At this early stage nothing has been finalized, which is why I am happy to have such a strong advisory/editorial board to help shape the direction of the journal.
I thought this blog might be the easiest vehicle for group discussions and interaction about that direction. Over the next few months I'll be asking all of you to put in your two cents about various aspects of the journal in hopes of getting some consensus before moving forward. You're welcome to also make comments to me off-list or suggest other threads or concerns you would like to have us debate.
One of the first things to discuss is the name for the journal, since even that is up for debate. Naturally, we'll want to finalize the name before securing a domain name and proceeding with some web site mockups. In the preliminary documents I put forward the name Journal of Convergent Journalism. Some earlier iterations were Convergent Journalism Quarterly and Journal of Convergent Media. I leaned away from the former title because it implied a print-based publication cycle, and leaned away from the latter title because the inclusion of "media" implied a more broad scope (like the journals Convergence and New Media and Society). One advisory board member has already raised a concern about the repetition in Journal of Convergent Journalism, suggesting cutting it down to Convergent Journalism.
Your thoughts on these possible names? Other suggestions for a name?
Bob
18 comments:
Bob,
I'm glad to serve on your editorial board. As we discussed at the convergence conference (another great one, Augie!), this just makes sense. Multimedia distribution for discussing multimedia.
About the name, we also talked about how some may say the term convergence is old and confusing. I agree, however, it's also become a recognized label for what we're talking about. In that way it's useful. We could use "Interactive J" or something newer, but that, too, may be confusing because it's ill-defined. It's funny--convergence may not be well-defined, but for the most part we all know what it means!
Tim Bajkiewicz
Virginia Commonwealth University
Interesting idea, Tim! If the word "interactive" were in the title, this would clearly separate us from the rest of the pack. It would seem to place more of the focus on the end user experience. And most new forms of convergence journalism are more interactive than previously (heck, anything on the Internet could legitimately be called interactive). This terminology might place us alongside journals such as the journal of interactive marketing - I can't decide if this is a good or bad thing.
Another idea is to use the word "online" - but I feel this restricts us a bit much, because many papers will doubtless address creating interactive/multimedia pieces but not be about the Internet, per se.
I've also thought about using the word "Interactive" in the title. It is a bit different, and it would definitely differentiate between what we're studying and traditional print/broadcast media.
As Tim points out, there are some problems with definitions with the Interactive term--some people might not define listening to, say, an audio clip as truly being interactive. But, that isn't to say that it wouldn't work or that people would have problems understanding what it means or the focus of the journal.
Another possible word, in addition to the "online journalism" possibility that Andrew threw out, is "digital journalism," a term used by Dueze (2008) and others. I like that word, too, with a reservation about the fact that all of TV journalism will be officially digital in February.
I used Convergent in the initial draft of the name in part because of how ubiquitous it is in the literature and in books, including those published by many of our board members: Grant/Wilkinson's Principles of Convergent Journalism and upcoming Understanding Media Convergence, Quinn and Filak's Convergent Journalism, Kolodzy's Convergence Journalism, etc.
I'd be especially interested in hearing from some of them about the process/rationale of choosing the names for their books and possibly using one of the alternative names for the journal.
I too have reservations about using the word convergence in the title. What is happening in journalism and the media goes beyond bringing together print, broadcast and online. Instead we are seeing new forms of journalism emerge, such as crowdsourcing or even live blogging. In this sense, convergent journalism seems inappropriate. Digital is too broad a term and interactive is too narrow. Multiplatform is another possible term, but it inherently links journalism to the means of distribution.
We have use the term, integrated journalism, in describing our core journalism course at UBC. The term, borrowed from other disciplines, reflects how journalism is becoming more inter-disciplinary. And it does not define journalism by its means of distribution. But it suffers from being open to different interpretations.
In short, I have more questions than answers.
Alfred Hermida
UBC Graduate School of Journalism
Hello all –
Forgive me as I try to catch up with all of this; I did not attend the conference, so I wasn’t privy to the initial discussion about these issues. First, on the naming issue – I’m wondering if the term “multimedia” was given a pass for some reason. I have had the opportunity to do quite a bit of newsroom training in the area of multimedia skills over the years, and I find that the profession seems to be shying away from the word “convergence” (and I can’t say I’ve ever even heard the term “convergent” other than in academic circles). I also recently spent some time developing a multimedia master’s program for Virginia Commonwealth University and found very few references to courses with the words convergence or convergent in the titles.
Now, perhaps that’s the point, we may not be appealing to a professional audience at all, and we may be less concerned with pedagogy than other types of research, but my bias is always to connect research to the profession and to the classroom, so my suggestions would be along the following lines: Multimedia Journalism Quarterly, Journal of Multimedia Journalism or just Multimedia Journalism, etc.
Please feel free to reveal the error of my ways here!
Deb Wenger
Virginia Commonwealth University
In the interest of trying to narrow down the list of possible names, go ahead and list your top choices, in order, with a brief rationale if you wish. I'll then take the top choices and we can put it to a vote.
To start out, here are mine:
Journal of Convergent Journalism
Journal of Multimedia Journalism
Interactive Journalism: A Journal of Integrated Media Research
Rationale:
I like having "Journal" in the title--if for no other reason than to make it clear to prospective readers (and Promotion/Tenure Committees) that this online-only publication is indeed a journal. I lean toward "Convergent" because that does seem to be the dominant word in academic circles, although Deb Wenger's suggestion and rationale has really got me leaning toward
"Multimedia."
Your top picks?
Bob, thanks for having my on the board as well. my 2 cents...
about the name: i'd stay away from anything that refers exclusively to technology (multimedia, crossmedia, new media). convergence is an accepted term in the sense that its inclusive: it means many different things to different people, yet all of it in the context of a blurring of boundaries - between storytelling forms and genres, between media formats and channels, between producers and consumers, between different types of communication and typologies of journalism.
that said, i am not sure what "convergent" means. that seems a specification of "convergence".
although I appreciate the preference for "Journal of", I'd advocate a more contemporary naming approach, as many online journals embrace a much more creative name (examples at the DOAJ Media and Communication directory.
some early suggestions, none very well considered:
- Journalism and Convergence
- Journalisms
- Beyond Journalism
- Convergence Journalism
- Journalism and New Media
Hi Bob,
Thanks as well for the opportunity to serve on the editorial board -- and it's exciting to see folks like Jody Brannon and Mindy McAdams on board.
When I started teaching at UMass a little over a year ago, I started off naming one of my classes "Convergence Journalism.' Many of the older faculty and younger students didn't get it. I've switched to "Multimedia Journalism" and folks seem to get it.
But one of my students described himself this semester as a "Multimedia Storyteller." I love that.
Perhaps the 'Journal of Multimedia Storytelling' or something along those lines?
To be honest, the name we come up with will be fine. It's the content that matters.
chrs,
Steve
Greetings, all. I'm honored to be included in this noble venture.
We all know how important a name is, and deciding on a title that is readily understood is paramount. But I appreciated the chance to look at JOVE, which I admire for two reasons: 1. the functionality and purpose
2. It's name, which is a pronounceable acronym.
I was playing around with words like FUSE and BLEND, to see if the letters produced a title that flows off the tongue -- minimally like AWSM but not AEJMC.
I thought of JOEM (Journal of Evolutionary Media) as an example of me struggling to find a word that doesn't carry the baggage of convergence, multimedia or (new, which is my all-time least favorite).
I've heard the debates about "convergence" being passe, and that may be true. Personally, I think in time adjectives will be under-necessary preceding News, Journalism, Media or Content. But I do believe that for the immediate future and given the mission of this journal that we give a nod to meshed media of some kind.
I also think we should give some thought to the terms Journalism, Media, News and Content. Those distinctions are ones we've wrestled with in the Online News Association because our membership and industry keeps growing and experimenting in new ways to communicate.
What about Journal of Converging/Convergent/Converged Content (JOCC, pronounced Jock)?
Not easy stuff, huh?
Best,
Jody
Hi, Bob and All,
Here are my thoughts.
1. Ten years or twenty years from now, when another generation looks back, they will notice that convergence was a hot phenomenon at the turn of the 21st century, when news people tried to switch to the digital delivery approaches from the analog approaches. Convergence at that time, people in the future will notice, was mainly about disseminating news through newspapers, TV, radio and the Internet to access different audience. However, in the foreseeable future, convergence will become nothing but digital convergence. That is, all these platforms, including newspaper, will turn purely digital. The meaning of the term "convergence" will eventually turn into the convergence and coordination of the contents across multiple digital media platforms if such phenomenon is not already happening. How should news people write, produce, deliver, and coordinate texts and visuals for different digital platforms and help generate, integrate and interact with the user-generated contents is a whole lot to learn for everybody in the next decade and beyond, let alone the impact of such media practices on democracy, law, ethics and so on. I am afraid such complexity can hardly be revealed by the term multimedia. The term "convergence" might be passé, but that is the phenomenon that we went through and lengthily talked about at the turn of the century and that we and our future generation(s) will continue to experience and explore in the many years to come. Therefore, I tend to agree with Mark Deuze’s view that the term “convergence” can cover much more than the term “multimedia” can and that whatever the final name is, including the term “convergence” in the name is not inappropriate.
2. In addition, an academic journal’s name needs to show academic seriousness. While I certainly appreciate the novelty of amusing acronyms, such as FUSE and BLEND proposed by Jody, I am afraid university P&T committee will naturally raise their eyebrows at their faculty’s articles published on online journals with such a title though the proposed journal, as I understand, is not purely online. Call me old school. I do believe an academic journal needs to carry a stern name if not a stern face as well.
3. The most prominent and successful convergence journal today is Convergence based in Britain published by Sage (http://convergence.beds.ac.uk/). It publishes articles regarding convergence in journalism and beyond. To avoid overall overlapping, the proposed journal needs a unique identity. If we all agree that we should limit the scope of conversation in the journal to journalism, then, the term “journalism” or equivalent needs to be included in the title.
4. Though including the term “journal” in the title is enticing, leaving it out can be more inclusive to multimedia presentations and more friendly to the non-academic submitters, I guess. Many famous journals don’t have the word “journal” in the title, such as Nature and Science, but their academic seriousness is not affected.
Based on the above thoughts, I propose “Converged Journalism.”
Edgar Huang
Edgar -
It's great to connect with you again and, as usual, your thoughtful analysis is useful.
If I'm going to lose the Multimedia argument, I will do so gracefully.
I can support "Converged (or Convergence) Journalism."
DW
In the Editorial Board thread, Jody put forth Journal of Integrated Media as a possible name, and John Cokley replied
-------
Nice possibility! However, there might be confusion between us and the Integrated Media Association, which is not really journalism: http://www.integratedmedia.org/home.cfm.
And perhaps a risk of sliding into the territory of "New Media and Society".
-------
While I like "integrated" and the JIM name, I would agree with John--in fact, the Applied Integrated Media graduate program I teach in is much broader than just journalism.
And, as Edgar also noted in his well-conceived post, the concern here is in the overlapping with Convergence, as well as New Media and Society, both excellent journals but with a much broader focus--and that we should probably keep "journalism" in the title.
As I've mulled over all of the great dialogue, I've decided to change my vote--ironically, to the very first name suggested a month ago, by John:
Convergent Journalism Research
(or Convergence Journalism Research).
The "Research" moniker gets us away from the repetition in Journal of Convergent Journalism, yet at the same time differentiates our publication from a book title (in fact, Convergence/Convergent Journalism by itself would be virtually identical to books by Stephen and Janet). And, the "Research" in the title helps give it the ethos/gravitas that several of you wisely noted is important for P&T committees.
As an aside, while cjr.org is naturally taken by the Columbia Journalism Review, the convergentjournalismresearch.org (and convergence and .com variants) domain name has not been taken.
To play devil's advocate, Edgar's point out non-academics submitting is a good one: if the word "Journal" in the title scares them off, then "Research" in the title might be even more intimidating. And, we will be printing, er, scratch that--publishing more than just research, I assume.
Let's keep the discussion going. Steve, you want to argue more for Multimedia? Andrew/Tim, for Interactive?
Jody/Alfred for Integrated? or Online, parallelling the ONA? Others?
And for/against keeping "journal" or "research" in the title? (or both, a la Newspaper Research Journal?). Perhaps dropping them and going with Edgar's "Converged Journalism"?
Let's get some more comments and then I'll do an email vote with 3-4 of the top names y'all seem to be most interested in.
Good roundup, Bob. Much appreciated all that effort in summarizing. My 2 cents? I cede to the group on preference on Integrated/Blended/Converged, etc. I feel more strongly about "Research." Whereas I understand its historical gravitas in academe, I think it might limit us, perhaps not fully expressing the breadth of what's planned, with community, etc.
Therefore my vote goes to Converged Journalism. In the end, I'm left wondering if "Journal" is a term left to the old ways of sharing research. Why not use this online-only effort to step away from the image of book and pages that the word journal conveys?
Just another thought...
I'm thrilled to join this conversation. Thanks, Bob, for inviting me!
I acknowledge that the name of a journal is a crucial part of its future. And that makes me wonder if "convergence", "interactivity", "multimedia" are the bottom line of our research interests. Let me put forward the idea of "innovation in journalism" as one possible way to define the overarching theme of what we are researching.
20 years from now, concepts about trends in journalism may have changed, but we will still be researching innovations in newsmaking.
Therefore, despite joining the debate pretty late, I dare to propose another title proposal:
"Journal of Innovation in Journalism"
There are some online references with these keywords, but don't think they will conflict with the journal:
- Center for Innovation in Journalism funded by American Public Media.
- Innovation Journalism, an online series of essays and conferences on how journalism reports on social/technological innovations.
David Domingo
I think "Convergence" as a word is making a comeback of sorts (or at least the academic community is catching up with what's going on). Most of the position postings I see for what would be "traditional" journalism jobs note that the department is making/has made/will make a transition to convergence curriculum. Thus, The Journal of Convergent Journalism or something along those lines would work well.
Vince
Hi everyone:
Sorry I am coming in on this a little late. Without being to redundant, I do echo some of the thoughts that many of you have shared.
I am not so much a fan of having the word "journal" in the title. Journal of … Journalism just sounds weird to me.
I am also not a fan of "interactive" because I think it's a tricky word. Where do you draw the line? I think what WE mean when we say "interactive" is something more like "emerging" media, "multimedia," etc. But defining "interactive" clearly is impossible because we "interact" in some way with all media, traditional and otherwise.
I also agree with Vince's post. Convergence IS what we're talking about here, even if the term itself has caused people to roll their eyes a bit lately.
As a graphic journalist, online developer, Flash developer, etc., I have never had a problem with the term multimedia, either. To me, multimedia implies a convergence of multiple types of storytelling. But, that may just be my personal interpretation.
Anyway, I could get on board with Convergent Journalism, but I like Journalism and Convergence more.
Bob,
Sorry I have taken so long to weigh in on this issue. I've enjoyed reading back through the vigorous discussions on this topic.
I'm feeling really good about Convergent (or Convergence) Journalism Research.
First, an apology for weighing in so late. The death of my mother in late October made November a less-than-ideal time for me, as you might imagine.
Reviewing the original post and all of the replies, I have the following thoughts.
First, the very definition of journalism is up for debate. Those of us on this board, I think, have a very different definition of journalism than the students we teach. We see journalism as a profession staffed by trained professionals. They see journalism as what anyone does with an internet connection and a blog or twitter account. The advent of "citizen journalism" and the push by CNN's "iReports" has only further advanced that view of our profession among the younger generation. We may not agree with that, but that's how it is.
Likewise, when we think of "Convergence" or "Multimedia" journalism, do we think of blogs and twitter in that context? Do those terms evoke thoughts of journalism outside of the traditional forms of print, video and audio simply packaged in\ a different way. I feel that we are experiencing a fundamental shift in how news is reported, not just packaged, and therefore I wonder if terms like Convergence or Multimedia are really appropriate, given what they exclude, rather than include.
I agree with Edgar that "Journal" does not necessarily need to be a part of the title; and I agree with others that including "Journal" and "Journalism" in the title together seems a bit redundant.
I also liked Jody's suggestion of "Evolutionary" in the name of the title. That suggests that the we are examining all aspects of the field, including those which might become extinct or be dead ends along the way. It's also broad enough to avoid pigeonholing us, or rather, our contributors, into a particular mindset regarding what the submission should be about. However, "Evolutionary" didn't make Bob's final cut, so I'll let that dog lie.
This probably comes too late to influence the vote, since I waited until Bob's e-mail to vote on the name to get over here and do this, but that's my fault.
Post a Comment