Conference Report by Cathy Baldwin
This training day was set up to bring together the small but growing minority of media practitioners entering higher education to conduct media research through postgraduate study or as part of ‘practitioner’ appointments at academic institutions. It seemed to be a common experience that many found themselves caught out by a series of ‘gaps’ between the intellectual models taken up in analytic studies of media institutions and practices and the practical experiences they brought with them into the academic environment. Furthermore there are evident gaps between the intellectual status of text-based social scientific analyses of the media and practice-based approaches to research through media such as film, photography, audio-documentation and multi-media as legitimate forms of knowledge. Finally, a clear tension is experienced in the separation of the ‘intellectual’ and ‘practical’ in the internal organisation of media faculties in higher education. Prior to this event, there had not been a dedicated symposium where ‘double practitioners’ from across the
industry and disciplinary spectrums were able to voice their concerns and set out a vocational and intellectual agenda towards reconciling these gaps. The aims of the day were therefore just this. The organisers felt that it was vital that the event should target postgraduate students and early career researchers in the first five years of an academic career as
the current generation confronting these problems at the ‘up and coming’ end of media research. The event set out to profile their work and to gauge an overview of how far we have come towards reconciling the ‘gaps’ in the historic progression of the field. The day drew its parameters around work centred on factual, non-fiction-based media that engage with and represent the ‘real world’ through journalistic and documentary formats, and whose products are intended for mass or substantial public circulation. The training day brief also appealed for researchers drawing on a
wide range of theoretical approaches newly associated with media research, such as anthropology, film-practice, legal studies and development studies, as well as the more traditional schools of cultural studies, social psychology, semiotics and literary theory.
The programme was structured around three thematic workshops highlighting different facets of the relationship between theory and practice. The first of these, Workshop 1, dealt with practice in methodology across two panels. The first encouraged discussion on film as a method of research, documentation and the presentation of data. The second looked at practitioners’ uses of their inside experiences of the media to inform their research. Examples of this included drawing upon professional contacts, knowledge of production terminology, roles, codes of conduct and practices to gain access to research subjects and locations, and to interact effectively with them. Two out of five panelists were anthropologists, highlighting the rapid growth in popularity of ethnographic research methods.
The second workshop, Workshop 2, took examples of theory in practice as its topic, reversing the equation between intellectual models of media institutions and practices, to ask how often intellectual models form the basis of media practice. The workshop was split into two panels exemplifying cases from the Western world and the developing world respectively. This was so that the different issues generated by firstly long-established and globally dominant media systems and secondly those still in formation in countries which have yet to reach a plateau of political, social and
economic stability could be given separate consideration.
Workshop 3, the final session, was set up to encourage ‘double practitioners’ to bring to the floor more personal accounts of the challenges – personal, ethical, political and practical – facing those whose careers combine the media industries and academia. The intention was that presentations in this session would tie together the issues raised by the explorations in the first two sessions of practice brought into the academic world and intellectual models taken up in the media industries.
In keeping with the aims of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network of providing peer support and networking and learning opportunities, it was decided that all the organizational and academic preparations should be carried out by postgraduates for postgraduates. Given the range of practice specialisms in broadcast, print and online
journalism, and filmmaking that the event sought to engage with, and the scattered location of researchers with an industry profile, the organizational team was recruited from universities across Britain (plus one in Denmark). Cathy Baldwin, a D.Phil student in Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Oxford and a former BBC World Service and Radio 3 /4 reporter, received over 40 emails and phone calls from individuals interested in participating. She recruited the team below to compliment the work of the small team in Oxford comprising herself, Paddy
Coulter (Reuters Institute) and Andres Schipani-Aduriz, an M.Sc student at St Antony’s College, University of Oxford, also a media studies graduate and print journalist with the Observer as well as a variety of international publications.
The other team members were Lizzie Jackson, a PhD Media Studies student at the University of Westminster and BBC New Media editor and consultant; Dafydd Sills-Jones, a PhD Media Studies student and lecturer in Media Production at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and a former documentary development producer; Catherine Joppart of The Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research, who also works as a freelance journalist for Associated Press Television and as a fundraiser and researcher for the One World Broadcasting Trust; John Sealey, a PhD by Film Practice student and lecturer at the University of Exeter and award-winning filmmaker specialising in cultural identity and the African diaspora; Line Thomsen, a PhD Anthropology student at the University of Aarhus, Denmark and ITN/Channel 4
news reporter; and Venkata Vemuri, a PhD Media Studies student at the University of the West of England (UWE) and former print and television journalist and executive producer, Aajtak News Channel, New Delhi, India.
The training day was hosted by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, a new research centre within the Department of Politics and International Relations which opened in November 2006. It builds on the long-
running Reuters Foundation Fellowship Programme (Green College). Its broad aims are: to become the focus within the University for the study of the role of journalism in modern societies; to consider the ethical basis, the practice and the development of journalism; and its public policy implications; to pursue impartial scholarship of the highest standard in the study of journalism as it is practised on all media platforms at an international, national and local level; to offer an academic analysis of long term issues, but also to respond in a timely way to the emerging agenda created by the media in their daily operations, and to provide an independent forum for exchanges between practitioners and analysts of journalism, and all those affected by it. http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/ Media research is a new and emerging tradition at the University of Oxford and is currently being consolidated through a number of other units and programmes across the university including Oxford Internet Institute, the Programme in Comparative Media Law at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (Wolfson College), and Oxford Media and Communications Seminar Programme.
Additional support in kind was obtained from The Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research (London). The Centre is closely affiliated and receives institutional support from the Annenberg School of Communication at the
University of Pennsylvania and collaborates closely with partners such as City University, the London School of Economics, Central European University and Oxford’s Programme in Comparative Media Law. It was developed to provide a forum for open dialogue and scholarship related to media law and policy around the world.
Stanhope is particularly keen in developing and working with student researchers, often acting in an advisory role and engaging MA and PhD students on media policy related projects. www.stanhopecentre.org Delegates from a range of institutions from around Britain and Europe attended the training day. Presenters represented the following institutions: Goldsmiths College, Bournemouth University, London South Bank University, University of Westminster, SOAS, University of Aarhus (Denmark), University of Wales (Aberystwyth), University of Edinburgh, Institute of Education, University of London, University of Oxford, University of Vic (Barcelona, Spain), LSE, University of Worcester, University
of Exeter and University of the West of England (UWE). Additional institutions represented by non-presenter delegates included University of Cardiff, University of Loughborough, Trinity College, University of Wales and City University.
The event was opened by Cathy Baldwin and Paddy Coulter, who welcomed delegates and explained the origins and aims of the event. Cathy stated that it was her personal experiences of the difference between media studies and working as a
radio journalist that motivated her to initiate the conference. Paddy, currently Director of Studies at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and a Fellow of Green College, Oxford, has had a prolific career as a television producer (formerly Director of the International Broadcasting Trust) and a journalist specialising in international development issues. He pointed out that getting journalists and media academics together was the main goal of the Reuters Institute, and that the training day was the very first conference to have achieved this at Oxford University. He outlined the difficulties that have already emerged in mediating between the two sets of professionals, with the timescales of research in journalism and academia being vastly different and also the differences between the conceptual frameworks of the
two arenas.
The keynote speech, entitled ‘If it Bleeds it Leads….’: Modes of Inquiry in a World of Sensation, was delivered by Professor Brian Winston, award-winning documentary maker, renowned media academic and journalism commentator, and currently Dean of the University of Lincoln. He laid out the similarities between journalism and academia, particularly the underlying rationale for carrying out reporting and research, and the nature of the problems with both pursuits. He opened the debate of why greater academic attention is not afforded to journalism. He illuminated the
contradiction between the status of journalism in society as ‘powerful and important’ and its relatively low status as a subject of study on the elite intellectual agenda. He suggested that the roots of the problem lay in a ‘constant schizophrenia’ directed towards journalists by academics, that ‘practice’ was not respected as ‘research’ and there was a suspicion of and hostility towards journalists among academics. He put this down to academic snobbery! Delegates found him a dynamic, provocative and involved speaker, and he raised many a laugh and smile with his animated delivery
and performance-like manner.
The first of the day’s three workshops began with a presentation by Adnan Hadzi of Goldsmiths College, who opened panel 1 – Sound and Image: Alternative Methods of Research and Presentation – with a description of his research project on collaborative film entitled ‘Deptford TV’. This comprises an online media database documenting the regeneration process of Deptford in South East London. He explained how it functioned as an open, collaborative platform that allowed artists, filmmakers and people living and working around Deptford to store, share, re-edit and redistribute the documentation of the regeneration process. His contribution closed with a screening of several clips depicting local residents taking part in the project.
Trevor Hearing of Bournemouth University briefly introduced and screened his 15- minute reflective film that considered how he might develop the documentary film form into a method of ‘writing’ with video to articulate a more complex
understanding of the world. He outlined the importance of two strands in his practice as a film-maker: the meaning of evidence in the use of documentary video and the value of documentary video as a creative academic research tool.
Dr Charlotte Crofts of London South Bank University talked through the challenges of legitimating and gaining accreditation for film as a form of research within higher education, particularly among funding bodies. She explored the point that practice research differs from professional practice mainly in the way in which it is framed and reflected upon within a research context. She screened a short research film which used “pro-sumer” technology to document and reflect on the effect of emergent digital technologies on mainstream cinema production from image acquisition, post production and delivery to film preservation and archiving.
Finally, Tony Dowmunt of Goldsmiths College outlined what he described as his ‘research journey’ during the production of a video-diary based film – A Whited Sepulchre – which drew on the stories of his great-grandfather’s account in his
diaries of his posting to Sierra Leone as a soldier in the 1880s and his own video diary of a trip to Africa made in December/January 2004-5, where he explored his position as a White man in a Black environment. He also investigated the ‘authenticity’ of the more personal/confessional mode of the video diary in contrast with the formal written tone of the Victorian written diaries. The presentations were introduced by Cathy Baldwin and responses were given and
the discussion chaired by Dr Charlotte Crofts who stood in for filmmaker and Film Studies lecturer, John Sealey who was sadly unable to attend due to illness.
Lizzie Jackson from the University of Westminster/BBC chaired the second panel of the workshop, entitled: Bringing Work to School: Industry Experience in Media Research.
Somnath Batabyal from the Department of Film and Media at SOAS gave a paper that clearly illustrated how his academic career had been enhanced by having had a career in journalism. As he said in his paper, ‘However much time a researcher spends in a newsroom, one can never really be a part of the newsroom dynamics.’ He made the case that journalists in academia have the advantage of being able to bring their professional experience to bear on research taking the newsroom as a locale of study. He reflected that had he not had a career in journalism, his research would have been approached differently and the results would have differed. In turn, if it were not for his fledgling academic career, he would not have been able to conceive of his project.
The second paper was given by Ole J. Mjos from the School of Media, Arts and Design at the University of Westminster. Ole demonstrated how he considered a deconstruction of empathy and sympathy for journalists to be important. He showed how research findings have shown that journalists often occupy a detached position.
Ole suggested that this could assist in the development of training for journalists who might arrive at the scene of an incident looking for comment, and who by lack of awareness of the impact of their tone of voice or their actions might inadvertently distress victims.
Line Thomsen from the Institute of Information and Media Studies at Aarhus University talked through her thoughts prior to her doctoral observation of a small selection of newsrooms, including the BBC newsroom. She deconstructed participant observation and observation, picking out ways of approaching the contact time with journalists as a researcher. Her paper carefully listed many of the classic problems and risks, but also the potential benefits of the methodology.
The fourth paper was delivered by Dafydd Sills-Jones, lecturer in media production at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. He gave examples, taken from his field work with television history producers, of oft-used uncritical and celebratory language exemplifed by the constant and un-defined use of the word ‘big’. He noted that whilst such uncritical useage could be a barrier to scholarly study, he also believed it was important to engage with what he referred to as the ‘big discourse’. In order to outline the advantages and pitfalls of such an approach, Dafydd offered three provocative ‘confessions’ as to his methods, and ended by inviting the audience to reflect on their own methodological ‘sins’.
In the final paper, Dr Dorota Ostrowska of the Department of Film Studies at the University of Edinburgh covered a wide area, including the benefits of partnerships between academics and industry, through the learning extracted by both parties in the setting up of a major film festival, the UK Festival of Chinese Cinema. She noted the cultural benefits to Edinburgh and its residents, and also the benefits to the university through the availability of experts from China over the period of the festival. She presented a useful business model in action, proving the importance of bringing together the joint experience of academics and practitioners.
After a networking lunch where delegates mingled and chatted, the afternoon sessions began. Dr Charlotte Crofts briefly outlined the aims of the MeCCSA Practice Session and encouraged delegates to get involved. The first panel of Workshop 2 entitled Theoretical Models in Mass Media Practice: Perspectives from the West, was chaired by Lizzie Jackson (Westminster) and Line Thomsen (Aarhus).During this panel, Gavin Rees of Bournemouth University reflected upon the fact that journalists in the UK receive scant formal training on how to interview, and that emotional interactions between interviewee and interviewer were subject to little professional or theoretical analysis. Drawing on his research talking to news organisations about the trauma training given to reporters, such as in situations of war, mental illness, bereavement or violent crime, he examined why the emotional interactions of the interview space remained under-explored. In particular he concluded that empathetic listening skills need to be taught both for ethical reasons and to improve the quality of journalism and its ability to engage audiences.
Jo Henderson of the Institute of Education, University of London, focused on the BBC’s Video Nation, in which ‘ordinary people’ are invited to represent themselves through the creation of self-filmed monologues to camera: video diaries. She located her research within an exploration of the implications of the notion of ‘the citizen producer’ in the particular climate of the BBC news and factual programming departments. Her paper revealed that the ‘Amateur video’ tag enabled broadcasters to distance themselves from low production values and subjectivity. Maxwell Boykoff of the University of Oxford presented the findings of his research examining the application of journalistic norms in the coverage of human
contributions to climate change in the US and UK. An analysis of the output of numerous news organisations and print media led him to the realisation that some news sources have significantly diverged from the consensus view in climate science.
The need for ‘balance’ in reporting has created bias when reporting a scientific concensus such as the role of humans in climate change. Cristina Perales García and Mon Rodríguez Amat from the University of Vic, Barcelona reflected upon the importance of managing new and constantly evolving modes of communications, specifically a new approach to the growth area of e- journalism. Their particular concern was the creation of an appropriate and non- traditional theoretical model that would serve to study this new communicative sector.
In the final paper, Patrice Holderbach from the University of Oxford considered the investigative nature of journalism which can propel media practitioners and their products into sensitive environments that are prone to judicial scrutiny, including judicial penalties for refusal to disclose sources. She focused on the pros and cons of a controversial bill considered in 2006 by the US Senate to create a federal shield law protecting media practitioners from disclosure and the wider implications for journalists and the general public, particularly ‘bloggers’.
The second panel, Theoretical Models in Mass Media Practice: Perspectives from the Developing World, was chaired by Catherine Joppart of the Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research and Venkata Vemuri (UWE). Sarah Kamal’s paper looked at how media reconstructions form a natural space for investigating media theory. She examined the concept of ‘media development’ as practice and theory in post-Taliban Afghanistan, problematizing the reciprocal relationship of media theory and the development context to pinpoint lessons for media theory in reconstruction
and in the West.
Nina Bigalke of Goldsmiths College scrutinised the operations of Al Jazeera English, the latest English-language 24-hour news channel which made headlines prior to its launch in November 2006, as a noticeable example of an institution that effectively incorporated long-standing academic debates into its policy and brand identity.
Dr Carolina Oliveira Matos, also of Goldsmiths College, discussed her research methods when investigating the relationship between the democratization process that occurred in Brazil in the last two decades and the role played by the media. She also reflected upon the difficulties that many academics and journalists have in combining theory with practice and the misunderstandings that exist on both sides.
Dr Xin Xin of the China Media Centre at the University of Westminster set out to explain the complexity of journalistic practices in different social contexts by focusing on the case of China. She analyzed the causes, dynamics and consequences of the negotiations between political, economic and socio-journalistic interests in journalism practice. She also aimed to clarify confusion regarding the coexistence of investigative journalism and ‘paid journalism’ during China’s media transformations.
Two papers were delivered in the final workshop, Double Vocations: Media Practice and Theory, as the third contributor, John Sealey, had to withdraw due to illness. The session was chaired by Dafydd Sills-Jones and responses were given by Cathy Baldwin. Maureen Matthews from the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Oxford discussed the cross-cultural nature of media practice using the example of a recent documentary project broadcast on Canadian radio which debunked the popular ecological stereotype of ‘Mother Earth’ found in the cosmology of Native Canadians. She drew parallels between journalism practice and anthropological concerns over ‘reflexivity’ during field research, postulating that journalists would benefit from attention to the latter. She also outlined how they could improve their practice through taking up anthropology’s ethical stance towards the representation of its subjects.
To close, George Nyabuga of the University of Worcester drew upon his personal experience as a journalist with The Standard, the oldest newspaper in Kenya, to explain how professional journalistic ethics and press freedom in that country were under threat both internally within the media establishment and externally by representatives of the state and business sectors. He revealed how objectivity and unbiased accounts of events intended to enlighten people and provide a forum for exchanges of information and views were being sacrificed for the sake of vested interests and financial gain.
Professor Winston rounded off the day’s academic discussions with some summary remarks. He warned the delegates against the danger of treating the gaps outlined across the discussions in an ahistorical manner, reminding them that he had experienced them throughout the course of his career. He was optimistic at the rise in the number of practitioners in research, lamenting that 30 years ago, the numbers were considerably lower. He also defended the arena of media research in the light of many delegates having expressed a concern with a perceived general misunderstanding of practice. He recalled that when media research was launched as an academic discipline, figures from the media industry were disconcerted by the critical analyses presented by himself and his colleagues from the Glasgow Media Group! He concluded by suggesting that journalism could be improved through a closer engagement with academia, and inversely that the climate for journalism studies is much better today than in the early years of his career, with greater
receptivity within academia and more opportunities to obtain funding.
Paddy Coulter then brought the event to a close by leading Brian Winston and all delegates in an open evaluation discussion where points were taken from the floor.
The feedback was resoundingly positive, and aspects praised included the breadth of media forms and theoretical approaches discussed, the frank and candid tone of the day set up in the opening speeches, the friendly and informal atmosphere, the small scale which enabled delegates to converse with a wide range of people in intimate surroundings, the splendour of the conference venue at 13 Norham Gardens, the internationalism of the delegates, and the choice of keynote speaker. Constructive criticisms raised were the short length of the event, a general consensus that its high
quality merited two days, and frustrations were expressed at the restricted time for the development of prolonged discussions due to the tight schedule.
Delegates finished the day with a wine reception at Reuters Institute, a meal at the Pizza Express in Oxford and drinks at the pub afterwards where discussions went on late into the night!
Due to the popularity of the event and the excitement that it generated, several postgraduates from the Media and Anthropology departments at SOAS and Goldsmiths College have proposed to repeat it next year at either university over a two-day period. As media research is in its infancy at the University of Oxford and the concentration of staff and postgraduates working on media topics is still growing, the organizers have fully endorsed and encouraged this proposal. The envisaged title of the second event is ‘Mending the Gap’, with an aim of building on the agenda of concerns set up by this first event and moving forward to look for concrete ways of addressing them.
Our grateful thanks are due to all the ‘Minding the Gap’ delegates, both presenters and non-presenter audience members for bringing their enthusiasm and passion for the topic to the lively and productive discussions that took place. Special thanks are owed to Paddy Coulter for his tremendous support and dedication throughout the preparation process, and to Professor Brian Winston for his inspirational address and generous input into delegates’ discussions and keen engagement with the issues facing young researcher-practitioners today. We would also like to thank Professors
Marcus Banks and Harvey Whitehouse of the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology (ISCA), University of Oxford, and the Art Design Media Higher Education Academy Subject Centre (ADM-HEA) for funding the event, and Oxford
University Anthropological Society for support in kind. Thanks are also due to Nicole Stremlau for linking the project with the Stanhope Centre and to Peter Bailey and Jennie Turner for their valuable input in the coordination of the day. A debt of gratitude is owed to Andres Schipani-Aduriz for assisting with the production of the event and for turning out to register delegates in spite of illness. Additionally, we are grateful to Dr Charlotte Crofts of the MeCCSA Practice Section for standing in as a chair at the last minute. Last but by no means least, I would personally like to thank my colleagues at
MeCCSA Postgraduate Network for encouraging me in the running of the event within a university that is a new collaborator for the MeCCSA network, and in particular the current chair, Kaity Mendes for compiling delegates’ feedback. Finally, without the commitment and high quality input of the postgraduate organising team and chairs,
the event could not have taken place.
Cathy Baldwin, MeCCSA Postgraduate Network Executive Committee University of Oxford, 3rd June 2007.