--Conventional (peer reviewed articles, book/scholarship reviews, perhaps teaching tips, etc).
--Based on types of convergence: ownership, technological, organizational, etc.
--Based on digital journalism features: multimedia, interactivity, distribution
--Perhaps by geography: US/North American, International, college media
--Based on focus: theory, industry research, education/training
--Other?
My first inclination is to go with a more safe, traditional format. But, this is a different type of journal, and if ever there were a time and type of journal to try something new, this would be it.
Naturally, the organization will affect both the navigation and visual design of this online journal as well as the organization of the staff/board. At some point we'll want to set up editors for these sections, as well as perhaps positions such as webmaster, interactive editor (in charge of reader polls, letters to the editor, moderating forums and comment sections at the ends of articles), etc.
In the meantime, PLEASE share your ideas or reactions to some of these possibilities.
Bob
15 comments:
Colleagues: sorry have been offline and not contributing since leaving the conference: am now back on deck and rolling. I agree with Bob's suggestion to keep at least some of the format relatively conventional because our outputs are evaluated by academics who sometimes put the cover before the contents; but also think we should launch our journal with a major innovative ingredient.
as for the name, i'm one of the many (obviously) who have sppropriated the term "integrated journalism" for my work but now discover it means different things to different folks, and the confusion is not always helpful. so i would steer away from that.
and while i agree that convergence will soon become standard reality and (as we propose) everything is going that way, so we risk dating ourselves, i'm also keenly aware that our students and other journalism academics don't yet see things our way, so a title which included convergent journalism would serve a very useful purpose in the short-mid term.
I'd opt for "Convergent Journalism Research" ... cheers JC
I have just heard about this refereed journal which presents its articles in multimedia format but in standard "scientific" structure ... http://www.jove.com/index/Main.stp
it's very cool and might be a model for our journal???
I agree with John that the story categories should be easily understood (and most importantly, respected) by academics.
My inclination would be to first separate articles by scholarly work (presenting original research) and applied (case studies, videos, active websites from courses, etc.). Kind of dull, I know.
Then, the various types of convergence could be clear from the type of accepted articles. At the start at least, it may be wise to not formally limit the scope of the journal by type of convergence. The journal may get a lot of, say, technological convergence articles. It may be wise to keep the door open to doing themed issues to capture both the particular state of convergence and the type of article submitted.
PS I'm reading John Caldwell's "Production Culture" after hearing him speak at USC last week, and I have to say, it's an eye-opener on how informative qualitative research on convergent practices can be.
yes, agree with Andrew, that it's important to separate the types of articles from the types of convergence.
Andrew,
For a good set of studies on qualitative research, check out a book that just came out this summer:
Making Online News: The Ethnography of New Media Production.
Some of the studies are older and a few are lacking some methodological triangulation, but this is a good, multinational collection of case studies and ethnographies.
I assume we'd welcome both qualitative and quantitative research pieces, in addition to historical and theoretical articles.
maybe we should review the book in our first journal edition?
Thanks for the book rec, bob!
I like the way Andrew has crystallized a proposed structure for the journal:
My inclination would be to first separate articles by scholarly work (presenting original research) and applied (case studies, videos, active websites from courses, etc.).
I think this allows us to be very open in terms of the content we consider, but traditional enough to please the tenure gods! And at the risk of stating the obvious, this would also allow us to have two different peer review processes and creates the potential to draw from more than the traditional scholars and to be of more value to those in the classroom and the newsroom.
The consensus seems to be to go with a more traditional journal organization. There's a lot of wisdom in that approach, especially for a new journal trying to establish credibility.
Unless there are some serious objections, let's then focus on what exactly those sections should be.
The first ones that come to mind for me:
Original Research (should this be broken down into different categories?)
Reviews (books/chapters/seminal articles on convergence in other journals)
Education (teaching tips? Case studies of courses/curricula at individual universities? Should college media research be included in this category? Should research on convergence education (such as Lowrey, Daniels & Becker's 2005 piece in J&MC Educator) be in this category or under "Original Research"?)
Industry Examples/Practices (trends, new technologies, best practices, analyses of multimedia coverage of an event, etc)
Technology (information, new software version releases, reviews, quick documentation on cutting-edge technologies)
Interviews (perhaps monthly interviews with top innovators and industry execs about the state of the industry and what their publications are doing?)
Etc: blogs, forums, polls, upcoming conferences.... It would also be cool to start a wiki about convergent journalism scholarship, where people could contribute 100-300 word annotations about articles, books, book chapters, etc. about convergence--and thus the community could create an annotated bibliography that would be immensely useful to everyone in the field.
Other sections? Thoughts about these rough sketches for sections?
-------------------------
Once we decide on the sections, we may want to move toward having editors for the non-research sections, people who can moderate/solicit/review content for their sections.
Colleagues:
I like the list that Bob suggests, at least as a starter, but my opinion is that each contributor self-selects his/her article into a category, which may be reviewed/contested by the editors. That way people with original research which touches education or technology can have first say on where their article fits. But if the editors think otherwise, the article can be rejected on the initial submission but suggested for acceptance in another category.
Original Research
Reviews
Education
Industry Examples/Practices
Technology
Interviews
Etc: blogs, forums, polls, upcoming conferences.... It would also be cool to start a wiki about convergent journalism scholarship
John, you've streamlined the options nicely.
I think as long as case studies and discussions and wikis are involved, we'll hit a nicely interactive sweet spot that still fits comfortably within the pedagogy of academe.
Lots of work ahead, but great to see bright minds tackling the topic wisely before jumping in, creating a navigation that is difficult to retreat from or needs quick triage.
Jody
Having read Jody's comment, may i suggest we turn my (Bob's) list on its head and put the
1. wiki,
2. case studies and
3. interviews
on the journal's home page, which would include the mission/vision statements, editorial board and submission guidelines, then point inside to the "journal per se" which could be published online and in print (POD?) according to the needs of the tenure/points gods.
so the overall envelope would be online and interactive, but include the academic rigour and suggested order of:
1. Original Research
2. Education
3. Industry Examples/Practices
4. Technology
5. Reviews
Hello everyone. I've arrived late into the conversation; have been traveling a lot lately. But I happily endorse the structure Bob Bergland and John Cokley have suggested; I like that format. As for a title for the journal, I agree with Convergent Journalism Research or Research into Convergent Journalism. I used Convergent Journalism as a title in 2 of my books. I look forward to working with you all. Cheers, Stephen Quinn in Australia
Hi all
Coming in late to this conversation but I am on board with the way the discussion has been going.
Having a structure like this is a good way forward as it meets traditional expectations but allows us freedom to go beyond the an established journal:
1. Original Research
2. Education
3. Industry Examples/Practices
4. Technology
5. Reviews
I like the idea of the wiki. Cyberpsychology has their "rapid communications" section which has 2-3 page mini-articles. We could almost out-rapid that style with an immediate resource that is available for all.
Post a Comment