

If these three causes and the outcome are found in data from the case at hand, the prediction is confrmed. However, if data shows (for example) low teacher engagement (cause 3), then the predicted pattern is not confrmed. The design justifes that a confrmed causal explanation increases the possibility of the outcome (Y). Most researchers frame the outcomes that follow certain conditions as (more) likely rather than as inevitable, which means that they are testing probabilistic propositions (Hak and Dul 2010). The patternmatching design does not rule out alternative explanations of the outcome (Y). A hypothesis confrmed by pattern matching does not claim to be the only explanation or even the best explanation of the outcome (Y). It only claims to be one possible explanation. Pattern matching reveals complementary causes of the outcome (Y). Hence, the pattern-matching design is in line with the premises and procedures used in analytical journalism. The predicted pattern is the causal hypothesis, which is generated in the creative abduction phase before investigating the case at hand and matching variables. The causal hypothesis is displayed as a causal model with standardised variables and their relations (see Chapter 3), which makes it easier to match the observed variables. However, pattern matching depends on the degree of detail in the predicted pattern. It is easy to disconfrm a theory that makes specifc and determinate predictions about the nature of reality. Its confrmation, though more difcult, is still possible (Gerring 2010). This concern regards the scientifc explanations without details of the causal variables. Clear predictions with standardised variables make it easier to determine whether or not there is representative evidence of the variables in the case. The technique of pattern matching depends on the explicitness and determinacy of the hypothesis under investigation. The scientifc causal explanations may be vague, implicit or based on explanatory ideas and suggestions (see Table 6.4 for the diference between general and detailed explanatory theories), which makes the predicted pattern less specifc and precise. The absence of a set of precise theoretical descriptions limits the utility of this otherwise robust method of pattern matching. To make it possible to base the hypotheses on idea-based explanatory theories, the analytical journalist combines pattern matching with covariation between variables. The patternmatching design is extended from comparing variables with a predicted value to comparing variables with predicted variation in the values.

6.3.3 The covariation criterion Covariation between variables is another criterion for causal analysis that can be applied to qualitative research, even though it tends to be associated with quantitative research. Variation means that a variable can change. This change can be absolute when it appears or disappears or relative when it is from low to high in value, e.g., student learning outcome. The variation is observed temporally (e.g., from the start to the end of the course) for the same unit (e.g., students). Variables covary when their changes follow each other. Variation in

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

147

one variable, followed by variation in another, indicates a causal relationship. Patterns of regularities and sequences link phenomena that underlie individual and social life (Miles et al. 2011), but covariations between variables may be random instead of causal. There are four conditions for a covariational pattern of causality (Lofand et al. 2006) 1. Variation in the outcome variable (Y), such as presence/absence or variation in magnitude, such as comparatively high/low. 2. Variation in the cause variable (X), such as presence/absence or variation in magnitude, such as comparatively high/low. 3. In time, the cause must precede the outcome. 4. The covariation between the cause and the outcome is not spurious. The frst three conditions indicate that a covariational pattern consists of variation in causal variables followed by variation in the outcome variable, as illustrated in Figure 6.2. The fgure shows the change in the cause and a resulting change in the outcome. Think of trafc lights as a cause variable, which varies between red and green. Think of cars as an outcome variable. When the red light shows, cars stop. When the light changes to green, cars start driving. When it changes from green to red, cars stop. Variation in the trafc light is followed by a variation in car speed. Such a covariational pattern indicates that the variable (X) is a cause of the outcome (Y), but it does not meet the fourth condition of causality, which addresses the problem of spuriousness, meaning that the variables are without causal impact and incorrectly connected (see Chapter 3, Table 3.2 for an illustration of a spurious relation). Covariation does not prove causality by itself because the variation in the two variables may be caused by a third variable. In the example of student learning outcomes, this could be a change in the teaching schedule

Cause

Outcome

Time 1

Time 2

The cause varies FIGURE 6.2

Time 1

Time 2

Time line

The outcome varies

The pattern of covariation between a cause and an outcome.

148 The strategy for justifying causal explanation

from day to evening classes, which reduces both teacher engagement and student learning outcomes. Empirical covariation is thus regarded as a necessary but not sufcient condition to claim a causal relationship (Gerring 2012).

6.3.4 Outline of the covariation model Matching predicted and observed patterns of covariation reduces the risk of accepting a false causal relationship because criteria for pattern matching and covariation have diferent strengths and weaknesses. The risk of claiming spurious causal relationships is reduced by combining covariation with necessary variation in variables and pattern matching, where the predicted pattern derives from scientifcally approved causal relationships. The covariation design is strong on justifying the time order of variables supposed to interact by assessing the diferences a change in the value of the cause (X) makes for the values of the outcome (Y). Covariation between variables is evidence of necessary causal relationships. A variable that does not change, i.e., a constant, does not by itself produce a change in another variable. The pattern-matching design is strong on the existence of causal relations between variables, at least causal relationships between these variables are accepted by scientifc studies. The combination of covariation and pattern matching tests the presence of the expected variables and their necessary variation. Furthermore, tracing variables for human action proximate to the outcome produces evidence of real causal relations rather than spurious ones. Figure 6.3 shows a predicted pattern of covariation between three variables and a similar observed pattern of covariation. This justifcation design is called ‘the covariation model’ in analytical journalism. Combining the criteria for covariation and pattern matching predicts variation in specifc variables in a certain order. Figure 6.3 illustrates that the predicted

Predicted pattern of covariation in the values of variables

Cause 1 varies

Cause 2 varies

Outcome varies

Time line

Observed pattern of covariation in the values of variables

Time 1 FIGURE 6.3

Time 2

Time 1

Time 2

Time 1 Time 2

Time line

The covariation model of matching patterns of covariation with two causes and outcome.

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

149

pattern of variation is observed in the data for the case at hand. The covariation model does not match variables with fxed values the way that the similarity model does. Instead, the observed variables must vary as predicted in order to confrm the predicted pattern. The combination of pattern matching and covariation enhances the validity of matching general predictions from vague scientifc causal explanations. The precise relationship between a cause (X) and its outcome (Y) may not be immediately proximate in time and space because there may be a time lag before the impact (Gerring 2005). Matched patterns of covariation do not include precise indications of time duration from variation in a cause to variation in an outcome.

6.3.5 The problem of data availability The validity of pattern matching depends on the presence of adequate data to represent the variables. The data must represent the presence or magnitude of the value of the variable concerned. Both models of similarity and covariation are based on pattern matching. The pattern-matching design requires that each separate element of a pattern that is observed is exactly as expected (Hak and Dul 2010). The availability of data on variables has an impact on the robustness of the test for pattern matching. When, for whatever reason, a direct test of a cause’s efect on the outcome is impossible, the researcher may cast about for other things that ought to be true if there is a causal relationship between a cause and an outcome. This kind of evidence is often the best that is available (Gerring 2010). The data needed to confrm the variables may be unavailable for the case observed. When this happens, the optimal data is replaced by the best available data as indications or empirical fngerprints of the predicted variables (see Chapter 3 for inferred and referred variables). The best possible data to represent a variable may consist of several pieces of evidence that together provide stronger evidence which confrms the variable concerned. At any rate, the evidence provided by variables is uncertain. According to Reich and Barnoy (2021), evidence is not simple and unequivocal proof. Journalism should learn from science and philosophy that uncertainty is a fundamental condition of all evidence. In the causal model, any change in the relationships based on scientifc studies that occurs as a result of the pattern-matching test will create ad hoc relationships between the variables in the model. Such an ad hoc relation based on data from the present case is not tested, has less validity and implies the risk of the journalist implying a false relationship. A mismatch of a part of the predicted pattern may not reject the entire hypothesis. The not-confrmed part of the causal model can be removed as long as it does not invalidate the remaining part of the hypothesis. In a multicausal model, this could be a single causal variable of the outcome or a causal chain. It is also possible to have a mismatch between data for human activity. Human activities depend on the diferent causal factors in a case, which can make actions

150

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

look diferent even if the causal mechanisms in diferent cases are the same. The way in which mechanisms work often leads to a variety of empirical observables in diferent cases, despite the theorised mechanism being the same (Beach 2017). Although the evidence ofered by the pattern-matching design is by no means conclusive (pattern matching rarely is), it is sufcient to update probabilities (Gerring 2010).

6.4 Deductive justifcation in analytical journalism This section adjusts the above social science validation methods to the needs of validation in analytical journalism. It combines the methods of justifcation derived from social science and traditional journalism research. Analytical journalists use research designs that help them justify causal explanations of recent phenomena of journalistic interest. The design for causal explanation follows the two strategies of creative abduction and deductive testing. Justifcation is a minor part of the abductive strategy, which leads to a plausible causal hypothesis. Justifcation is the main part of the deductive strategy, which leads to a confrmed causal hypothesis on the basis of the evidence obtained by pattern matching. In other words, justifcation is not just evidence but evidence according to a particular validation logic. In analytical journalism, justifcation concerns the validity of the causal explanation of the phenomena studied. Social science works with several concepts of validity, such as internal validity, measurement validity, ecological validity and external validity. ●

●

●

●

Internal validity is most relevant to analytical journalism. Internal validity is the extent to which evidence supports a claim about cause and efect. This concerns whether causal explanations hold water. The pattern-matching method is one of the best techniques for defning the internal validity of case study research (Yin 2018). Measurement validity is of minor concern to analytical journalism. Measurement validity is the extent to which the data or results of a research method represent the intended variable. The scientifc community has already addressed the validity between explanatory theories and their measurements, which is the basis of the analytical journalist’s hypothesis. Ecological validity is of minor concern. Ecological validity is the extent to which a research design matches real-life situations. In analytical journalism, the outcomes are real-world phenomena, and indications of the causes must be empirically identifed by the analytical journalist, which makes it an explanation of what happens in people’s everyday life. External validity not relevant. External validity is the extent to which the results can be generalised to another context. This concerns the generalisation of the explanation beyond the specifc case at hand, which is not the purpose of analytical journalism.

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

151

The deductive strategy of analytical journalism produces direct evidence of variables from the pattern-matching test and second-hand evidence of the truth of the causal explanation from sources’ evaluative assessments.

6.4.1 The evidence produced by pattern matching The evidence of the truth of the causal explanations stems from investigating the match between the causal pattern predicted by the hypothesis and the pattern of causes indicated by qualitative and quantitative data observed – the patternmatching model of similarity and covariation works with diferent degrees of causal details from scientifc studies. The similarity model requires more causal specifcations from the scientifc theories used than the covariation model. The similarity model matches detailed variables with static values (e.g., students’ motivation is high) from a scientifc study with data from the case at hand. The covariation model matches variables with dynamic values (e.g., students’ motivation increases), variables without direction of change (students’ motivation change) or variables without specifc units (e.g., motivation afects learning outcome). Variables are detailed more often in empirical studies than by idea-based explanatory theories. The minimal explanatory elements for the two validations models are shown in (Table 6.4). The two models mean that most scientifc causal explanations are applicable in analytical journalism because they allow the testing of causal explanations from idea-based theories, qualitative case studies and quantitative studies. General causal claims based on ideas may be tested with the covariation model but not with the similarity model because details for comparison are missing in the causal theory. Causal explanations based on detailed empirical data may be tested with both the similarity model and the covariation model. The two models generate diferent types of evidence about the truth of the hypothesis. Testing a hypothesis with both models instead of one makes the confrmation of the hypothesis more robust. Pattern matching generates direct evidence of the causal explanation for the observed phenomenon in the case at hand.

TABLE 6.4 The validation models and types of scientifc study

The test-model

The covariation model

The covariation model / The similarity model

Study

A general causal theory a) Explicit attributes b) Causal direction between attributes

A detailed causal theory a) Explicit variables b) Causal direction between variables c) Values treatable to dichotomies

152 The strategy for justifying causal explanation

6.4.1.1 The similarity model in analytical journalism The similarity model compares values variables in a scientifc base case and the case at hand. A base case consists of a detailed causal explanation which does not refer to the journalist’s case. Figure 6.4 shows a confrmatory causal model with three variables. The similarity model uses standardised variables and includes the level of the variable, which allows level validation of the causal model (see Chapter 5 for this type of validation). There is a similarity between the base case from the scientifc studies used for the hypothesis and the values of the variables indicated by data for the case at hand. Each predicted variable has one value, which is compared to the value of the variable in the case at hand. Similarity between variables leads to a match, which confrms the hypothesis. A specifc example of the similarity model testing a hypothesis about the causes of bomb-defying faith among Filipinos is shown in fgures 6.7 and 6.8. Variables in analytical journalism are simplifed with dichotomic values such as ‘presence’/‘absence’ or ‘high’/‘low’ in order to manage the analytical complexity. From a probability perspective, a predicted variable with two values has a 50% possibility of matching the observed value. As an example, the explanatory theory says high student motivation causes high student learning outcomes. The predicted value is high (not low) for both variables, with a probability of 50% for a match for each. To fnd the overall statistical probability of a pattern match, the probability of each variable is multiplied. Two variables have a 25% probability of a match, three variables have a 13% probability of a match, four variables have a 6% probability of a match and so on. The fact that this makes a match in a causal model with several variables likely to be a coincidence makes the test with pattern matching robust. In addition to these abstract probabilities, a match depends on the specifc data from the case at hand. Hypothesis Cause 1 Unit Attribute Value: High Level: Macro

Cause 2 Unit Attribute Value: High Level: Macro

Outcome Unit Attribute Value: High Level: Meso

Cause 2 Unit Attribute Value: High Level: Macro

Outcome Unit Attribute Value: High Level: Meso

Case at hand Cause 1 Unit Attribute Value: High Level: Macro FIGURE 6.4

The similarity model for matching two patterns with three standardised variables.

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

153

6.4.1.2 The covariation model in analytical journalism The evidence from the covariation model stems from the observed changes in variables in the chronological order expected by the causal hypothesis. Evidence of a causal relationship consists of a shift in the value of the cause (X-observation) followed by a shift in the value of the outcome (Y-observation) as predicted by the causal hypothesis. This is illustrated in Figure 6.4 and with standardised variables in Figure 6.5. Figure 6.5 shows a match between the covariation of variables in the hypothesis and in the case at hand. The variables in the hypothesis are not detailed and standardised due to the general explanatory theory applied. All three variables are predicted to have consecutive changes in value, beginning with cause 1, continuing with cause 2 and ending with the outcome. The values of the variables may be defned as ‘increasing’, ‘decreasing’, ‘emerging’ or ‘disappearing’ in order to indicate the change. The data from the case at hand indicates that two variables shift value from ‘high’ to ‘low’ and one from ‘low’ to ‘high’ in the predicted order. Hence, the match confrms the hypothesis. An absence of a shift or a shift in the opposite direction would not confrm the causal relation in the case at hand. Returning to the simple example of student learning, a general idea-based explanatory theory would say that students’ motivation has an impact on their learning outcomes. The theory does not specify the values for motivation and learning outcomes. The relationship between the variables may be equal (high–high) or reverse (high–low). However, as per the criterion for covariation, a shift in values for motivation is needed before a shift in the learning outcomes. The observed student motivation shifts from high to low, followed by a shift in the observed learning outcome from high to low. This covariation in the observed variables matches the expected covariation in the variables from the hypothesis. A specifc example in which the covariation model is used to test a hypothesis about the causes of the German ban on Hezbollah is shown in Figure 6.9. Hypothetical causal model Unit: 1X attribute: Value: Change Level: Macro

Unit: 2X attribute: Value: Change Level: Meso

Unit: Y attribute: Value: Change Level: Meso

Unit: 2X attribute: Value: High --> Low Level: Meso

Unit: Y attribute: Value: Low --> High Level: Meso

Time line

Case at hand Unit: 1X attribute Value: High --> Low Level: Macro Time 1 Time 2 FIGURE 6.5

Time 1 Time 2

Time 1 Time 2

Time line

The covariation model for matching patterns of covariation in variables.

154

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

6.4.2 Second-hand evidence from dialogue sources The second type of evidence stems from the journalist’s dialogue with sources in the form of statements regarding the truth of the causal explanation for the phenomenon being investigated. The term ‘dialogue source’ is used to defne a source that responds orally or in writing to questions from the journalist. This second-hand evidence comprises: ●

●

Statements from competent experts who evaluate the validity of the empirically confrmed explanation. Statements from individuals involved in the case that is, people who experience the causal relations in their lives.

Social scientists suggest supplementing the empirical validation derived from pattern matching and covariation with refexive evaluation of the causal explanation. They recommend consulting experts on the issue (Gerring 2012) as well as individuals experiencing the causal relationships (Miles et al. 2011). Evaluation of this type can apply the familiar criteria of factuality and accuracy when using source testimonies to justify causal explanations and when assessing the credibility of sources. The data on variables (direct evidence), source evaluation (second-hand evidence) and source credentials (indirect evidence) all justify the true belief in the causal explanation. The research design leads the analytical journalist to generate knowledge about the causes of the observed phenomenon based on abductive and deductive inferences. Direct evidence is the most valuable way of bolstering belief in the causal explanation. According to the hierarchy of evidence in health science, evidence from comparative studies and correlation studies rank above evidence from expert committee reports or opinions or the clinical experience of respected authorities (Shekelle et al. 1999).

6.5 Practical guidelines for justifying causal explanation The following guidelines for a deductive strategy are based on the sections above about justifcation in analytical journalism (Table 6.5). They specify the principle of verifcation, the two criteria of pattern matching and covariation and the three guidelines: the covariation model, the similarity model and the refexive evaluation. The hypothetical causal model (inferred in the abductive process) can be tested in total or part, which means that validation of the causal model may consist of both of the two testing models. These guidelines were drawn up to teach students about analytical journalism and are, therefore, arranged to ft a meta-report (see Chapter 8 for details of the meta-report). Experienced journalists may use some or all of the points below in less formalised ways.

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

155

TABLE 6.5 Guidelines for the deductive strategy

6.5.1) The similarity model

A) Create standardised variables on data from the case at hand B) Compare the variables in the hypothetical causal model to the variables in the case at hand C) Accept or reject the causal relations

6.5.2) The covariation model

A) Specify the variation in each of the observed variables B) Visualise the chronology of the variation in the variables C) Accept or reject the causal relations

6.5.3) The refexive evaluation by dialogue sources

A) Identify the optimal dialogue sources B) Getting dialogue sources to evaluate the explanation

The guidelines show in detail how to establish evidence that will ultimately convince the journalist about the truth of the causes of the observed phenomenon, evidence that also forms one of the main parts of the strategy to make the audience believe the causal explanation in the next chapter. The techniques used to identify evidence of variables are outlined in Chapter 3 – i.e., comparing data, condensing data or referring to sources in order to identify the specifc value of variables.

6.5.1 The similarity model A) Create standardised variables using data from the case at hand Search the case at hand to obtain the best possible data for the variables. Start by looking for data for the outcome (Y). The other variables are examined in reverse chronological order to confrm one variable before moving on to the next variable. If a variable is not confrmed, it may break a causal chain and make it unnecessary to justify the preceding variables. Specify for each variable in the hypothetical causal model: ● ● ●

The technique(s) used to determine the variable. The source of data. The resulting variable with unit, attribute and a value assigned.

These elements are illustrated in Table 6.6 with the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos (see also Chapters 1 and 5 for this case). Figure 6.6 shows that the hypothetical causal model for the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos has six variables based on two overlapping theories, each with a base case. The two base cases from the detailed studies with Theory 1 and Theory 2 in the causal model are tested separately in similarity models with the observed variables from the Philippine case.

156 The strategy for justifying causal explanation

U: Nazarene devotees 5Z: Crowd identification V: Yes/No L: Meso

Theory 1 U: Nazarene devotees 1X: Desire to practice lived religion V: Yes/No L: Meso

U: Nazarene devotees 2X: Practiceembodied faith V: Yes/No L: Meso

U: Filipinos 4Z: Physicality important in culture V: High/Low L: Macro FIGURE 6.6

U: Nazarene devotees 3X: Crowd density V: High/Low L: Meso

U: Nazarene devotees 6Y: Insist on physically participating V: Yes/No L: Meso Theory 2

The hypothetical causal model of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos (Macaraig 2020).

TABLE 6.6 Data on variables from the Filipino case at hand (Macaraig 2020)

Variable, technique, data, source 1X: Devotees desire to practice lived religion Technique: Condensing data Columnists call the Black Nazarene devotion ‘washbasin and wooden club spirituality’ (David 2012). • Most devotees are from the urban poor, based on an ethnography of Quiapo district by Ateneo de Manila University philosophy associate professor Mark Calano (2015). • Catholic websites describe them as rugged, low-income workers (Saludes 2018). • In a commentary on Philippine religious practices, theology scholar Fr. Daniel Pilario says devotees’ concerns involve sickness, relationships and survival (2017). • Ex-Quiapo parish priest Jose Ignacio says the devotion is growing: attendance in masses was up 30% (Gonsalves 2015). •

Result: U: Nazarene devotees. 1X: Desire to practice lived religion. V: The data indicates the value ‘yes’. L: Meso. 2X: Devotees practice embodied faith Technique: Condensing data Among devotees’ rituals are kissing and touching statues, carrying the carriage and wiping towels on the icon (Ignacio 2019). Ignacio argues that while these are outside approved liturgies, these are poor people’s ways of experiencing the holy. (Continued )

•

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

157

TABLE 6.6 Continued •

•

In a study on Philippine Catholicism, De La Salle University theology assistant professor Fides del Castillo said wiping sacred images is rooted in the local belief in divinities that represented intangible forms as idols (2015). Filipino devotees believe handkerchiefs that touch a sacred icon obtained efcacy in curing sickness. In a study on Philippine Christianization, anthropologist Peter Bräunlein of Germany’s Georg-August-Universität Göttingen says processions facilitate people’s physical experience of sacrifce and prayer (2009). He adds that images make abstract religious statements plausible.

Result: U: Nazarene devotees. 2X: Practice embodied faith. V: The data indicates the value ‘yes’. L: Meso. 3X: Devotees form high crowd density Technique: Referring to the variable. One of the world’s biggest religious gatherings, with 3.3 million people in 2020 (Calonzo 2019; ABS-CBN 2020).

•

Result: U: Nazarene devotees. 1X: Crowd density. V: The data indicates the value ‘high’. L: Meso. 5Z: Devotees identify with the crowd Technique: Condensing data. Ex-Manila Archbishop Luis Tagle says devotees regard each other as siblings (2016). • Carriage guards are called Sons of the Nazarene, while devotees help one another get near the image and lift the injured out of harm’s way (Pedrajas 2020). • In a commentary, Ateneo de Manila University development studies associate professor Jayeel Cornelio says devotees share a ‘sensation of belongingness’ (2018). • University of Santo Tomas theology professor Fr. Jannel Abogado argues that Filipino religiosity has a communal dimension related to concern for others (2006). •

Result: U: Nazarene devotees. 5Z: Crowd identifcation. V: The data indicate the value ‘yes’. L: Meso 6Y: Devotees insist on physical participation Technique: Condensing data. Devotees insist on performing physical rituals like kissing the image despite safety threats (Ignacio 2019; Gomez 2020). • Tight security did not prevent devotees from scrambling for the statute; 331 injured (Torres 2020; PRC 2020). •

Result: U: Nazarene devotees. 6Y: Insist on physically participating. V: The data indicate the value ‘yes’. L: Meso.

158

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

B) Compare the variables in the base case to the variables in the case at hand The hypothetical causal model is based on two bases cases. The frst base case is from a scientifc study of the Guatemalan Black Christ devotees, which is compared to the observed variables for the Philippine Black Nazarene devotees. Figure 6.7 visualises in a similarity model the variables 1X, 2X and 3X from Table 6.6. The second similarity model is based on a base case from a scientifc study of Saudi Arabia’s Hajj, which is visualised with the observed variables 3X, 5Z and 6Y from the Philippine Black Nazarene ritual (Table 6.6) in Figure 6.8. The base case of Guatemala U: Black Christ devotees 1X: Desire to practice lived religion V: Yes/No L: Meso

U: Black Christ devotees 2X: Practice-embodied faith V: Yes/No L: Meso

U: Black Christ devotees 3X: Crowd density V: High/Low L: Meso

U: Nazarene devotees 2X: Practice-embodied faith V: Yes L: Meso

U: Nazarene devotees 3X: Crowd density V: High L: Meso

The case of the Philippines U: Nazarene devotees 1X: Desire to practice lived religion V: Yes L: Meso FIGURE 6.7

The similarity model with the Guatemalan case and the Philippine case.

The base case of Saudi Arabia U: Hajj pilgrims 3X: Crown density V: High/Low L: Meso

U: Hajj pilgrims 5Z: Crowd identification V: Yes/No L: Meso

U: Hajj pilgrims 6Y: Insisting on physically participating in feast V: Yes/Low L: Meso

The case of the Philippines U: Nazarene devotees 3X: Crown density V: High/Low L: Meso FIGURE 6.8

U: Nazarene devotees 5Z: Crowd identification V: Yes/No L: Meso

U: Nazarene devotees 6Y: Insisting on physically participating in feast V: Yes/Low L: Meso

The similarity model with the Saudi Arabian case and the Philippian case.

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

159

TABLE 6.7 The test results of the two similarity models (Macaraig 2020)

Apart from the units (Black Christ and Nazarene devotees), the match shows a similarity between the variables 1X, 2X and 3X in the predicted pattern and the observed pattern, which confrms the two causal relations. Apart from the units (Hajj pilgrims and Nazarene devotees), the similarity between the variables 3X, 5Z and 6Y in the predicted pattern and the observed pattern confrms the two causal relations. These two tests of similarity between the predicted pattern and the observed pattern confrm the causal hypothesis as an explanation of the bomb-defying faith in the case at hand of the Philippines.

C) Accept or reject the causal relations Visualising the similarity model makes it easy to assess if there is a match between the base case and the case at hand, which confrms the tested part of the hypothesis, or a mismatch that does not confrm the tested part of the hypothesis. The result of the pattern matching with the two similarity models is shown in Table 6.7. In this Filipino example, the causal hypothesis is confrmed in the test, which creates direct evidence to verify the causal explanation of the analytical journalist. However, the research into the case at hand may alter the hypothesised causal model. If one or more relations are not confrmed, then the underlying causal theory does not explain this part of the journalist’s case. The hypothesised causal model must then be changed, either, if possible, by leaving variables out or by searching for scientifc studies to repair the model and have these new variables tested by either the similarity or the covariation model. Remember, the logic of pattern-matching does not allow the causal model to be adjusted to the data from the case at hand because data cannot be used twice – both to generate and test the same variable, and this means the relations cannot be validated by pattern matching.

6.5.2 The covariation model The three steps in the covariation model are outlined below. They are illustrated by an example of analytical journalism, which explains the ban on Hezbollah in Germany introduced in 2020. The ban changed the status of Hezbollah from a legal, legitimate organisation permitted to act like other organisations in Germany to one not permitted to operate on German soil (Based on Kelter-Wesenberg and Gråbæk 2020. Translated from the original Danish).

A) Specify the variation in each of the observed variables Search the case at hand to obtain the best possible data as indicators or empirical fngerprints of variation in the values of the variables. Start by looking for data for changes in outcome (Y), then continue with its most closely related cause

160 The strategy for justifying causal explanation

(X) according to the hypothesis. The other variables are examined in reverse chronological order. The order of variables is given by the hypothetical causal model, but the timing of changes in variables is determined by the actual case. It is the time of the variation in the outcome (Y) that determines when to look backwards in time for variation in the cause (X). The time of the change in cause (X) then determines when past causes should vary. Specify the following for each variable in the hypothetical causal model: ● ● ● ●

The applied technique(s) to create the variable. The data at points or periods (year, month, week, day). The source of the data. The resulting variable with a value assigned at two diferent points in time.

These elements are illustrated in Table 6.8 regarding the explanation for the ban on Hezbollah in Germany in 2020. Kelter-Wesenberg and Gråbæk, based their hypothesis about the ban on fve studies: J. S. Nye (2008) ‘Public Diplomacy and Soft Power’; R. Mordfn (2016) ‘Why Intolerance Is Bad for Business’; K. Brüggemann and A. Kasekamp (2008) ‘The Politics of History and the “War of Monuments” in Estonia’; A. Sajoo (2015) ‘The Fog of Extremism: Governance, Identity, and Minstrels of Exclusion’; and S. Childs (2011) ‘From Identity to Militancy: The Shi’a of Hezbollah’.

B) Visualising the chronology of the variations in the variables Display the hypothetical causal model and the observed variables on a timeline with the exact time or period of change for the observed variables in order to assess the match. The chronology of changes in the variables is based on the German data (Table 6.8) and illustrated below, along with the causal model from the hypothesis generated in the earlier creative phase of the analytical journalism.

C) Accept or reject the causal relations Compare the hypothetical causal model and the observed variables. Confrmation requires that the variables based on data from the case at hand vary and vary in the right order as predicted by the hypothetical causal model. Otherwise, the causal relations are not confrmed. The conclusion of the pattern-matching test in the German case is shown in Table 6.8. TABLE 6.8 Confrmation in the case of the German ban on Hezbollah (Kelter-Wesenberg

and Gråbæk 2020) The causal hypothesis about the ban on Hezbollah in the German case is confrmed by the match between the predicted pattern of covariation of variables in the hypothesised causal model and the pattern of covariation in German data for the variables.

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

161

TABLE 6.9 Data indicating variation in each of the variables based on data from the case

of the German ban on Hezbollah (Kelter-Wesenberg and Gråbæk 2020) Variable, technique, data, source X1: Germans’ anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli views are increasing Technique: Referring variable. An EU report from 2013 shows that 68% of German respondents in the study believed the level of anti-Semitism had increased over the last fve years in their home country (FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2013, 17).

•

Result: 2008: Anti-Semitism is low. 2013: Anti-Semitism is high. X2: German government starts using public diplomacy to redefne its reputation Technique: Condensing data. Germany is one of the countries that – both at the government level and through private marketing – nurture their national brand by exercising ‘public diplomacy’ in the form of ‘soft power’ (Louw 2013, 143–144). • In 2017, a report submitted to the German Parliament recommended how to combat rising antiSemitism (Bundesministerium des Innern 2017). • Since 2017, the report’s proposals to combat anti-Semitism have been implemented. A commissioner has been appointed to take up the fght against anti-Semitism (Brinded 2018). • In March 2018, Germany’s foreign minister strongly condemns anti-Semitic hate crimes at a German school in Berlin (The Associated Press 2018). • MaIn y 2019, The Parliament condemns the BDS movement as anti-Semitic, as the organisation calls for a boycott of Israeli goods in protest at Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories (Bennhold 2019). • In November 2019, Parliament removes an MP from the AfD party as chairman of the Judiciary Committee as a result of alleged anti-Semitic statements (Lavine & Strack 2019). •

Result: 2017: The Parliament’s pro-Semitic level of initiative is low. 2019: The Parliament’s pro-Semitic level of initiative is high. X3: German government perceives Hezbollah as anti-Semitic Technique: Condensing data December 2019: Parliament adopts a resolution condemning Hezbollah as anti-Semitic and subversive and calling for a ban on Hezbollah (Rising 2019). • Spring 2020: Spokespersons for the German Interior Ministry make statements condemning Hezbollah for the frst time as an extremist organisation that poses a threat (Gerhke 2020) • For several years, Germany has banned organisations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda, which are perceived as extremist, anti-Semitic and subversive (Counter Extremism Project 2020). •

Result: December 2019: The Parliament’s level of condemnation of Hezbollah is low. Spring 2020: The Parliament’s level of condemnation of Hezbollah is high. Y4: German Parliament decides to ban Hezbollah Technique: Referring variable. The German government decides to ban Hezbollah as an organisation in Germany on 30 April 2020 (BBC 2020).

•

Result: 30 April 2020: The Parliament bans Hezbollah.

FIGURE 6.9

2008

2017

Nov 2019

U: German government X2: Public diplomacy to redefine reputation Values: Absent Present

Nov 2019

Spring 2020

U: German government X3: Hezbollah as symbol of anti-Semitism and extremism Values: Absent Present

Cause 3 varies

U: German government X3: Hezbollah as symbol of anti-Semitism and extremism Value: Emerging L: Macro

The covariation model in the case of the German ban on Hezbollah

2013

U: Germans X1: Anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli views Values: High Low

Cause 2 varies

U: German government X2: Public diplomacy to redefine reputation Value: Emerging L: Macro

The observed causal model

Cause 1 varies

U: Germans X1: Anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli views Value: Increasing L: Macro

Study 1

The hypothetical causal model

30 April 2020

U: German parliament Y4: Ban on Hezbollah Values: Absent Present

Outcome varies

Time line

Time line

U: German parliament Y4: Ban on Hezbollah Value: Absent > Present L: Macro

Study 2

162 The strategy for justifying causal explanation

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

163

6.5.3 Refexive evaluation by dialogue sources Refexive evaluation begins when pattern-matching research ends. The causal hypotheses supported by the pattern-matching test may be challenged by experts and individuals involved in the case. The causal explanation of the case at hand is novel compared to existing coverage on the phenomenon in media and scientifc journals. Thus, no published material can be used at this point. The refexive evaluation requires dialogue between the analytical journalist and the sources.

A) Identify the optimal dialogue sources Identify the dialogue sources worth listening to about the specifc causal explanation of the observed phenomenon. The quality of the sources used to evaluate the causal explanation is based on a critical source assessment of the individual source (See section 2.2.2, indirect evidence).

B) Getting dialogue sources to evaluate the explanation A refexive evaluation examines the credibility of the causal explanation by getting dialogue sources to assess it, the evidence in the form of the theories applied and the data matches. Two types of sources can be used. ●

●

Evaluation of the causal explanation by authoritative sources Relevant academic experts function as authoritative voices who may (1) totally approve, (2) accept or (3) totally disagree with the causal explanation. Confrmation is achieved when at least one relevant researcher accepts or approves the causal explanation. In academia, there are various validation communities with diferent understandings of reality and criteria for how to judge validity (Schwartz-Shea 2006). This means that researchers often disagree with each other and, therefore, also may disagree with analytical journalists. Hence, an expert who disagrees with the analytical journalist’s causal explanations does not disconfrm it, but the analytical journalist must consider the strength of the expert’s evidence that indicates the causal relations are wrong. If strong, the journalist needs stronger evidence to accept the causal explanation before publishing it. Evaluation of the causal explanation by people involved Relevant ‘members’ of the causal setting are ordinary people who live in and experience the causal relationships. These case exemplars provide frst-person accounts of how it feels to be personally impacted by the causal relationships. Professionals working on the subject may validate the causal relationships from a practical perspective. Such ordinary people and professionals add ecological validity to the explanation, indicating that the causal relationships are real. Confrmation is achieved when the individual case exemplars or professionals acknowledge the causal relations. Lacking awareness of the causal relationships by these same people is not tantamount to

164 The strategy for justifying causal explanation

rejection because of the complexity of the social setting and the non-observable nature of causal relations. For the sake of audience identifcation and narrative storytelling, get the details of these sources and crucial episodes that refect the causal relationships (see Chapter 7). Disagreeing sources’ statements can be included as counterarguments to the causal explanation in the journalistic product, which strengthens the analytical journalists’ credibility when they refute sceptical comments with data (see ethos model in Chapter 7). The example of refexive evaluation comes from the analytical journalism about the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos (Macaraig 2020) (Table 6.10). Three experts and the case exemplar are the dialogue sources. They responded to the presentations of the causal explanation by the analytical journalist. The case exemplar was interviewed several times during the research.

Summarising the guidelines for deductive justifcation The guidelines for knowledge justifcation in analytical journalism provide evidence of the truth of the causal explanation by: ●

●

Matching the predicted pattern in a causal model with evidence in the form of data from the case at hand. Authoritative voices and individuals involved in the case evaluating the causal explanation of the phenomenon of journalistic interest.

TABLE 6.10 Exemplifying refexive evaluation of the explanation of the bomb-defying

faith of Filipinos (Macaraig 2020) The authoritative assessment •

• •

Mark Calano, Ateneo de Manila University philosophy associate professor, supports the inference that the lived religion has an impact on Nazarene devotees’ insistence on physically participating in the feast. He is the author of ‘The Black Nazarene, Quiapo, and the Weak Philippine State’. Kritika Kultura, No. 25, 167–187. Historian Xiao Chua of Manila’s De La Salle University supports the inference of crowd identifcation as an explanation. Jose Maximiano, an award-winning author of books on the Catholic church and columnist at the Philippine Daily Inquirer, also supports the inference on social identifcation and the theory’s applicability.

The assessment by those involved •

Adam Sanding, Nazarene devotee of 26 years and secretary of Hijos del Nazareno – Nuestro Padre Jesus Nazareno group recognises being part of the Nazarene devotees (the entity of the variables) and the group’s characteristics such as Nazarene devotees trust each other with their safety.

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

165

The guidelines invite the analytical journalist to reconsider the causal explanation if representative data of the variables is missing and/or if relevant academics disagree with substantial arguments. The next chapter looks at how analytical journalists use the evidence generated by the methods of justifcation in order to convince the audience of the truth of the causal explanation.

References Barnoy, Aviv and Zvi Reich. 2019. “The When, Why, How and So-What of Verifcations.” Journalism Studies, 20(16), 2312–2330. Beach, Derek. 2017. “Process-tracing Methods in Social Science.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Politics, edited by William R. Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coddington, Mark and Logan Molyneux 2021. “Making Sources Visible: Representation of Evidence in News Texts, 2007–2019.” Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080 /17512786.2021.1949629 Eldridge, S. A. and H. Bødker. 2019. “Confronting Uncertainty: The Contours of an Inferential Community.” Journalism & Communication Monographs 21, 280–349. Ekström, Mats and Oscar Westlund. 2019a. ‘Epistemology and Journalism.” In Oxford Encyclopedia of Journalism Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ekström, Mats and Oscar Westlund. 2019b. “The Dislocation of News Journalism: A Conceptual Framework for the Study of Epistemologies of Digital Journalism.” Media and Communication 7–1, 259–270. Ettema, James and Glasser, Theodore. 2006/1985. “On the Epistemology of Investigative Journalism.” In Journalism. The Democratic Craft, edited by G. Stuart Adam and Roy Peter Clark, 126–139. New York: Oxford University Press. Gerring, John. 2005. “Causation: A Unifed Framework for the Social Sciences.” Journal of Theoretical Politics, 17–2, 163–198. Gerring, John. 2006. “Single-outcome Studies: A Methodological Primer.” International Sociology, 21(5), 707–734. Gerring, John. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But…,.” Comparative Political Studie, 43, 1499–1526. Gerring, John. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Godler, Yigal and Zvi Reich 2013a. “How Journalists ‘Realize’ Facts. Epistemology in Practice at Press Conferences.” Journalism Practice 7(6), 674–689. Godler, Yigal and Zvi Reich 2013b. “How Journalists Think About Facts. Theorizing the Social Conditions Behind Epistemological Beliefs.” Journalism Studies. https://doi .org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.689489 Godler, Yigal and Zvi Reich. 2017a. “Journalistic Evidence: Cross-Verifcation as a Constituent of Mediated Knowledge.” Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism 18, 558–574. Godler, Yigal and Zvi Reich. 2017b. “News Cultures or ‘Epistemic Cultures’?” Journalism Studies 18(5), 666–681. Godler, Yigal, Zvi Reich and Boaz Miller. 2020. “Social Epistemology as a New Paradigm for Journalism and Media Studies.” New Media & Society 22, 213–230.

166 The strategy for justifying causal explanation

Hak, Tony and Jan Dul. 2010. “Pattern Matching.” Encyclopaedia of Case Study Research, edited by Albert J. Mills, Gabrielle Durepos and Elden Wiebe, 664–665. London: SAGE Publications. Hanitzsch, Thomas. 2007. “Deconstructing Journalism Culture: Toward a Universal Theory.” Communication Theory, 17–4, 367–385. Hanitzsch, Thomas and Tim P. Vos. 2018. “Journalism Beyond Democracy: A New Look into Journalistic Roles in Political and Everyday Life.” Journalism 19(2), 146–164. Kelter-Wesenberg, Niels Frederik and Sebastian Jong Woo Friis Gråbæk. 2020. “Germany Looks at Itself in the Mirror and Sees the Face of Anti-Semitism in Hezbollah.” Students at Analytical Journalism, Master of Arts in Journalism. Kovach, Bill and Tom Rosenstiel. 2001. The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and The Public Should Expect. New York: Three Rivers Press. Lawson, B. T. 2021. “Hiding Behind Databases, Institutions and Actors: How Journalists Use Statistics in Reporting Humanitarian Crises.” Journalism Practice. https;//doi.org /10.1080/17512786.2021.1930106 Lofand, John, David Snow, Leon Anderson and Lyn H. Lofand. 2006. Analyzing Social Settings. A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Canada: Thomson Wadsworth. Macaraig, Ayee. 2020. “Bomb-defying Faith. Why Filipino Catholics Insist on Physical Devotion.” Student at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. McNair, Brian. 1999. Journalism and Democracy: Evaluation of Political Public Sphere. London: Routledge. Miles, Matthew B., A. Michael Huberman and Johnny Saldaña. 2011. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage. Örnebring, Henrik. 2017. “Epistemologies and Professional Roles.” In Journalistic Role Performance edited by Claudia Mellado, Lea Hellmueller and Wolfgang Donsbach, Xi–xvii. London: Routledge. Reich, Zvi and Yigal Godler. 2017. “The Disruption of Journalistic Expertise.” In Rethinking Journalism Again, edited by Chris Peters and Marcel Broersma, 64–80. London: Routledge. Reich, Zvi and Aviv Barnoy. 2021. “Justifying the News: The Role of Evidence in Daily Reporting.” Journalism 1–19 Salgado, Susana, Jesper Strömbäck, Toril Aalberg and Frank Esser. 2017. “Interpretive Journalism.” In Comparing Political Journalism, edited by C. de Vreese, F. Esser and D. N. Hopmann, 50–70. New York: Routledge. Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 2006. “Judging Quality: Evaluative Criteria and Epistemic Communities.” In Interpretation and Method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, edited by Dvora Yanow and Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, 89–114. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Schudson, Michael and Chris Anderson. 2009. “Objectivity, Professionalism, and Truth Seeking in Journalism.” in The Handbook of Journalism Studies, edited by Karin WahlJorgensen and Thomas Hanitzsch, 88–101. New York: Routledge. Shapiro, Ivor, Colette Brin, Isabelle Bédard-Brûlé and Kasia Mychajlowycz. 2013. “Verifcation as a Strategic Ritual: How Journalists Retrospectively Describe Processes for Ensuring Accuracy.” Journalism Practice 7(6), 657–673. Shekelle, P. G., Woolf, S. H., Eccles, M. and Grimshaw, J. 1999. “Clinical Guidelines: Developing Guidelines.” BMJ 3(18(7183)), 593–596. Tashakkori, Abbas and Charles Teddlie. 1998. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Sage.

The strategy for justifying causal explanation

167

Undurraga, T. 2017. ”Knowledge-production in Journalism: Translation, Mediation and Authorship in Brazil.” The Sociological Review 66(1), 58–74. Ward, Stephen J. A. 2018. “Epistemologies of Journalism.” In Journalism edited by Tim P. Vos, 63–82. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Witsen, Anthony Van. 2021. “How Science Journalists Verify Numbers and Statistics in News Stories: Towards a Theory.” Journalism Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080 /17512786.2021.1947152 Yin, R. K. 2018. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

7 THE STRATEGY FOR CONVINCING ISSUE FRAMES Henrik Berggren, Jesper Gaarskjær and Flemming Svith

Chapter aims ● ●

To outline convincing journalism as principles, criteria and methods. To outline rhetoric and narratives as tools to build trust and credibility.

Learning outcome At the end of this chapter, readers should know the following: ●

●

How to create an identity as a journalist with expertise, authority and decency who is oriented towards the audience. How to structure analytical journalism to make it convincing.

7.1 Introduction This chapter outlines what it takes to convince an audience about the truth of the causal explanation presented by the analytical journalist. The concept of convincing the audience is fundamental to the main aim of analytical journalism, that is, to improve the public’s knowledge of current issues by highlighting overlooked causes of recent phenomena. It answers the question of how analytical journalists’ issue frames (see Chapter 4 for this concept) and causal explanations are disseminated in a way that seeks to infuence – extend or modify – the public’s current understanding of a particular aspect of reality. The perspective of this chapter then shifts from the creation of knowledge (see the two previous chapters) to the transfer of knowledge. In this phase of analytical journalism, the strategy for convincing an audience is ‘rhetorical’. Based on rhetorical and narrative theory, the strategy organises the evidence from previous phases in a DOI: 10.4324/9781003300977-7

The strategy for convincing issue frames

169

way that makes the audience believe in the truth of the causal explanation. The practice of convincing an audience: ● ● ●

Is governed by the principles that determine how knowledge transfer works. Is based on criteria for appeals to an audience. Is carried out via methods that foster the audience’s belief in the truth of claims.

This fnal phase of analytical journalism is about creating journalistic products designed for a target audience in a way that positions the analytical journalist as being in possession of expertise and authority. The expertise is based on the science-based generation and validation of causal explanations. The authority is based on the expertise and the deliberative purpose of improving public knowledge of current issues, which consists of legitimate discursive knowledge about phenomena (Carlson 2017, 13). The rhetorical strategy of analytical journalism connects journalistic expertise and authority with audience learning and engagement. It is not enough for the analytical journalist to create new explanations for current issues; the explanations must also be assimilated and used by the audience in their daily lives. Forde (2007) found that the types of explanatory journalism that won the Pulitzer Prize had too little impact on public discourse and suggested that better storytelling would increase readership. Table 7.1 highlights this ffth and fnal phase of analytical journalism. The purpose of adding issue frames to the public knowledge base is to encourage the audience to accept the truth of the causal explanation. The transfer of causal explanations to an audience is governed by the principle of ‘convincing’, which is based on rhetorical and narrative theory. Rhetoric is the deliberate use of messages to invite assent and communicate reason grounded in social truths (Campbell et al. 2015). Narrative is the combination of events and actors in sequences that are more convincing when presented together than the individual facts. Narrative theory concerns how beliefs, attitudes or actions are infuenced via processes associated with narrative comprehension or engagement (Bilandzic and Busselle 2013). The criteria for convincing are ‘trust’, ‘comprehension’ and ‘engagement’. Fostering the audience’s ‘trust’ in the journalist is essential for knowledge transfer. Messages from people who are trusted are more likely to be believed than messages from those who are not trusted (McCroskey 2006). This means that the analytical journalist’s product must strive to appear as trustworthy as possible. Promoting the comprehensibility of the journalistic product makes the causal knowledge accessible. Making explicit the causal factors in the product increases the audience’s understanding (Findahl and Höijer 1984). Promoting an ‘engaging’ story with actors, situations and sequences increases the audience’s acceptance of the causal explanations. All three criteria relate to the impact of the journalistic product on the audience’s knowledge and behaviour. Like all causal relationships, the transfer of causal knowledge from the journalist to the audience is associated with uncertainty, especially because the

Deliberative

Selection

Particularising

Public relevance

Journalistic scanning

Role

Strategy

Principle

Criteria

Methods

Phase 1 Observing phenomena

•

•

•

Collecting media examples Content analysis Issue frame table •

•

•

Science-based inference Causal model validation •

•

•

•

•

•

Similarity model Covariation model Refexive evaluation

Pattern matching Covariation Expert assessment

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Ethos model Explorative storytelling Modality tables Narrative whole Analytical storyline

Trust Comprehension Engagement

Convincing

Verifcation

Hypothesising

Categorisation Public novelty Plausibility

Rhetorical

Deductive

Abductive

Inductive

•

Deliberative

Inferential

Inferential

Deliberative

Representativeness

Phase 5 Adding divergent issue frame

Phase 4 Justifying hypothesis

Phase 3 Applying theory to hypothesis

Phase 2 Mapping causal explanations

TABLE 7.1 Phase 5 – Adding issue frames to the public knowledge base in analytical journalism

170 The strategy for convincing issue frames

The strategy for convincing issue frames

171

knowledge transfer is moderated by the characteristics of individual audience members. It is well known, for example, that a person’s political afliation has an impact on how they perceive messages from political parties (Slothuus and de Vreese 2010). Targeting a specifc audience group may reduce the uncertainty associated with knowledge transfer, but such groups still comprise a heterogeneous mass audience – which is a defning feature of journalism. However, this does not exclude knowledge transfer by journalistic products. The rhetorical strategy takes as its starting point that the audience’s situation difers from that of the analytical journalist, who in the course of their research has become convinced of the truth of the causal explanation. The audience, on the other hand, only sees the resulting product. Scientifc papers include detailed methodologies intended to make the research transparent and replicable, which may convince an academic audience, but intimidate a lay one. Analytical journalism must be read, seen, heard and (not least) believed by the general audience, who may be sceptical simply because the issue frames deliberately difer from existing ones. The aim of the rhetorical strategy is to overcome obstacles that may impede the transfer of causal knowledge to a general audience. The methods of knowledge transfer are the ‘ethos model’, ‘explorative storytelling’, ‘modality tables’, the ‘narrative whole’ and the ‘analytical storyline’ (each method is described in detail below). These methods can be implemented separately or combined, depending on the genre of the journalistic product and the audience. In general, evidence is most efective when diferent forms are combined, so the limitations of one kind are compensated for by the strengths of another (Campbell et al. 2015).

7.2 Theories of convincing This section outlines theories of how a communicator –  in this instance, an analytical journalist – can convince an audience to include their product in their deliberations about topical phenomena.

7.2.1 Rhetorical theory In analytical journalism, the strategy for convincing the audience is based on rhetorical theory of persuasion, which originates from Aristotle (2007/350 BC). He pointed to three main sources of rhetorical evidence: ethos concerns what makes the speaker credible; logos concerns the arguments for truth in each case; and pathos concerns what makes the audience feel emotion. Rhetoric is, therefore, intentional communication that draws on three types of evidence to convince the receiver of a message (Kjeldsen 2018): 1. Communication from an actor (e.g., an individual, a group or an institution) that addresses specifc recipients in order to achieve a certain kind of understanding, reaction or response.

172

The strategy for convincing issue frames

2. Communication in which the actor infuences the audience by means of their personal credibility, the content of the case and good arguments, as well as by means of a functional, moving and convincing forms of expression. 3. Communication intended to infuence by taking into account the recipients’ emotions, character traits and attitudes. In the context of analytical journalism, ethos relates to the credibility of the analytical journalist; logos relates to the justifying logic of and evidence for the causal explanation in the story; and pathos relates to how the story stirs the emotions of the audience.

7.2.2 Narrative theory In analytical journalism, the strategy for convincing the audience is based on narrative theory. Central to this theory is the recognition that a story convinces by virtue of its qualities as a whole rather than its parts and individual facts (Bilandzic and Busselle 2013). A text that aims to convince can be broadly divided into logical argumentation and narrative storytelling. Narratives are a version of reality, the acceptability of which is governed by convention and ‘narrative necessity’ rather than empirical verifcation and logical necessity, although stories are often called true or false (Bruner 1991, 4–5). It is a matter of crafting a story by inserting a structure that allows meaning to be derived from the events portrayed (Czarniawska 2015). The common denominator is the narrative function of the story as a whole, understood as the way in which the narrative is organised and structured so that the implied causal relationships appear compelling. Narrative explanations based on the episodes with involved individuals are perfectly in line with everyday discourse and common sense. For most purposes, such an account of an episode would be accepted at face value without further enquiry (Carr 2008). A narrative whole is a form of composition that, unlike the inverted news pyramid, works precisely with the story as a whole. The story’s main message or its analytical insights and conclusions are not presented at the beginning but emerge gradually as the story and explanation unfold. In literary theory, this strategy is known as withheld information and narrative desire, which are the ‘motor’ in the narrative movement (Brooks 1992). In analytical journalism, the pathos appeal of a narrative is directed towards the audience’s understanding of the journalist’s causal explanation. This means that there must be consistency between the story of the human character(s) and other excerpts from reality and the analytical journalist’s causal model. Otherwise, the human examples may overshadow the causal explanation and impede the intended transfer of causal knowledge to the audience. The point is that analytical journalists strengthen the convincing power of their causal explanation when their product combines logical arguments and narratives. Logical argumentation appeals primarily to logos and operates on the level of abstract

The strategy for convincing issue frames

173

logical reasoning. This is outlined below under ‘explorative storytelling model’, along with an explicit account of the causal explanation. Narrative storytelling, on the other hand, appeals primarily to pathos and operates on a concrete, exemplifying dimension, outlined below under the ‘narrative whole model’, in which characters and events are integrated in a way that implicitly supports the causal explanation. These combined appeals to logos and pathos are outlined in the ‘analytical storyline model’ below.

7.3 Promotion of trust Journalists have often defended their representations of reality as the best achievable version of the truth about the events of the day. Mainstream journalism derived its authority primarily from its self-justifying logic of public service and ethics, its self-proclaimed autonomy, a monopoly on the management of information and resources and an ideology of objectivity. However, this kind of legitimation has been challenged for at least the last three decades (Bogaerts and Carpentier 2012). Now, therefore, journalism must legitimise its narratives and claims about reality in other ways. It is not enough to quote sources, report fgures and other facts, etc. A determining factor is whether the reader believes the journalist, irrespective of the impressiveness of the titles of the experts interviewed, or the fact that the statistics quoted are state certifed. Journalists’ credibility and their ability to establish a trusting relationship with the audience are crucial to the outcome of their journalism (Lolk and Horst 2001). The Cambridge Dictionary’s defnitions of trust include ‘to believe that someone is good and honest and will not harm you’ and ‘to hope and expect that something is true’ (https://dictionary .cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trust). In other words, trust includes positive expectations but also an awareness of vulnerability and the possibility of being disappointed (Searle 2013). Trust and credibility can be linked back to Aristotle because ethos is about a communicator gaining trust, and the ethos appeal is the persuasive, confdencebuilding efect of the identity created by the communicator (Clifton and Mieroop 2010). Like other communicators, journalists must establish their ethos in order for their communication (in the form of journalistic products) to be taken seriously. The recipient’s trust in a communication is considered directly dependent on the level of ethos they attribute to the communicator.  A review of studies shows that of all the dimensions of classical rhetorical theory, the one with the strongest support from modern empirical research is the importance of ethos in rhetorical communication. Almost without exception, experimental studies consistently demonstrate the power of ethos (McCroskey 2006). Studies have shown that a communicator with a great deal of credibility tends to generate more persuasion in their argument than one with little credibility (Pornpitakpan 2004).

174 The strategy for convincing issue frames

7.3.1 Ethos appeal The outline of a communicator’s appeal to trust is based on Aristotle’s theory of ethos (ca. 350 BCE/2007). Aristotle believed that if, in their discourse, a speaker was able to project to their audience an identity, an ethos, possessed of certain qualities, this would positively afect the persuasive efect of the discourse. Consequently, ethos here is defned as the persuasive function of the author’s identity in a rhetorical situation, which includes not only journalistic products but also contextual factors such as the status, abilities, intentions and backgrounds of journalists and audiences, as well as other forms of discourse. Ethos is not something possessed by journalists – rather, it exists in the consciousness of the audience (McCroskey 2006). This does not mean that a journalist cannot actively and consciously work to project an appropriate ethos. Ethos is seen as a dynamic attribution, which is constantly at stake. Audiences attribute an ‘initial ethos’ to journalists before consuming a product and ultimately attribute a ‘terminal ethos’ to them. However, the focus here is on the ‘derived ethos’, which emerges from the audience’s interaction with the product. It refers to what analytical journalists can do, all other things being equal, via the journalistic product to strengthen their ethos.

7.3.2 Ethos model The ethos model is a tool developed to increase an audience’s trust in the analytical journalist. It concerns what can be done to encourage the audience to attribute a higher ethos to the journalists on the path from initial ethos to terminal ethos. The ethos model consists of three dimensions, inspired by a model for the texts that companies write about themselves (Isaksson and Jørgensen 2010). In this chapter, the ethos model is tailored to fve dimensions of the journalism profession and presents appeals related to the discipline of analytical journalism. The three dimensions of ethos are called ‘expertise’, ‘character’ and ‘empathy’. Over the decades, many researchers have attempted to reformulate and redefne the elements of these crucial dimensions of ethos. Since the early 1950s, extensive empirical-quantitative research has been conducted on credibility and persuasion, focusing on the persuasive characteristics of a communicator. A comprehensive review concludes that almost all studies indicate that a communicator with high credibility is more efective in terms of both infuencing attitudes and changing behaviour (Pornpitakpan 2004). Several meta-studies show that, after 70 years of empirical-statistical research, we have learned more about how the elements of ethos afect beliefs, yet we are basically back to the overall dimensions singled out by Aristotle – the same ones identifed by the Hovland group in their empirical research (Hovland, Janis and Kelley 1953). Despite the challenges in determining causal relationships between a rhetorical strategy and its efects, the following, partially generalisable points from the credibility research remain: there is general agreement that credibility is a complex and multifaceted concept. There is also widespread consensus that it is meaningful to say that two of the dimensions are ‘expertise’ and ‘character’, although several scholars point to a

The strategy for convincing issue frames

175

third dimension, namely ‘empathy’. These dimensions are closely interwoven and interdependent (Kinneavy and Warshauer 1994).

7.3.2.1 Expertise The dimension of ‘expertise’ relates to the analytical journalist appearing to have practical wisdom (e.g., knowledge and understanding of a case or topic), sound judgement and good communication skills. More accurately, expertise indicates that this dimension is about knowledge and its practical translation. According to Gaines (2001), this combines elements of wisdom (the search for the true and right), knowledge (the accepted knowledge in a particular area), virtue (good morality) and decorum (appropriate behaviour). Expertise thus positions journalists as insightful and professional. Five recommendations regarding expertise are important for earning the audience’s trust. ●

●

●

●

●

Clarify the product’s importance and relevance for the audience (dealt with in the motivation in Phase 1). Clarify that the causal explanation has been verifed by critical research (dealt with in the empirical test of the hypothetical causal model in Phase 4). Provide arguments for causal claims (dealt with in the empirical test of the hypothetical causal model in Phase 4), and include and counter any arguments against the causal explanation (dealt with in the ‘refexive evaluation’ in Phase 4). Appear knowledgeable, refective and self-critical, and make thoughtful, relevant assessments (dealt with in the science-based hypothetical causal model in Phase 3 and its empirical test and ‘refexive evaluation’ in Phase 4). Use appropriate language and make explicit the causal explanation  (dealt with in the ‘explorative storytelling technique’ in Phase 5).

7.3.2.2 Character The second dimension, ‘character’, primarily covers appearing sincere and reliable and can be signalled by traits that are considered appropriate in context. Under ‘character’ – and also under the dimension ‘empathy’ – are elements of ‘co-orientation’ (common perceptions, judgements and attitudes) and ‘homophily’ (shared cultural values). Character thus signals that the analytical journalist is a decent human being (in the given context), which is precisely the meaning of the ‘character’ dimension in the ethos model. In relation to the analytical journalist’s character, the following two recommendations are important for the audience’s trust: ●

Appearing to have integrity and courage, be honest (dealt with under ‘explorative storytelling’ in Phase 5) and committed, and have an appropriate level of presence in the text (dealt with under ‘modality tables’ in Phase 5).

176 The strategy for convincing issue frames ●

Making the text interesting, clear, error-free, logically coherent and consistent (dealt with under ‘explorative storytelling’ in Phase 5) and being open about areas of uncertainty (dealt with under the indication of variables with data and ‘refexive evaluation’ in Phase 4).

7.3.2.3 Empathy The third dimension, ‘empathy’, is about the analytical journalists signalling that they have the audience’s interests at heart. McCroskey (2006) uses the term ‘perceived caring’ and ‘empathy’ in connection with this ethos dimension. The Cambridge Dictionary defnition of empathy reads: ‘the ability to share someone else’s feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person’s situation’ (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/empathy). Kinneavy and Warshauer (1994) emphasise that this dimension should refect a virtue shared in culture. Analytical journalists must refect some of the audience’s basic aspirations. Members of the audience are convinced by sentiments resembling their own; they identify with someone who acts in their interests and has similar values. As such, the dictionary defnition lacks the dimension ‘perceived caring’ or ‘good will’, both of which imply a form of self-representation that includes not only understanding the audience and being able to put yourself in their place but also caring about their well-being. Via their self-presentation, and in interaction with the audience and the context, the analytical journalists aim to have certain properties attributed to them. In short, empathy is the presentation of the analytical journalists as audience oriented (in the given context), which is the meaning of ‘empathy’ in the ethos model. The following three recommendations regarding the analytical journalists’ empathy are important for the audience’s trust. ●

●

●

Taking into account the readers’ knowledge (dealt with in the issue frame table in Phase 2), involvement, abilities and situation (dealt with under ‘narrative whole’ and identifcation in Phase 5). Taking into account the readers’ basic values and signalling your own position in relation to these values (dealt with as moral judgements within an issue frame, drawing upon shared cultural values in Phase 2). Appearing to be concerned with serving the public and with the best interests of the reader as a private individual and citizen (dealt with in the creation of an issue frame with new causes for the phenomenon in Phase 3 and the explorative storytelling in Phase 5).

Analytical journalists, then, must construct themselves as wise journalists with high morals and empathy towards the audience. The ethos model combines these three general features of ethos with fve dimensions relevant to the profession of journalism:

The strategy for convincing issue frames ●

●

●

●

●

177

Autonomy: Audience trust depends on the journalist not appearing to speak on behalf of others and not having hidden agendas attributed to them but being seen to possess a high degree of professional integrity. This dimension of the journalist’s ethos relates to the autonomy of the profession. Signifcance: Audience trust requires that they fnd journalism relevant, and that it empowers individuals to participate in discussions and navigate a complex reality. This dimension has to do with the fact that journalism is a profession that involves interaction with the general public. Justifed true belief: Audience trust has to do with the fact that they believe in journalism because the journalist has adequately investigated and verifed their claims. This dimension relates to the journalistic profession’s methods and knowledge base. Uncertainty: Audience trust is about not oversimplifying reality and not making it more unambiguous than is warranted. This dimension relates to journalism as a profession that conveys complex issues to a non-specialist audience. Interesting: Audience trust depends on the ability to compete with the many other information and entertainment oferings for their attention. This dimension relates to journalism as a market-based profession.

Overall, the analytical journalistic ethos model looks like Table 7.2. The identity that analytical journalists signal to the audience in their products is based on all fve phases of analytical journalism, as illustrated in the ten recommendations above and the ethos table (Table 7.2) below. For the reasons set out above, the model is a collection of guidelines that may be refected on more specifcally in the context of disseminating the products of analytical journalism. The analytical journalist conveys empathy via the moral judgement of an issue frame that draws upon shared cultural values. Empathy should be secondary to expertise in order to make the story focused on the causal knowledge created by the journalist rather than opinionated, culturally based judgements. While expertise needs explication, empathy can be implied in the story.

7.4 Promotion of comprehension Comprehension is the ability to understand reality via the causal relationships in the journalist’s case. This understanding is facilitated at an abstract level by ‘explorative storytelling’, which appeals to logos and rational reasoning.

7.4.1 Explorative storytelling model Explorative storytelling facilitates audience comprehension, which is essential to the overall goal of analytical journalism, i.e. qualifying the public’s knowledge

178 The strategy for convincing issue frames TABLE 7.2 The analytical journalists’ ethos model

Dimensions

Expertise (insightful and professional)

Character (decent human being)

Empathy (audience oriented)

Autonomy

Journalist appears to have great explanatory autonomy: Using ‘modality tables’ and providing an overview by including absent theories to explain the observed phenomenon. Using ‘explorative storytelling’ based on the ‘creative abductive inference table’ in Phase 3 and the ‘pattern matching models’ in Phase 4.

Journalist appears to Journalist appears to pay attention to have integrity and the readers’ prior opposes interests knowledge and other than those of values: the public: Using an ‘analytical Using ‘explorative storyline’ based on storytelling’ based the ‘issue frame on the ‘issue table’ created frame table’ in in Phase 2 and Phase 2 and the fnalised in Phase 4. ‘creative abductive inference table’ in Phase 3.

Journalist appears to be concerned with the audience’s best interests: Using an ‘analytical storyline’ based on the ‘issue frame table’ created in Phase 2 and fnalised in Phase 4

Signifcance The phenomenon and its causes appear important and relevant: Using an ‘analytical storyline’ based on ‘motivation’ in Phase 1.

Journalist appears to be committed to making the story worth the users’ time: Using ‘analytical storyline’. Using ‘modality tables’ based on Phases 1–4.

Justifed true belief

The story appears to Journalist appears be identifable to to be honest and the audience: have inferential Using ‘narrative transparency: whole’ based Using ‘explorative on ‘refexive storytelling’ evaluation’ in based on the Phase 4. ‘creative abductive inference table’ in Phase 3 and the ‘pattern matching models’ in Phase 4. (Continued )

Journalist appears to be knowledgeable by explicating causal claims and their justifcation. Being critical, fair and deliberative: Using an ‘analytical storyline’ based on Phases 2–4.

The strategy for convincing issue frames

179

TABLE 7.2 Continued

Dimensions

Expertise (insightful and professional)

Character (decent human being)

Journalist appears Uncertainty Journalist appears to be open to to be self-critical mistakes and and provides contradictions: well-thought-out Using ‘explorative assessments, which storytelling’ based include addressing on the ‘refexive counterarguments: evaluation’ in Using ‘explorative Phase 4. storytelling’ with critical sources based on the ‘refexive evaluation’ in Phase 4. Interesting

Journalist appears to be a skilled communicator with a clear message and formally fawless storytelling techniques: Using an ‘analytical storyline’ based on Phase 5.

Journalist appears to be present: Using ‘modality tables’ based on Phase 5.

Empathy (audience oriented)

The journalist appears to acknowledge the audience’s possible counterarguments: Using ‘explorative storytelling’ with critical sources based on the ‘refexive evaluation’ in Phase 4.

The story appears to be interesting and enjoyable: Using an ‘analytical storyline’ based on Phases 1–5.

base regarding current issues. Analytical journalists seek to make the issue frame stand out in media coverage by providing a very distinct causal explanation because they know that other issue frames are dominant (see Chapter 4 for the map of issue frames). Explorative storytelling is logical reasoning, albeit with a specifc point. Explorative storytelling is a ‘tell, don’t show’ technique that allows the audience to reason via the journalist’s analysis. By withholding the journalist’s inference, it invites the audience to infer for themselves. However, the causal explanation is explicit – it is not left to the audience to fgure out the explanation on their own. It uses categories of causes and efects that are logically linked (e.g., through the use of ‘because’ and ‘therefore’). Explanatory storytelling seeks to minimise the scope for audience interpretation in order to facilitate the ‘transfer of knowledge’ about the causal explanation of the phenomenon of journalistic interest. Explorative storytelling gives the order of reasoning elements, such as expert testimonies, the journalist’s inference, data and commenting sources. Expert testimonies are abstracts from scientifc studies, similar to scientifc experts

180

The strategy for convincing issue frames

testifying in a court of law. Testimonies of this kind are ofered during a trial, not to provide any frst-hand knowledge of the events leading up to the lawsuit but to provide an objective background for understanding the events (Aucoin 2014). An expert testimony can be supplemented with the author(s) of the study, their qualifcations, the study’s methodology and data, place of publication and justifcation. In the analytical journalism product, scientifc studies lead to the explanation rather than supporting the explanation afterwards. Explorative storytelling starts with the phenomenon of journalistic interest, raises a question regarding its causes and then provides a summarised causal explanation from scientifc studies published prior to the phenomenon (an expert testimony). Only at this point does the analytical journalist infer that the causal explanation is valid for their case. The storytelling continues with data from the journalist’s case that proves the explanation or with any critical comments from evaluating sources, which are then contradicted by the data. Finally, it includes comments from sources accepting the journalist’s explanation. The purpose of holding back the analytical journalist’s inference is to enable the audience to connect the observed phenomenon with a scientifc explanation that, at frst glance, does not necessarily, or in itself, have anything to do with the observation. This reasoning is intended to create aha-experiences, which make an impression on the audience and facilitate their ability to recall these new insights (Danek et al. 2013). This storytelling technique refects the order of phases in the journalist’s research, thereby bringing an honest inferential transparency to analytical journalism. (Figure 7.1) The American journalist Sebastian Junger (2011) illustrates the frst parts of the explorative storytelling model. He is embedded in a platoon of American soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan, talking about what war does to people and

Story elements

Story Intended reaction from the audience FIGURE 7.1

The observed phenomenon (the outcome variable) and the why question

Expert testimony with summary of scientific causal explanation

1

2

Journalist’s inference combines phenomenon and causal explanation (the hypothesis)

3

Data as evidence of causal explanation

4

Commenting sources evaluate the causal explanation

5

Curious:

Interested:

Epiphany:

Confirmed:

Satisfied:

Give me the answer

New to me

Okay, that’s why

Looks right

Yes, I was right

Explorative storytelling model.

The strategy for convincing issue frames

181

TABLE 7.3 The frst parts of explorative storytelling, as described by Junger

Order

Narrative structure

1. Observation by Junger

Giunta […] used those ffteen seconds to assign rates and sectors of fre to his team, run to Gallardo’s assistance, assess the direction of a round that hit him in the chest, and throw three hand grenades while assaulting an enemy position […] the Army has tried very hard to understand why some men respond efectively in combat and others just freeze.

2. Expert testimony

A psychiatrist named Herbert Spiegel, who accompanied American troops on the Tunisia campaign, called it the ‘X-factor’: ‘Whether this factor was conscious or unconscious is debatable’, he wrote for a military journal in 1944, ‘but this is not so important. The important thing was that it is infuenced greatly by devotion to their group or unit, by regard for their leader and by conviction for their cause’. […] The U.S. military found that, to a great degree, fearfulness was something they couldn’t do much about […] One of the most puzzling things about fear is that it is only loosely related to the level of danger.

3. Inference by Junger

The reassurance that you will never be abandoned seems to help men act in ways that serve the whole unit rather than just themselves.

what it means to be brave and to sacrifce yourself for people you barely know. In narrative terms, it looks like this: Junger begins with an observation and the question ‘why’, then presents the theory of the ‘X factor’, which originates from somewhere other than Afghanistan, before returning to his case (Table 7.3). Junger’s description of the soldier Giunta’s behaviour, followed by the reference to a 70-year-old study of soldiers’ behaviour in combat, makes the reader understand and connect with his observation. The structure of explorative storytelling, therefore, strengthens the convincing power of Junger’s causal inference.

7.4.2 Modality Responsibility for the truth of journalistic statements is often attributed to sources (see Chapter 6 for this principle of justifcation). Hiding behind sources is a strategic ritual that journalists use to protect themselves against criticism (Tuchman 1978). Through the use of language and sources, journalists can regulate the extent to which they are responsible for the truth of their journalism. This is called epistemic modality. It is about the journalists’ degree of commitment to the truth of their representations of reality, as well as a related embedding of their self-identity in the journalistic products (Fairclough 2008/2003: 165–166). This modality is clearly related to the journalist’s expertise and authority. Reported speech attributes statements to others, which is a way of lowering your own commitment to what is said. Journalists demonstrate low commitment when they state that one side in a confict ‘says there was a massacre’ and high

182 The strategy for convincing issue frames

commitment when they directly state that ‘this was a massacre’ (Philo 2007: 179). It is common for journalists to make use of quotes from experts. Albæk (2011) argues that expert sources are used to interpret and analyse events in ways that journalists cannot do themselves without compromising their role as objective reporters. In this way, the journalists lessen their own authority and instead borrow the authority of experts as purveyors of neutral, factual knowledge. When asked, ‘How do you know that’s true?’ the journalist replies, ‘The source says so’. Journalists also regulate their commitment to truth in their portrayal of reality through their choice of words. A low commitment to the truth is signalled by verbs such as ‘seem’ and ‘appear’, whereas high commitment is conveyed by the more defnitive ‘is’. Analytical journalists are qualifed to convey expertise and authority based on the research they conducted in the previous phases. This implies a fairly high commitment to their products. The causal explanation inferred by the analytical journalist provides a basis for a high degree of explanatory autonomy in the product. Analytical journalists are responsible and appear to be responsible for the causal explanations in their features, podcasts or news articles. They appear to use sources in a way that does not make them responsible for the truth of the explanation. When asked, ‘How do you know that’s true?’, the journalist replies, ‘My validation and evidence say so’. Analytical journalists do not hide behind sources but use their expertise as an identity. The language of analytical journalists refects both justifed true belief and the diferent degrees of certainty in the causal explanation. When the causal explanation is confrmed by the test and accepted by the sources (in the justifcation, Phase 4), the language should express a fairly high level of commitment to the truth of the reality portrayed while maintaining some uncertainty regarding the causal relationships (see Chapters 2 and 6 for the concept of uncertainty). This is accounted for in two modality tables. The frst accounts for the level of commitment in the language of the journalistic product that expresses the analytical journalist’s inferred causal explanation. Each statement of inference in the causal model is assigned a low, medium or high commitment, along with an assessment of the journalist’s choice of commitment level with regard to the established evidence. (Table 7.4) The second modality table accounts for the impact of sources on the journalist statements of inference in the journalistic product. The source’s impact is either TABLE 7.4 The modality of language

Inference

Example from product

Commitment level

Evidence assessment

Inference 1

[Text…]

[e.g.] High

[text based on meta report]

Inference 2

[Text…]

[e.g.] High

[text based on meta report]

…

The strategy for convincing issue frames

183

TABLE 7.5 Infuence of sources on modality

Inference

Example from product

Sources’ impact on journalist’s responsibility for the causal explanation

Inference 1

[Text…]

[e.g.] Neutral

Inference 2

[Text…]

…

described as ‘neutral’ or ‘reducing’ in relation to the journalist’s responsibility for the explanation in the product. The aim is neutral sources. (Table 7.5)

7.5 Promotion of engagement This section outlines how storytelling in analytical journalism aims to engage the audience in the story. Emotional engagement and identifcation, through the use of pathos in the story’s narrative dimension, helps in making the story compelling for the audience.

7.5.1 Narrative whole In compositional terms, a narrative consists of a beginning, a middle and an end. The beginning introduces the story, its context and characters, and the narrator makes the story interesting for their audience, in particular by planting a question or dilemma that concerns the main character. In the middle of the story, those questions or dilemmas become more complicated, and we follow the characters as they try to resolve the often tense, abnormal situation in which they fnd themselves (Rich 2010: 215). At the end, the pieces fall into place, the audience gets an answer or solution to the central question, and the characters have ‘settled into a new normal’ after fnding solutions, closure, etc. Overall, the structure makes the audience identify to varying degrees with a main character and become emotionally involved (Hamby et al. 2018: 116). (see Figure 7.2) In analytical journalism, points of attention are relevant to the narrative whole: First, an insistence on the narrative dimension, in the form of a concrete, illustrative layer of the analytical story, which is inextricably linked to the pathos appeal in the story. The narrative dimension has the potential to afect us emotionally (Hamby et al. 2018: 115–116), while a strong concrete and illustrative layer establishes a narrative wholeness in the journalistic product. Second, an awareness of which narrative technique to use in the opening to make the story interesting and pique the audience’s curiosity – in other words, how the ‘why’ of the story is presented. The purpose of this is to awaken the narrative desire in the audience and make them curious about the phenomenon that the analytical journalist seeks to explain (Brooks 1992).

184

The strategy for convincing issue frames

Story elements

• Character(s) in a situation

Story

• Details of character(s) • Episode with character(s)

Opening

FIGURE 7.2

• Episode with character(s)

• Episode with character(s)

Middle

Closing

The ‘narrative whole’ dimension of storytelling.

7.6 Analytical storyline model of analytical journalism The products of analytical journalism are at their most convincing when they include all types of evidence from the research phases – in other words, they must include appeals to both the audience’s reason and emotion. The primary function of the story plot is to relate to and fnd answers to the ‘why’ of the story. The plot expresses the journalist’s inferred causal explanation but is found in the ‘narrative as a whole’, as the ‘why’ is answered along the way. Emplotment is about creating an analytical storyline that raises questions and provides answers about the what, how, who and (especially) why of the story. ●

●

●

‘What’ is the clarifcation of the phenomenon being explained and its relevance (contextualisation, signifcance, dominant frames). ‘How’ is the depiction of how (and with whom) the phenomenon plays out in reality (the narrative dimension). ‘Why’ is the explanation of the phenomenon (the logical reasoning dimension).

Figure 7.3 presents an analytical storyline with appeals to logos and pathos.

• Phenomenon • Dominant issue frames • Announce new explanation

Logos appeal

Story

Opening

• Explorative storytelling • Narratives in the variable chains in the causal model

Promise

Pathos appeal

• Character(s) in a situation

FIGURE 7.3

The analytical storyline model.

• Summary of causal explanation

End

Middle

• Details of character(s) • Episode with character(s)

• Episode with character(s)

• Episode with character(s)

The strategy for convincing issue frames

185

Two diferent techniques can be employed to stir the audience’s curiosity: deliberative and dramatic. An opening with the deliberative technique uses a logos appeal. In other words, this is a composition in which the journalist presents the observed phenomenon, which is the fnal outcome (Y) in the causal model (from Phase 4), followed by a short presentation of the dominant issue frames, along with the causal explanations the audience is supposed to know (from Phase 2). This is followed by a promise that these are not the only ways to explain the phenomenon, as there are other important causes that must be taken into consideration. Another logos appeal is to make the causal why question explicit. The intention here is to arouse the audience’s curiosity about the story’s causal explanation. The audience will engage with the story simply because they want to learn more about both the question and the answer. An opening with the dramatic technique uses a pathos appeal. This introduces a character with whom the audience can identify and become emotionally involved, which makes them  want to fnd out how their story unfolds. This curiosity and engagement drive the audience from start to fnish and towards a greater understanding of both the narrative reality of the story and the explanation of that reality. The point is that analytical journalists strengthen the convincing power of their explanation when they combine the logos and pathos dimensions so that the convincing power from the explorative storytelling is enhanced by explicit expert testimonies and evidence and by the character’s story as a whole. However, if there are too many pathos elements, they can weaken the causal explanation and therefore undermine the argumentative power of the validation logic and empirical evidence. On the other hand, too many logos elements can weaken the narrative as a whole and detract from its convincing power. The point is that the weighting between these elements depends on the audience and what will convince them. Efective use of the evidence signals professional journalistic competencies – such as autonomy, judgement, commitment to truth and being interesting – which enhances the audience’s trust in the journalist.

7.7 Practical guidelines for the rhetorical strategy The following guidelines for the rhetorical strategy are based on the sections above conveying in analytical journalism. These guidelines were drawn up to teach students about analytical journalism and are, therefore, arranged to ft a meta-report (see Chapter 8 for details of the meta-report).

7.7.1 Explorative storytelling model The explorative narrative technique consists of four elements from the earlier phases of analytical journalism, which encourage the audience’s acceptance of explanations through the use of tools such as surprise and guided reasoning. Developing the explorative storytelling consists of fve steps (Table 7.6):

186

The strategy for convincing issue frames

TABLE 7.6 Guidelines for the rhetorical strategy

7.7.1) Explorative storytelling

A) B) C) D) E)

Journalist’s observation and the why question Expert testimony Journalist’s inference Data of evidence Commenting sources

7.7.2) Modality tables

A) Modality of language B) Infuence of sources on modality

7.7.3) Analytical storyline

A) Construct ‘explorative storytelling’ sections B) Construct a ‘narrative whole’ C) Construct an analytical journalistic identity

7.7.4) Ethos model

A) Consume the product as an audience B) Identify crucial ethos elements C) Fill out the ethos model

A) Journalist’s observation and the why question A description of the phenomenon initially observed by the journalist (Phase 1), including evidence in the form of data from Phase 4 ( justifcation), followed by an explicit or implied question regarding its causes.

B) Expert testimony Summarise the scientifc causal explanation on which the hypothesis was based in Phase 3. The summary should be of sufcient length to give the audience an overall impression of the study.

C) Journalist’s inference The journalist makes explicit their inference from Phase 3 and connects the observed phenomenon with the explanation in the expert testimony.

D) Data of evidence The analytical journalist adds data that proves the existence of the causal variables from Phase 4.

E) Commenting sources Quotes from interviews with sources (relevant experts and people living in the causal relationships), which assess the analytical journalist’s explanation from Phase 4. This may include potential counterarguments, which also can be placed after the step with the journalist’s inference to be refuted with the step of adding evidence in the form of data.

The strategy for convincing issue frames

187

All fve elements of the explorative storytelling technique are illustrated by the story of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos (see Chapter 1). Below, four elements of this technique are exemplifed by a case of increasing sales of vinyl records and CDs in the digital age, as explored by students of analytical journalism. After presenting empirical data on vinyl and CD sales, the students step away from the music industry to introduce and apply a more general theory of consumer behaviour in the digital age. In other words, they lift their gaze and look away from the specifc record store and the individual music consumer in order to complement the dominant explanation (‘the materiality of CDs and vinyl’) and thus ofer a nuanced explanation for why people still seek out analogue formats. (Table 7.7) TABLE 7.7 Example of explorative storytelling of increasing sales of vinyl records and

CDs in the digital age (Carta and Shamonova 2020) Order

Narrative structure

1. Student observation

Audio streaming services have dominated the global music market over the past decade, accounting for more than 50% of revenues, at the expense of analogue formats and digital downloads. Despite an almost infnite catalogue of music on demand, and an expected decline in sales of analogue formats, LP revenues have been growing since 2010, increasing by 52% in 2014 alone and reaching fgures last seen in 1993. [Implied: ‘Why do people still buy vinyl and CDs?’]

2. Expert testimony

According to the self-determination theory, people need to be in a position to exercise their own autonomy in order to feel satisfed. Conversely, dissatisfaction may occur if a person feels restricted in making a choice. As Quentin André and others explain in the study ‘Consumer Choice and Autonomy in the Age of Artifcial Intelligence and Big Data’, this efect is related to the idea that people tend to believe that the right way to exercise free will is by correlating our thoughts and aspirations with the undertaken actions. However, this process can be easily interrupted by predictive analytics. The study points out later on that the consumers’ awareness of their choices being predictable can lead them to choose some less-favourable options. By doing so, they aim to regain their autonomy.

3. Student inference

In the context of music consumption, analogue formats have gradually become this less-preferred option: not only does a single CD cost more than a subscription to a streaming service with a vast music library, but it also appears to be less convenient in practical terms. Nonetheless, people still buy analogue formats. Part of the reason for this may be found in the attempt to avoid data-driven recommendations that tend to curb autonomy in the music-discovery process.

(Continued )

188

The strategy for convincing issue frames

TABLE 7.7 Continued

4. Commenting expert with a counterargument

However, Dr Prey thinks that this trend isn’t new, and warns against interpreting it in black-and-white terms: ‘I think it’s incorrect and too simplistic to assume that there is either “control” or “freedom of choice”. All of our “free choices” are made within a social context and as part of processes of individuation. Before streaming, people’s music choices were shaped by radio, television, etc.’ Still, he admits that the comeback of analogue formats might be dependent on the wish to regain at least the feeling of having freedom of choice: ‘I think that there are many reasons why (some) people are turning back to analogue formats. A lot of it has to do with the materiality of CDs and vinyl – a point often made by collectors of vinyl. But, yes, I think there may be more to it and the desire to break out of what Mark Andrejevic calls the “digital enclosure” is likely to be one reason – although it may not be consciously understood or articulated in this way’.

TABLE 7.8 Commitment in language in the case of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos

(Macaraig 2020) Inference

Commitment Example from product level

Evidence assessment

(1X) Practise lived religion

Medium

It is possible to conceive of Converting to variable data from the Nazarene devotion reliable source supports the as lived religion (l. 92) inference.

(2X) Embodied faith

Medium

These may then be viewed as devotees’ embodied faith (l. 98)

Converting to variable data from credible source supports the inference.

(5Z) Identify with the crowd

High

They identify with each other (l. 137)

Having two reliable sources convert data to variables strongly supports the inference.

(1X) Lived religion → (2X) Embodied faith → (3X) High crowd density

High

Linking variables inferred from data To practise this faith, from trustworthy sources, as well devotees perform as the many similarities between physical rituals […] the case of Guatemala’s Black leading them to form Christ and the Filipino case, large crowds during the strongly supports the inference. feast. As with Mayans and lived religion, local culture matters (l. 96–100)

(3X) High crowd density → (Y) Insist on physical participation

High

Linking variables inferred from data Like Hajj pilgrims, from reputable sources, as well Nazarene devotees as the many similarities between expect fellow followers’ the Hajj case in Saudi Arabia help in times of and the Filipino case, strongly danger and feel safe supports the inference. (l. 134–144)

The strategy for convincing issue frames

189

7.7.2 Modality tables Modality tables focus on the deliberate use of language and sources to ensure that the analytical journalist appears in the journalistic product with the degree of expertise and authority that refects their belief in the truth of the causal explanation – no more, no less. The two models of modality are exemplifed by the case of the 3.3 million Filipinos who attended one of the world’s largest religious gatherings in 2020 (for more details on this case, see Chapters 1, 5 and 6).

A) Modality of language The formulations of the journalist’s causal inferences should refect the evidence and validation of the earlier phases. The modality of language table is exemplifed by the case of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos. The inferences mentioned in table 7.8 above can be seen in the causal model in Figure 6.6 in Chapter 6.

B) Infuence of sources on modality Quotes from interviews with sources should refect the earlier stages of analytical journalism, which grant journalists a high degree of explanatory autonomy. The student emerges as a knowledgeable person with expertise and authority, due to their fairly high level of commitment to the truth of the causal explanations in the published story. (Table 7.9) TABLE 7.9 Infuence of sources on the journalist’s responsibility for the causal explana-

tion in the case of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos (Macaraig 2020) Inference

Example from product

Sources’ impact on journalist’s responsibility for the causal explanation

1X → 2X → 3X

Neutral: backs up inference Asked about relating lived religion to Nazarene on lived religion. devotees’ insistence on physically participating in the feast, Mark Calano, Ateneo de Manila University philosophy associate professor, confrms the connection (l. 105–110).

2X

As for devotees’ faith being embodied and infuenced by local culture, University of the Philippines anthropology professor Nestor Castro supports the view (l. 111–115).

Neutral: backs up inference on embodied faith.

5Z

Historian Xiao Chua of Manila’s De La Salle University backs social identifcation as an explanation (l.145–149).

Neutral: backs up inference on crowd identifcation.

3X→Y

Jose Maximiano, award-winning author of books on the Catholic church, also afrms the theory’s applicability (l. 150–153).

Neutral: backs up inference on social identifcation.

190 The strategy for convincing issue frames

7.7.3 Analytical storyline model Organise the evidence from the earlier stages by following the analytic storyline model in order to make the story more convincing and transfer the specifc causal knowledge to the audience. This requires an appropriate balance between the explanations in the causal model and the details about the people living under the causal conditions. Developing the analytical storyline consists of three steps:

A) Construct ‘explorative storytelling’ sections Use the analytical journalism procedures and empirical verifcation to create logical prerequisites that account for the causal model. All types of evidence from the justifying parts of Phases 1–4 must be activated to improve their convincing power.

B) Construct a ‘narrative whole’ Use the accounts from relevant ‘members’ of the causal setting who were interviewed as part of the refexive evaluation of the causal relationships in Phase 4 (see Chapter 6). Draw up a chronology of situations, episodes and thoughts, refecting how it feels to be personally impacted by the causal relationships, with a view to achieving verisimilitude. These episodes can be reconstructed as scenes or dialogue based on interviews, documents, video, etc. Use the appeal to the audience’s desire to follow the narrative development to make the story convincing.

C) Construct an analytical journalistic identity Combine the sections of causal logic with the narrative of one or more characters, and provide a compelling opening. Provide evidence of shared cultural values with the target audience and of the journalist’s eforts to improve the basis for discussing topical issues. Maximise the analytical journalist’s expertise, authority and decency, oriented towards the audience (Table 7.10 and Figure 7.4). TABLE 7.10 The ‘analytical storyline’ model is exemplifed by a story about the increas-

ing number of young Danish nationalists (Christensen and Mengers 2016) ‘This can be seen, for example, in the fact that youth parties on the national conservative right are currently experiencing a massive infux of new members. This national orientation contains some inherent paradoxes. The generation born in the early 1990s has grown up with globalisation and its opportunities in terms of international education and open borders. But something must have happened since then that the generation born as “Generation Europe” became instead “Generation Border Control”. The story investigates why some young Danes choose to aspire to nationalist values’.

FIGURE 7.4

Pathos appeal

Story

Logos appeal

The analytical storyline exemplifed by the explanation of an increase in young nationalist Danes

• Episode with character’s actions: The youth party held an extraordinary meeting to welcome the many new members, ending with the character and other participants singing a song about being born in Denmark.

End

• Summary of the causal explanation: Fear of the emergence of an ahistorical Danishness, which is a key issue for the right-wing nationalists: • Danishness is a culture and a sense of something that comes from thousands years of history that has shaped us as a people.

• Episode with character: Experiencing the attack of 9/11 on television.

Middle

• Narratives explain two variable chains in causal model in the paragraphs: In the age of terror and Peace and liberation threaten Danishness

• Details about the main character: He is the grandchild of a freedom fighter and has a strong love of country. • Character is politically active and has been elected national chairman of a youth party. He wants to oppose current trends.

Promise

• The main character stands in front of a statue symbolising freedom and which has a connection to his grandfather, who convinced him of the importance of fighting for his country.

Opening

• Phenomenon: Increase in young rightwing nationalists. Supported by data. • Dominant issue frames: Globalisation and need for community. Supported by expert sources. • Announce new explanation: Terrorist threat (external) and cultural liberation of norms in Denmark (internal)

The strategy for convincing issue frames 191

192 The strategy for convincing issue frames TABLE 7.11 Example of ethos elements in the story of young Danish nationalists (based

on Christensen and Mengers 2016) Dimensions

Explaining the associated meaning

Story elements

Expertise and autonomy

This and other expert testimonies demonstrate an overview of research in Danish and an ability to synthesise diverse empirical evidence.

Several sociologists, including Britain’s Anthony Giddens, explain nationalism today as a response to the culturally liberated individual’s need for identifcation in a globalised world. Nationalism thus becomes a welcome refuge that ofers a sense of identity (l.400–405).

Expertise and uncertainty

The closing scene adds an implicit nuance to the broad spectrum of young people.

The young members of the ‘Youth of the Danish People’s Party’ standing up and singing ‘In Denmark I was born, there I have my home. That’s where I’m rooted, that’s where my world goes’. Some loud and confdent with seriousness painted on their faces, others more hesitant and accompanied by smiles and grimaces (l. 525–532).

Character and autonomy

The section with nationalist Kashif Ahmad shows understanding of his personal experiences with the concept of Danishness.

Kashif Ahmad, who is tired of the narrow understanding of Danishness, which according to him has long been defned by the political right, and which he, as a descendant of Pakistani parents, has experienced frst-hand from the outside. To be greeted with ‘Yes, but where are you really from?’ when he says he is from a local Danish town (l. 489–497).

Empathy and justifed true belief

The opening scene with the right-wing But from that moment on, it is clear that he, like his grandfather, will character visiting his grandfather fght for his homeland (l. 11–21). creates tension in the story. The last sentence of the episode emphasises that something is at stake and acts as a clif-hanger, making the reader want to know more about the character and his development. This and later episodes, such as being at home in front of the television on 11 September 2001 (l. 183–194), give the audience a sense of presence.

The strategy for convincing issue frames

193

7.7.4 Ethos model Create a journalistic identity in the product that helps the audience accept and adopt the causal explanation. Specify in the ethos model which elements of the product increase the audience’s trust in the journalist.

A) Consume the product as an audience Read/view/listen to the journalistic product from the position of the audience. Consider what the details of the content (words, sentences, pictures) tell the audience about the analytical journalist. It is somewhat akin to a meta-view looking at the connotations added by the audience to the basic meaning of the content.

B) Identify crucial ethos elements Identify crucial details in the product and ensure they follow the ten recommendations regarding ethos, as mentioned above.

C) Account for elements of the ethos model Fill out the ethos model with the crucial details, including their appearance in the product and explain the relation to ethos appeals (Table 7.11). To sum up the content of this chapter, the intention behind the storytelling methods and the analytical journalists’ identity is to express the research conducted during the earlier phases and improve the audience’s understanding of the causality of current events.

References Albæk, Erik. 2011. “The Interaction Between Experts and Journalists in News Journalism.” Journalism 12(3), 335–348. Aristotle. 2007/approx. 350 B.C. On Rhetoric. Translated with introduction, notes, and appendices by George A. Kennedy. Aucoin, James 2014. “Sebastian Junger’s War, “Expert Testimony,” and Understanding the Story”, Journalism Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.965927 Bilandzic, Helena and Rick Busselle. 2013. “Narrative Persuasion.” In The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice, edited by James Price Dillard and Lijiang Shen, 200–219. London: SAGE Publication. Bogaerts, J. and Carpentier, N. 2012 “The Postmodern Challenge to Journalism: Strategies for Constructing a Trustworthy Identity.” In Rethinking Journalism, edited by Chris Peters and Marcel Broersma, 60–71. London: Routledge. Brooks, Peter. 1992. Reading for the Plot. Design and Intention in Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, Jerome. 1991. “The Narrative Construction of Reality.” Critical Inquiry 18, 1. Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs, Susan Schultz Huxman and Thomas R. Burkholder. 2015. The Rhetorical Act: Thinking, Speaking and Writing Critically. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

194 The strategy for convincing issue frames

Carlson, Matt. 2017. Journalistic Authority: Legitimating News in the Digital Era. New York: Columbia University Press. Carr, David. 2008. “Narrative Explanations and its Malcontents.” History and Theory 47–1, 19–30. Carta, Susanna and Daria Shamonova. 2020. “Why do people still buy physical records?” Students at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. Christensen, Amalie Møller and Martine Mengers. 2016. “The Red-white Youth and the Fight for the Marvellous Danishness.” Students at Analytical Journalism. Master of Arts in Journalism. Clifton, J. and Mieroop, D. V. D. 2010. “‘Doing’ Ethos: A Discursive Approach to the Strategic Deployment and Negotiation of Identities in Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics 42-9, 2449–2461. Czarniawska, Barbara. 2015. “Narratologi og feltstudier.” In Kvalitative metoder, edited by Svend Brinkmann and Lene Tanggaard, 273–297. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag. Danek, Amory H., Thomas Fraps, Albrecht von Müller, Benedikt Grothe, Michael Öllinger. 2013. “Aha! Experiences Leave a Mark: Facilitated Recall of Insight Solutions.” Psychological Research 77-5, 659–669. Fairclough, Norman. 2008/2003. Analysing Discourse. Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. Findahl, Olle and Birgitta Höijer. 1984. Begriplighetsanalys - En forskningsgenomgång och en tillämpning på nyhetsinslag i radio och tv. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Forde, Kathy Roberts. 2007. “Discovering the Explanatory Report in American Newspapers.” Journalism Practice 1–2, 227–244. Gaines, R. A. 2001. “Phronesis.” In Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, edited by T. O. Sloane, and T. Farrell, 601–603. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamby, Anne, David Brinberg and James Jaccard. 2018. “A Conceptual Framework of Narrative Persuasion”. Journal of Media Psychology 30–3, 113–124. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L. and Kelley, H. 1964/1953. Communication and Persuasion. Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Isaksson, M. and Jørgensen, P. E. F. 2010. “Communicating Corporate Ethos on the Web: The Self Presentation of PR Agencies.” Journal of Business Communication, 47–2, 119–140. Junger, Sebastian. 2011. War. London: Fourth Estate. Kinneavy, J. L. and S. C. Warshauer. 1994. “From Aristotle to Madison Avenue: Ethos and the Ethics of Argument.” In Ethos. New Essays in Rhetorical and Critical Theory, edited by J. S. Baumlin and T. F. Baumlin, 171–190. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. Kjeldsen, Jens Elmelund. 2018. Vor tids retorik: Indføring i moderne retorisk teori og metode. København: Praxis. Lolk, M. and Horst, M. 2001. “Den nødvendige overreaction: En fortælling om tilid og risiko i et medieperspektiv.” In Det handler om tillid, edited by A. Bordum and S. B. Wenneberg, 139–148. København: Samfundslitteratur. Macaraig, Ayee. 2020. “Bomb-defying Faith. Why Filipino Catholics Insist on Physical Devotion.” Student at Analytical Journalism. Erasmus Mundus: Journalism, Media and Globalisation. McCroskey, J. C. 2006/1968. An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication, A Western Rhetorical Perspective. London: Pearson Education Inc. Philo, Greg. 2007. “Can Discourse Analysis Successfully Explain the Content of Media and Journalistic Practice?” Journalism Studies, 8–2, 175–196.

The strategy for convincing issue frames

195

Pornpitakpan, C. 2004. “The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades’ Evidence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34–2, 243–281. Rich, Carole. 2010. Writing and Reporting News. A Coaching Method. Boston: Cengage Learning. Searle, Rosalind H. 2013. “HRM and Trust, or Trust and HRM? An Underdeveloped Context for Trust Research.” In Handbook of Advances in Trust Research, edited by Reinhard Bachmann and Akbar Zaheer, 9–26. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Slothuus, Rune and Claes de Vreese. 2010. “Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Efects.” Journal of Politics 72–3, 630–645. Tuchman, Gaye. 1978. Making News. A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York: The Free Press.

8 GUIDELINES, BEST PRACTICE CRITERIA AND LEARNING TOOLS

This fnal chapter describes some elements of teaching and learning about analytical journalism and is based on ten years of experience with classes of 50–100 Master’s students per year. Over the decade, the aim has not changed – to publish causal explanations that are new to the general public – but we have refned the methods to accomplish this objective. The previous chapters have presented what we believe to be a highly disciplined focus on a very broad and complicated issue. Learning analytical journalism is ultimately about acquiring the knowledge and skills to produce a quality product that informs people about causal relationships involved in issues of topical interest, knowledge that people can use to navigate their daily lives. This is science-based explanatory journalism in practice. It applies traditional journalistic methods and combines them with scientifc studies of various topics and with investigative criteria from the social sciences. It is a discipline that puts the journalist in a position to use their expertise and authority to provide the public with knowledge about the causes of current phenomena without having to depend on sources who may have their own agenda. The procedures used in this book are not arbitrary; they refect the strengths and weaknesses of hundreds of analytical journalism exam papers. This kind of knowledge and skills are likely to be new to most students, so they are presented as explicit and formalised guidelines that make the students less reliant on their tacit knowledge and on the intuition they have gained from other disciplines. The fve phases and their step-by-step methods guide the practice of producing high-quality explanatory journalism. The book makes up the syllabus for a course equivalent to 15 ETCS points (a quarter of a year’s work) at Master’s level in analytical journalism. Chapters 3–7 each cover a phase in analytical journalism and can be divided into two teaching sessions, one focusing on the theoretical part of a chapter and the student’s DOI: 10.4324/9781003300977-8

Guidelines, best practice criteria and learning tools 197

understanding of a strategy and another focusing on the practical part of learning the skills associated with the phase. The curriculum for the 15 ECTS points course is as follows: ● This book is about analytical journalism. ● Journalistic examples of exercises, story assignments and exams chosen by the students individually or in groups. ● Scientifc articles and books for story assignments and exams chosen by the students individually or in groups. If students lack basic skills in journalism, such as interviewing, excerpts from textbooks can be added.

8.1 Exam assignment The exam is a written assignment consisting of one (or more) journalistic article(s) and a meta-report. The product can also include image, video or audio products.

8.2 Meta-report and guidelines To facilitate learning about analytical journalism, a compulsory account describing the methods used and the fndings from the fve phases help students to follow the prescribed science-based explanation practice. The fndings are organised thematically, not chronologically, in a meta-report which consists of a deliberative part, an explanatory part, a rhetorical part and a source and reference list. The meta-report is the most important part of the exam because it demonstrates a practice that defnes in detail the journalistic product in accordance with the norms of analytical journalism. The meta-report allows students to show TABLE 8.1 The analytical journalism exam paper

The exam paper consists of the following: •

•

A journalistic product (articles, podcasts, video explainers, etc.), and is an independent piece of work produced by the student. It presents a new issue frame based on the causal inferences identifed by the student and does so in a way that is convincing, authoritative and exhibits a level of expertise. A meta-report showing how the tools used in analytical journalism shape the product. The student must account for all aspects of science-based explanatory journalism in practice. The meta-report is not intended for publication to a wide audience.

The exam paper is assessed on the extent to which the knowledge and tools acquired during the mentioned course are used to produce analytical journalism about a phenomenon chosen by the student.

198 Guidelines, best practice criteria and learning tools

that they know what they are doing when producing analytical journalism. The meta-report is an account that shows the student’s science-based practice and its results. It is not an essay that discusses the discipline of analytical journalism or an exposition of the theories that underlie analytical journalism.

8.2.1 Deliberative part of the meta-report ●

●

●

●

Write a short section (ten lines) about the starting point that includes the phenomenon chosen and some context indicating its relevance and importance, as well as the ‘why’ question that the assignment must answer (Phase 1, Chapter 3). Choose an audience for the journalistic product and the associated public knowledge base. Specify the methods used to collect and analyse media articles in order to construct the dominant issue frame(s), i.e., specify the search database(s), time period and keywords used to identify media coverage of the phenomenon and any technique used to reduce the number of examples to an appropriate level for analysis (Phase 2, Chapter 4). Demonstrate the deliberative value of the journalist’s own issue frame by showing the diference between it and the dominant frames in the table of issue frames and by describing the results of repeated searches using keywords from the journalist’s causal explanation (Phase 5, Chapter 6).

8.2.2 Explanatory part of the meta-report Specify the method used to fnd academic studies with causal explanations relevant to the observed phenomenon, i.e., specify the keywords search database(s). Specify the scientifc explanations using variables with acronyms (X, Y, Z) and their relationships. Justify the academic studies chosen. State the causal hypothesis for the case in question, clearly indicating the link to the scientifc explanation(s) used (Phase 3, Chapter 5). Show all variables in a level table with defned dimensions. Show the causal model as confrmed, indicating which parts stem from which studies. Specify the validation of the level connections and the narrative meaning of the model (Phase 3, Chapter 5). ●

Describe and illustrate the similarity model and/or the covariation model. Specify the data and method to indicate all of the variables in the case at hand (Phase 4, Chapter 6).

8.2.3 The rhetorical part of the meta-report ●

●

Specify how the product’s narrative structure and storytelling technique seek to convince the audience of the journalist’s causal explanation. Specify how the journalist exhibits expertise and authority in the product.

Guidelines, best practice criteria and learning tools 199 ●

●

Specify how the product will appeal to the audience and make the journalist appear trustworthy. Describe the qualifcations of used expert sources and the details of individuals living in the causal conditions, who are used to illustrate the journalist’s causal explanation.

8.2.4 Source and reference list Organise the material used in analytical journalism in fve lists: ● Dialogue sources are sources with whom the journalist has communicated. Include name, title, organisation/workplace, contact details and type of dialogue (email, chat, phone, Skype, face-to-face etc.). ● Important sources the journalist has tried in vain to contact. Provide name, title, organisation and a brief description of the process of attempting to make contact. ● Academic studies. Indicate title, author/publisher, year and date. For digital sources, also state the URL address in the form of a deep link. The main academic studies are listed in the explanatory part of the report. ● Sources not based on dialogue, e.g. reports, statistics, etc. ● The media examples listed in the issue frame table representing the dominant issue frames.

8.2.5 The table of content for the meta-report The table of content is mandatory. All elements must be included and in the right order. Students should highlight the links between the meta-report and the journalistic product by making extensive line references to the product throughout the meta-report (see Table 8.2).

8.3 Assessment template The quality of the analytical journalism is assessed by a detailed ten-point assessment template, which weights the diferent parts and refects the extensive research during the explanatory phases. We make this template available to students right from the start of a course, so that the desired learning outcomes are clear from the start (see Table 8.3).

8.4 Course exercises and assignments for students In addition to understanding the discipline of analytical journalism and its role in society, students should also be able to produce analytical journalism in practice. We have worked with three levels of exercises that can be used in both traditional

200

Guidelines, best practice criteria and learning tools

TABLE 8.2 The table of content for the meta-report

1. Deliberative part 1.1

Starting point • Observed phenomenon • Relevance and signifcance of the issue • ‘Why’ question 1.2 Audience and public knowledge base for the journalistic product 1.3 Dominant issue frames • Keyword(s), databases and period for collecting media items • Technique for identifying issues frames 1.4 Issue frame table 1.5 News value of the journalist’s own issue frame in the general public 2. Explanatory part 2.1 Generating causal hypothesis • Keyword(s) and academic databases • Abductive inference table • Justifcation of scientifc explanations and their relevance to the case at hand 2.2 Level table 2.3 Confrmed causal model with validation of level connections and narratives making sense 2.4 Justifcation of variables and relations • Covariation model and/or similarity model • All variables based on data from the case at hand • Refexive evaluation by dialogue sources 3. Rhetorical part 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Explorative storytelling • Expert testimony Analytical storyline Modality tables of language and sources Ethos model Presentation of the main dialogue sources in the product

4. Source and reference list 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Dialogue sources Sources the journalist attempted to contact Academic studies Types of sources other than dialogue Media items used to construct dominant issue frames

lecture-based classes and in fipped classes. These exercises are done by students individually or preferably in small groups of three or four. The time indicated for each type of exercise is the time needed for students’ group work but does not include any introduction to it nor evaluation and discussion in plenary afterwards. Students’ solutions to short- and medium-length exercises can be shared in online formats such as Padlet or Google Docs.

Guidelines, best practice criteria and learning tools 201 TABLE 8.3 The assessment template for analytical journalism

The deliberative part of the meta-report (10%)

0–5; note reasons for 0 to 4

1. The starting point section includes a relevant phenomenon, a short description of the context and the ‘why’ question. 2. The collection and analysis of media examples is systematic, transparent and relevant to the target audience. 3. The journalist’s issue frame difers from the dominant ones in the issue frame table. The explanatory part of the meta-report (50%)

0–5; note reasons for 0 to 4

4. The abductive inference table specifes variables for the scientifc explanation(s) used and a clear link to an inferred hypothesis, which is illustrated in a clear causal model and indicates the studies and any ad hoc relationships addressed. The studies are justifed. 5. The validity of the causal model is specifed according to level connections and narrative meaning, and the test of the model with the similarity and/or covariation model is specifed. 6. Justify all variables sufciently using data from the case at hand and indicate the methods used. The rhetorical part of the meta-report (20%)

0–5; note reasons for 0 to 4

7. The narrative structure and storytelling technique used in the product are specifed with clarity and confdence. 8. The modality tables demonstrate an appropriate modality for the inferences. 9. The ethos table demonstrates an appropriate technique for establishing trust. The journalistic product (20%)

0–5; note reasons for 0 to 4

10. The product is convincing with relevant sources, and the journalist appears with expertise and authority based on a strong link to the meta-report. Based on an assessment of all competencies listed above, the overall grade assigned is:

202 Guidelines, best practice criteria and learning tools

A. Short exercises take 20–40 minutes for students to complete if the relevant published journalistic stories are identifed in advance. This is the least complicated level and focuses on recognising elements relevant to analytical journalism in published work. B. Medium-length exercises take 3–4 hours for students to complete. This is a more complicated level on which students demonstrate skills in a preprepared context on a given subject shared by all of the students, e.g. fnding explanatory scientifc theories for a specifc phenomenon, producing expert testimonies based on a specifc study or justifying a specifc causal model. Exercises like these familiarise students with the skills they need through discussion and assessment of their diferent solutions. C. The story assignment takes about 20 hours during the analytical journalism course to complete. This is the most complicated level and consists of a fullscale exercise in analytical journalism. It consists of the meta-report and a journalistic product (see exam assignment). Each student (or pairs or groups of three or four students) delivers the assignment in two rounds to ensure a strong student focus on the four frst phases of analytical journalism before proceeding to the fnal stage of drafting the journalistic product. The frst delivery consists of the deliberative and explanatory parts of the meta-report, on which students receive feedback. The second consists of the entire meta-report (including any revised parts) and the journalistic product, on which students then receive feedback. In our classes, this story assignment serves as preparation for an exam that repeats the procedures but applies them to a diferent subject.

8.4.1 The discipline of analytical journalism These exercises relate to the discipline of analytical journalism, as outlined in Chapter 1. A1) Short exercise: the example of the bomb-defying faith of Filipinos as an illustration of analytical journalism. ● Describe the methods used in this example. ● Describe the documentation used in this example. A2) Short exercise: students clarify the prerequisites and requirements in analytical journalism. ● Which skills are important for an analytical journalist? ● Which analytical journalism skills do students have? ● Which analytical journalism skills do students need to improve?

8.4.2 The analytical journalism approach These exercises relate to the approach used in analytical journalism, as outlined in Chapter 2. A1) Short exercise: identify cause and efect in published explanatory journalism (found in advance of the lecture).

Guidelines, best practice criteria and learning tools 203 ● ●

Summarise the primary explanation. Summarise any secondary explanations.

A2) Short exercise: pros and cons of analytical journalism. ● The objectives of analytical journalism. ● The practicality of the objectives. A3) Short exercise: analytical journalist’s identity. ● What characterises analytical journalism as a mindset? ● How does this mindset relate to what students already know?

8.4.3 The strategy for selecting phenomena These exercises relate to the causal framework and Phase 1 of choosing a phenomenon outlined in Chapter 3. A) Short exercise: observations suitable for analytical journalism. ● List three observations suitable to be explained using analytical journalism and the reasons why they are suitable. ● List three observations not suitable to be explained by analytical journalism and the reasons why they are not suitable. B) Medium-length exercise: identify the causes of a phenomenon in a published explanatory story. ● Refer to or formulate a why question to which the story seeks to provide an answer. ● What variables are included in the story? ● Create a level table listing the variables. ● Relate the variables in a causal model. ● Does the causal model make sense? C) Story assignment: start the story assignment by completing Phase 1. ● Make a pitch with the elements from the starting point section of the meta-report. ● Discuss and improve the pitch between groups of three.

8.4.4 The strategy for mapping issue frames These exercises relate to Phase 2 (mapping issue frames) outlined in Chapter 4. A) Short exercise: complete a column in an issue frame table based on the explanatory story (analysed by the students in exercise 4.3.B). B) Medium-length exercise: identify issue frames for a given phenomenon of current interest (selected by the lecturer from among the appropriate observations in exercise 4.3.A).

204 Guidelines, best practice criteria and learning tools ● ● ● ●

Describe keywords and databases. Choose 5 explanatory stories. Identify issue frames in these stories. Complete an issue frame table.

C) Story assignment: identify the dominant issue frames. ● Collect media examples representing the target audience’s public knowledge base. ● Analyse examples for issue frames. ● Create the issue frame table.

8.4.5 The strategy for generating hypotheses These exercises relate to Phase 3 (generating hypotheses) outlined in Chapter 5. A) Short exercise: pros and cons of fnding ideas for angles in scientifc studies. B) Medium-length exercise: identify scientifc explanatory studies that may explain a given current phenomenon (selected by the lecturer from among the appropriate observations in exercise 4.3.A). Students must describe: ● ● ● ● ●

Keywords used. Database(s) used. The creative abductive table. Justifcation of the theories. The hypothesis as a causal model.

C) Story assignment: fnd studies to explain the phenomenon observed by the student. ● Identify the nature of the study: idea-based and general or empirical and detailed. ● Make a causal model based on the studies. ● Avoid or minimise ad hoc relations that are without scientifc basis. ● Justify the studies selected.

8.4.6 The strategy for justifying hypotheses These exercises relate to Phase 4 (proving a hypothesis) outlined in Chapter 6. A) Short exercise: use a published explanatory story. ● What evidence is presented in the story? ● On which criteria does the evidence rely? ● Which evidence could strengthen the explanation?

Guidelines, best practice criteria and learning tools 205

B) Medium-length exercise: test a given causal model (selected by the lecturer from among the appropriate causal models in exercise 4.3.B). ● Find data (facts) on the variables in the case at hand. ● Does this make the students believe in the truth of the explanation any more or any less? C) Story assignment: validating the hypothetical causal model. ● Which pattern-matching model can the students use to validate their causal model? ● Find data (facts) on the variables: Which documents and what statistics and where can they be found? ● What are the sources for the interview evidence, and what questions should they be asked?

8.4.7 The strategy for convincing stories These exercises relate to Phase 5 (producing a convincing story) outlined in Chapter 7. A) Short exercise: exhibiting the expertise and commitment of the journalists in the explanatory story (analysed by the student in exercise 4.3.B). ● What is the role of the journalist? ● What are the roles of written sources? ● What are the roles of interviewed sources? ● Describe how authoritative the journalist seems. C) Story assignment: the students’ expertise and authority. ● Formulate an expert testimony from a scientifc study (one that formed the basis for the student’s hypothesis in Phase 3). ● Write a paragraph for the journalistic product following the explorative storytelling model, including the causal inference, expert testimony and its qualifcation, confrming data, and an assessment by an interviewed source of the causal inference made by the student.

INDEX

**Page numbers in bold reference tables. **Page numbers in italics reference fgures. abduction 36 abductive inference 113 abductive inference strategy, guidelines for 123–128 abductive phase of analytical journalism 105, 106 abductive strategy 33–34; inferential role 9 acceptance, justifcation 133 accuracy of evidence 137 adding divergent issue frames 13–14 alcohol consumption 32, 60 analogical reasoning, from base case to target case 120 analysing media content 88–90 analytic journalism 41 analytic storyline model 184–185 analytical journalism, defned 2, 5, 27; roles of 6–7; see also deliberative role; inferential role analytical journalism: metatheoretical level 27–30; methodology 30–38 analytical journalism, example: Bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics 15, 16; commitment in language 188; deliberative role 17; inferential role 18; issue frame tables 99; level table 126; public novelty 117; refexive evaluation 164;

testing public novelty 98; variables 155–156 analytical journalistic identity 190 analytical storyline 21, 171, 190–192 ancillary evidence 140 ‘angle,’ concept of 90 anxiety, staying home 63 applying theory to hypotheses 13 Aristotle 171, 173 Arnoldi, Jacob 52 assessment templates 199, 201 assignments for students 199–205 attributes 60 attribution principle 137–138 audiences, target audiences 90 autonomy, trust 177–178 Baden, Christian 53, 90 Barnhurst, Kevin G. 52 Barnoy, Aviv 140–142, 149 Bhaskar, Roy 28 bias 60, 93 Boden, Margaret 117 Bødker, Henrik 113 Boesman, Jan 38, 90 bottom-up model 57 Brazilian journalists, transmitters of other people’s knowledge 110 Brennen, J. 43

208 Index

Carey, James W. 39 Carlson, Matt 85 cases: defned 32; phenomena as single cases 31–32 categoric units 56–57 categorical units 59 categorising 80, 88 causal chains 30, 59 causal explanations 2–4, 12, 70–72, 112; causal model 70–72; creating 7–8; guidelines for justifying 154–165; mapping in media coverage 81; relations 68; social reality 61–64; variables 65–68; variables of 59–61 causal hypothesis: plausibility of 118–122; public novelty of 117–118; testing 132–133 causal knowledge 106 causal model 58–59, 63, 70–72; bombdefying faith of Filipino Catholics 127; validation of 104, 106 causal model validation 104, 121–122 causal relations 9, 61–64, 68 causality 29, 55, 108, 120 cause 89–90; for educational performance 30; in media items 91; separating from evidence 63–65 chain relations 62 character, ethos model 175–176 charismatic bond 68 chicken-meat production 3, 53 Coddington, Mark 140 coding 91 collating media content, mapping issue frames 94–96 collecting representative media items from, public knowledge base 86–88 collection of media examples 20 commenting sources 186–187 commitment in language, bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics 188 common sense 5, 107, 111 communication, rhetoric 171–172 comparing data 67 complexity issues, objections to analytic journalism 43–44 comprehension 169, 177; explorative storytelling 177, 179–181; modality 181–183 conditioning relations 62 confrmatory causal model 152 constructivism 29 content analysis 20; of media content 88–90

context tables: in analytical journalism 120; Guatemala and the Philippines 125 conventional journalism 40–41, 71, 109 converting data to variables 66–68 convincing 169; narrative theory 172–173; rhetorical theory 171–172 convincing methods 38 convincing stories 205 corporate units 56 counter-knowledge 86 course exercises 199–205 covariation 146–148; justifcation 133; between variables 21 covariation model 37, 148–149, 153, 155, 159–160, 162 creative abduction 113 creative abductive inference, distinctiveness of 122–123 creative abductive inference table 117 creative abductive strategy 21, 34–35, 103, 106 creativity 117 credibility 173; of evidence 142; of selected scientifc explanations 124 criteria 17, 19, 73, 98, 104, 133–134; closed decision-making criteria 109; for convincing 169; of factuality 154; for justifcation 135–136, 142; for pattern matching 148, 154; of public novelty 104; representativeness 80; of validity 135, 163; to verify evidence 137 critical realism 28–29 Danes’ cocaine use, testing public novelty 98 Danish nationalists, ethos elements in 190 data availability 149–150 data journalism 40, 42, 46, 122 de Vreese, Claes H. 85 deduction 36 deductive justifcation 150–154, 164–165 deductive strategy 9–10, 21, 35, 132, 155 deliberation 82–83; public knowledge base 84–86 deliberative journalism 93 deliberative role 5–7, 43, 82–84; legitimacy of 92–94 deliberative technique 185 derived ethos 174 detection methods 37 dialogue sources: refexive evaluation 155, 163–164; second-hand evidence 154

Index

digital news-making, knowledge creation 108 direct evidence 139–140 disagreeing sources’ statements 164 discourses 84 distinctiveness of creative abductive inference 122–123 divergent issue frames 13–14 documentation, as evidence 140 Donsbach, Wolfgang 113 dramatic technique 185 ecological validity 150 Eldridge, Scott A. 113; emotional afection 68 empathy 177; ethos model 174–175 emplotment 184 engagement 169; narrative whole 183–184 engagement-oriented journalism 40 Entman, Robert M. 53, 85, 89, 93, 123; epistemic insight 14–15 epistemological levels of analytical journalism 28 epistemology 28–30 ethnographic journalism 40 ethos 171–173 ethos appeal 174 ethos model 21, 171, 174, 178–179, 193; character 175–176; empathy 176–177; expertise 175 Ettema, James 8 evaluative abduction 113 evidence 135; accuracy of 137; justifcation 139–140; produced by pattern matching 151–153; secondhand evidence 154; separating from cause 63–65 exam assignment 197 exam paper 197 expert assessment 21 expert testimonies 179–180, 185 expertise, ethos model 174 explanatory hypothesis 37 explanatory journalism 39, 51–54, 169 explorative storytelling 21, 171, 177, 179–181, 185–188 external validity 150 extraordinary power 68 factuality 136 fair-minded moderators 40 fake news 86 frst-hand evidence 140 Forde, Kathy Roberts 52, 169

209

formalisation 22 frame diversity 38 frames 84, 90; see also issue frames framing 84, 90 function of journalism 2 Garnier, Marie 3, 53 gatekeeping role 40 general explanatory theories 44 generating causal hypotheses 124–128, 202; knowledge generation 110–117; knowledge perspective 107–110 Gladwell, Malcolm 11 Godler, Yigal 140 Gutmann, Amy 3, 82–83 Habermas, Jürgen 86 Helberger, Natali 94 historical creativity 117 Hunter, Mark 123 hypothesis 37, 103; generating 124–128, 202; justifying 204–205; plausibility of 118–122; public novelty of 117; see also causal hypothesis hypothesis justifcation phase 134 hypothetical causal model, bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics 157 idea types of journalism 40–41 identifying: issue frames in media content 90–91; stated variables 66 indirect evidence 139–140, 142 induction 35 inductive strategy 20, 34, 80; deliberative role 6–7 inference 8, 20–21, 46; knowledgeproducing practice of inference 113; practical inference 139; science-based inference 21, 104, 114–117 inference principle, justifcation 138–139 inference strategies 35 ‘inference to the best explanation’ 113, 136, 138–139 inferential role 6, 8–10, 43; bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics 18 inferred explanations 8 infuences: on modality 189; of sources, bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics 188 initial ethos 174 interactional expertise 110 interesting, ethos model 179 internal validity 150 interpretive journalism 41, 53

210

Index

interpretivism 138 investigative journalism 122–123 issue frame tables 20; drawing up 96–100 issue frames 20, 53, 80, 85–86, 170; as category of media content 89–90; collating media content 94–96; identifying in media content 90–91; mapping 203–204; mapping in tables 91–92 issue-framing model 85

level table 56; bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics 126; causal explanations 69–70; variables 72 level validation 104, 127 liberal democracy 82 logos 171, 184

Kinneavy, J. L. 176 knowledge 20 knowledge creation, digital news-making 108 knowledge generation 106, 110–111; justifed true belief 111–113; knowledge-producing practice of inference 113; science-based inference 114–117 knowledge perspective, study of journalism 107–110 knowledge transfer 169 known theory to unknown case 116

macro-level of reality 56–57 mapping: causal explanations in media coverage 81; issue frames 12–13, 80, 91–96, 203–204 matching causal patterns 21 maternal mortality rates, Nigeria 54 Mayes, G. Randolph 63 McCroskey, J. C. 174 measurement validity 150 media bias 93 media content: analysing 88–90; identifying issue frames 90–91 media coverage, mapping causal explanations 81 Meditsch, Eduardo 108–109 mega-level of reality 56 Meijer, Irene Costera 42 meso-level of reality 56–57 meta-reports 15; guidelines and 197–198 metatheories 27–30 methodology 27, 30–31; level of methods 36–38; phenomena 31–33; strategies of 33–36 methods: causal model validation 104; for collecting media items 87–88; of justifcation in social science 142–150; of knowledge transfer 169; science-based inference 104 Meyer, Philip 36 micro-level of reality 56–57 micro-level variables 69 modality 181–183 modality tables 21, 171 Molyneux, Logan 139 moral judgments 91 motivated reasoning 93 motivation 30, 152 motives 52 multicausal reality 58–59 multilevel theory 60 multiple relations 62 Mutz, Diana 52 mysteries 11; Enron 11

language, modality of 182, 189 layered reality 55–58 legitimacy of deliberative role 92–94

narrative theory 172–173 narrative validation 104, 127 narrative whole 21, 171, 183–184, 190

journalism, studying from knowledge perspective 107–110 journalism profession 45 journalistic identity 190 journalistic interest 180 journalistic scanning 20 Junger, Sebastian 180–181 justifcation 37, 111, 132–1332, 135–136; of applied theories about devotees 125; attribution principle 137–138; covariation 133, 146–149; data availability 149–150; deductive justifcation 150–154, 164–165; of evidence 139–140; hypothesis justifcation phase 134; inference principle 138–139; methods of 142–150; pattern matching 133, 143–145; of Putin’s decision to stay in power 127; of Putin’s impact on Russian people 128; similarity model 145–146; status of 140–142; verifcation principle 136–137 justifed true belief 111–113; trust 177–178 justifying: causal explanation 154–155; hypotheses 13, 21, 204–205

Index

natural settings, phenomena 31 nested structures 55 newborns’ weight 64 news-about-relations 108 news-as-impression 108 news-as-items 108 Nielsen, Rasmus Kleist 108 objections to analytic journalism 42–45 objectivism 29 objectivity 93 observation, abductive inference 114–115 observed patterns 144 observing phenomena 20, 72–76 ontology 28, 29 original reporting 110 Örnebring, Henrik 141 outcomes, phenomena 31 Parisi, Peter 52 Park, Robert 107 participatory journalism 40 particularising 20 pathos 171–172 pattern matching: data availability 149–150; evidence 151–153; justifcation 132, 143–145 Patterson, Thomas E. 110 peer-reviewed academic knowledge 115 Peirce, Charles Sanders 33, 35 phases of analytical journalism 10–11, 51; adding divergent issue frames 13–14, 170; applying theory to hypotheses 13; example of 14–17; generating causal hypotheses see generating causal hypotheses; justifying causal explanation 154–164; justifying hypotheses 13, 21; mapping issue frames 12–13, 80, 94–101; observing phenomena 11–12, 20, 72–76 phenomena 29; in natural settings 31; selecting 74, 203; as single cases 31–32; as single outcomes 31; as starting points for enquiry 32–33 plausibility of causal hypothesis 118–122 political afliation 171 positivism 28–29 practical inference 139 predicted pattern 144–146 principles 17, 19, 73, 132; attribution principle 137; categorising 80, 88; of convincing 138; for epistemic justifcation 136; of hypothesizing

211

104; inference principle 138; of justifcation 132; of particularising 20; rhetorical principles of appeal to trust 38; teaching principles 62; verifcation 135, 154 process tracing 144 professional role 6 proximate causes 30 psychological creativity 117 public creativity 117 public knowledge base 2–4, 83–84; collecting representative media items from 86–88; deliberation 84–86 public novelty 92; of causal hypothesis 117; testing 98 public relevance 20 puzzles 11; Watergate 11 quality of selected studies 118–119 radicalisation 58 random sampling 87 rational discussion 82–83 reality 3, 27–30, 107–108; representations of 85–86; see also social reality reference lists, meta-reports 197 referred explanations 8 refexive evaluation 21; bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics 164; of dialogue sources 155; dialogue sources 163–164 Reich, Zvi 139–142, 149 relations: causal explanations 61–63, 69; between variables 62 relevance: of issues, observing phenomena 74; of selected scientifc research 119–120 Remler, Dahlia K. 3 remote causes 30 representations of reality 85, 86 representative media items, collecting from public knowledge base 86–88 representativeness 80, 86 restricted repertoire of issue frames 54 rhetoric 168, 169 rhetorical strategy 169; analytical storyline 190–192; deliberative role 6–7; ethos model 193; explorative storytelling 185–187; guidelines for 184; modality tables 189 rhetorical theory 21, 171–172 roles of analytical journalism 5–6; see also deliberative role; inferential role rule, concept of 35

212 Index

Salgado, Susana 53 sampling 87 Schmid, Alex P. 57 science 109 science reporting 39 science-based explanatory practice 19 science-based inference 21, 104, 114–117 scientifc explanations, selecting 124 scientifc explanatory theory 115–116 scientifc knowledge 34, 111–112 scientifc research, relevance of 119–121 second-hand evidence 140, 154 selecting: phenomena 71, 203; scientifc explanations 124 selection strategy 20; deliberative role 6–7 separating cause and evidence 63–65 signifcance, trust 177, 178 similarity model 21, 37, 145–146, 152, 155, 155–159 single outcomes, phenomena 31 social corporate units 59 social reality 30, 54–55; causal explanations 61–63; layered reality 55–58; multicausal reality 58–59; separating cause and evidence 63–65 social science 27, 44; methods of justifcation 142–150 solutions 91 sources: infuences on modality 183; meta-reports 197; truth 181–182 Springer, Nina 90 spurious relations 62, 147 Stalpouskaya, Katsiaryna 53 standardising variables 65–66 status of justifcation 140–142 storytelling 172–173 strategies: abductive inference strategy 123–128; abductive strategy 33–34; creative abductive strategy 21, 34–35, 103, 106; deductive strategy 9–10, 21, 35, 132, 154; inductive strategy 20, 34, 80; inference strategies 35; selection strategy 20 Strömbäck, Jesper 53 student motivation 152 subjectivism 29

Svith, Flemming 3, 53 symbolic power 85 table of contents, meta-reports 197–198, 197 tables, issue frame tables 91–92, 96–101 target audiences 89 teleology 108 testing: causal hypothesis 132–133; public novelty 98 Thompson, Dennis 3 time, objections to analytic journalism 42–43 top-down model 57 trust 9 173–177 truth 111–112 Tuchman, Gaye 93 Turner, Jonathan H. 56 uncertainty 169, 171; trust 175, 178 Undurraga, T. 110 United Kingdom, chicken-meat production 53 units 59–60; with attributes 61 validating causal model 21 validation models 145 validation of causal model 104, 106 validity 149–150 Van Gorp, Baldwin 38, 90 variables 58, 142; bomb-defying faith of Filipino Catholics 156–157; of causal explanation 59–61; causal explanations 65–68; causal model 70; covariation model 159–160; level table 70 verifcation 133 verifcation practices 142 verifcation principle, justifcation 136–137 Ward, Stephen J. A. 141 Warshauer, S. C. 175 watchdog journalism 41 Weber, Max 68 ‘why’ question 89–90, 116; observing phenomena 74–75 Wihbey, John 109 women, as social corporate units 59