Journalism-as-a-Service: Amplifying Public Intellectual Contributions through The Conversation

Prof. Axel Bruns, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of TechnologyProf. Folker Hanusch, Department of Communication, University of Viennaa.bruns @ qut edu.au / folker.hanusch @ univie.ac.at@snurb_dot_info / @fhanusch

Science Communication Online• Science journalism:

– Online equivalents of conventional media– ‘Born digital’ publications following conventional frameworks Journalist-initiated topic selection and framing, large reach, good content quality

• DIY science communication:– Institutional and project Websites– Group and individual blogs run by scientists– Open access journals Original texts, self-initiated exchange between researchers, rarely beyond in-group

• Social media:– Researchers, journalists, industry, interested laypeople– Potential to connect with international networks Self-initiated topic selection, often limited reach, ‘preaching to the converted’

What Would Be Desirable Here?• An ideal picture of science communication:

– Coverage initiated by scientists, and– Direct participation by scientists in content development – but also– Largest possible reach across mass and niche media, and– Style of communication accessible to laypeople

• Is this possible?– In research:

• Science communication as a distraction from research process• Limited communication training for researchers, limited institutional recognition• Fear of populist attacks in controversial fields

– In journalism:• International ‘crisis of journalism’• Job cuts particularly in specialty fields such as journalism• Mass media agendas strongly influenced by the short-term topics

Amplifier Platforms for Science• ‘Disruptive Innovation’ trends in various industries:

– Spotify, Netflix, cloud computing, Uber, … – ‘everything-as-a-service’ Journalism-as-a-service – for scientists?

• ‘Crisis’ of journalism presents opportunities for new models:– Innovative publishing structures, especially online– Experiments with textual formats and styles– Breakdown of traditional barriers between journalists and non-journalists– Partnerships with conventional mass media– Targetted integration with social media

Amplifier platforms like The Conversation

The Conversation• Key elements:

– Content selection through crowdsourcing:• Scientists propose new articles themselves, and submit raw drafts• Text development by journalistic editors, for approval by scientists

– Journalism-as-a-service:• Scientific research, professional editing by journalists• Publication on centralised, widely known platform

– Designed for shareability:• Consistent use of Creative Commons licences• Links to content shared via social media

– Evaluation of reach and impact:• Real-time dashboards for researchers and institutions• Tracking of sharing and republication in social and mass media

Project History• How does such a platform emerge?

– Journalism + Research = Conversation:• Founded by Andrew Jaspan, former editor of The Age (Melbourne)• Financially supported by a consortium of Australian universities• Editorial team partly housed at Australian universities• Original URL: theconversation.edu.au, due to university connections

– Supportive environment:• Political demands for societal relevance of (funded) research• Internal incentives for researcher participation at universities• Market gap due to very limited media diversity in Australia

– Clearly demonstrable successes:• Detailed information on user numbers and content dissemination• Expansion into UK, US, France, southern Africa, Canada, …

Tweets linking to The Conversation, compared to other Australian news sites (Jan./Feb. 2016)

Proactive Science Communication• Why bother?

– Science and its contribution to society:• Scientists have a duty to engage in public debates• Research institutions should encourage and reward such contributions• Particularly effective means of engagement should be preferred

– International trends towards the evaluation of such effects:• E.g. RAE, REF (UK), RQF, ERA (Australia), …• Controversial metrics for ‘impact’, ‘excellence’, ‘public value’• Push towards a ‘public value test’ for publicly-funded research activities

Better to actively contribute to the creation and tracking of such metrics than to be passively subjected to them…

@snurb_dot_info@fhanusch

@socialmediaQUT – http://socialmedia.qut.edu.au/ @qutdmrc – https://www.qut.edu.au/research/dmrc

This research is funded by the Australian Research Council through Future Fellowship grant FT130100703, LIEF LE140100148, Discovery DP160101211 and Linkage LP160100205.