EFICIENCIA DEL SISTEMA FINANCIERO (2005) Costos

Role theory account for what is known today as journalistic role conceptions. The idea that journalists’ conception of their professional roles likely influences the media output and that certain independent variables influence journalistic role conceptions dates back to the turn of

20th _{century (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1986, 1996). However, with wide scale interactive}

technology adoption in and outside newsrooms, the concept of journalistic roles remains a rich vein of research for current scholarship. As it is rightly observed by Hanitsch (2007), in journalism studies, no area of research has flourished more than the inquiry into the professional roles of journalism. Both the theory and the concept have landed firmly on the contemporary research agenda.

Figure 2.5: Professional roles of journalists (Source: Hanitsch, n.d.)

It is important to mention that studies on journalistic role conceptions are marked by a set of variant terminologies which often constitute unnecessary complexity in the approaches to research. The earliest term referred to professional roles of journalists as “press functions” (Scott, 1931) or the roles and functions of the mass media (Laswell, 1948; Wright 1960; see also Siebert, Peterson & Schramm, 1963). Other terminologies such as “role

Role Orientations

Role Enactment

Role Performance

Normative _Subjective

66

perceptions/conceptions” (Chung, Nah & Carpenter, 2013; Skovsgaard et al., 2013) and media roles are also popular concepts for referring to the professional roles of journalists. More recent studies refer to concepts such as “news ideologies” or “journalistic paradigms” (Hanitzsch, 2007). In the general literature on journalistic role conceptions, three terms are often used as pointers to the exact approach for assessing features of professional roles of journalists in various contexts (Figure 4.7). These are role orientations, role enactment and role performance.

Role orientations refer to the values, attitudes and beliefs with regards to the position of journalism in society as well as the professional roles journalists embrace in relation to the media systems being practised in the society. The approach focuses on journalists’ perceptions or subjective understandings as these roles are product of their cognitive faculties. Role orientations are mutually realised as normative and subjective. Hanitzsch, in his online essay on “role conceptions and professional values worldwide”, explains that while normative orientations appear external to the journalists which manifests under the influences of the social system forces. Subjective orientations, on the other hand, incorporate the occupational values and beliefs which individual journalists embrace consequent upon their professional socialisation and the internalisation of normative expectations. Next is the role enactment which underpins the process by which role orientations is being carried out. The assumption here is that journalists’ perceptions of their social role shape their beats as well as the stories they ultimately craft (Shoemaker and Reese, 1996; Tandoc et al., 2013; Reich & Hanitzsch, 2013). And thirdly is role performance which, according to Hanitzsch, is used to capture the professional roles of journalists as they are executed in practice. Role performance operates at the behavioural domain which can be mutually realised as the factual role performance, that role which is actually played by the journalists and received accordingly by the public (audiences). The factual role performance can be measured through observation and content analysis. On the other part is perceived role performance which is also cognitive based (as in role orientations) and refers to journalists’ subjective understandings of their practiced roles that are bound to the individual journalists’ self-awareness and self-image. The current study aligns with the domain of role orientation and as well shares its conceptualisation with the subjective part of role performance. However, the scope of this study does not cover the role enactment paradigm or an evaluation of how the audience receive the projected image or professional identity of journalists in their use of new communication technologies.

Historically, early discussions on journalistic role conceptions are traceable to the emergence from sociology and social psychology in the 1920s as what is generally known as role theory (cf. Biddle & Thomas, 1966, p. 6). By the 1960s a wide variety of fields were

67

analysing the concepts and categories of role theory, with different fields tapping on the possibilities of role theory to explain professional roles. There was the Talcott Parsons’ empiricist proposition and the notion that culture or institutions could only be studied as internalised elements of individuals (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). The interpretation is that role theory could account for institutions simply by studying individuals who hold places within the institutions. Other two most recent traditions are the “symbolic interactionist role theory” and “functional role theory” of the mid-1970s (see Biddle, 1986, p. 71; Sarbin & Allen, 1982, p. 52).

However, the concept of role conceptions took shape in the journalism literature as a result of mass media scholars’ discussions about role of the media and research based on logical locus that certain independent variables influence role conception. The discussions were not originally targeted at defining the journalistic roles, but that of the entire industry. The earliest formulation can be seen in Harold Lasswell’s and Charles Wright quadratic media functions. For instance, as observed by Vos (2009, Online), the initial definitions from pioneers such as Lasswell’s and Wright’s echo one of Cohen’s (1963) ideas concerning journalistic role conception. He refers to this as a reporter’s conception (a journalist idea or belief) about his professional tasks (Cohen, 1963, p.25). Thus, presenting the interface between role theory and journalistic role conception from Cohen’s discussions provide useful insight into the genesis of journalistic role conceptions studies.

Other notable scholars in the development of theoretical orientations for analysing journalistic role conceptions are Johnstone, Slawski and Bowman (1976), Stark and Soloski (1977), Culbertson (1983), Weaver and Wilhoit (1986, 1996), Kocher (1986), Zhu, Weaver, Lo, Chen, and Wu (1997). For instance, Johnstone et al. (1976) idea of journalistic role conceptions also touches on some of the features of more formal role theory. Journalistic functions is in synch with the functionalist camp of role theorists which, as earlier mentioned, holds that role conception must embrace social responsibilities of journalists. Their discussions stress on the notion that any studies on journalistic role conceptions should consider the self (i.e. the individual reporter) in role enactment. By observing either a number of journalists or a single journalist repeatedly is a worthy exercise in determining “patterns of beliefs” (Johnstone et al., 1976, p. 120), since beliefs are not necessarily fully organized by the individual.

Stark and Soloski (1977) provide a unique lexeme for their interpretation of role conceptions. By referring to a reporter’s “predisposition” (p. 121), they see role conceptions as a bias, meaning that reporters have preconceived notion that affect how they do their jobs.

68

According to Vos (2009, Online), predisposition brings into the open the epistemological significance of the concept of journalistic role conception. With a term like predisposition it would mean that journalists’ role conceptions are a matter of the journalists’ worldview.

Culbertson (1983), Kocher (1986), and Dillon (1990) also make reference to “viewpoint”, “ideologies” and “professional identities” of the functionalist role theorists in their narrative on journalistic role conceptions. These terms elicit deeper information about the individual or personality enacting a role. Role conceptions therefore are attitudinal, or of circumstances of an individual measurable in empirical studies. This position is further strengthened by the use of “personal perspectives” (Culbertson, 1983, p. 2). Culbertson’s (1983) factor analysis of journalists’ role conceptions also referenced institutional factor that may shape role conceptions. His study suggests an institutionalization of role in something outside the individual journalist – a location different than the mental location, self or the individual. It is worthy of note that Culbertson’s (1983) reference tallies with the “subjective norm” and “social influence” constructs of extant theories of technology adoption. The institutional factor also shares its interpretation in Lin’s (2003) social factors interpreted as the influence of an adopter’s communication networks, including peer group (Iyengar, Van den Bulte & Valente, 2011) on their technology adoption behaviour (see also Venkatesh & Brown, 2001). I anticipate a dual influence coming from institutional factor and/or social influence on both role conceptions and technology adoption use behaviour.

Cohen (1963) identifies “the neutral reporter and the reporter as participant” (p. 22-31) in his operational interpretation of a reporter’s roles. Cohen’s conceptualisation best places the role of a reporter partly in the reporter (self) and partly in the institution. Likewise, Johnstone et al. (1976) provide for “pure ideological types” which equally embrace the “neutral” and “participant” reporter roles dichotomy. They would later refer to these roles as “Whole Truthers” and “Nothing-but-the-Truthers” (1976, p. 120). These two division best situate a reporter’s roles in the reporter and in the institution of the press.

Weaver and Wilhoit’s (1986) study sees journalists role from three spheres rather than two. They operationalize role conceptions as “adversarial, interpretive, and disseminating” (1986, p. 115). This typifies journalists as an advisor, interpreter or disseminator of information and who have an “orientation” to see their roles in distinct ways (1986, p. 117). Role to them is defined as the American journalists’ “view” of their responsibilities. Within this frame, there is no sense that the role is located in the press as an institution; it is either in reporters or “among” reporters – as a group/community of people defined norm. Weaver and Wilhoit add the fourth dimension – the “populist mobilizer function” a decade later (1996, p. 140). By

69

profiling journalists who embrace these different typologies of roles, they were able to place majority of American journalists into the interpretative role. With this their conception, journalistic roles is located in the reporter, since these reporters are assumed to be conscious of their roles. Culbertson (1983) also sees three divisions as representing journalistic role conceptions. But these are labelled differently as “3 belief clusters” – the interpretive, traditional, and activist (1983, p. 1) when referring to the role conceptions. Two divisional paradigms are also espoused by Kocher (1986) in his study of German and British journalists. He labels role conceptions as “Bloodhounds” and “Missionaries” (Kocher, 1986, p. 43). However, underlining the catchy label is the location of roles in individual reporter, rather than in the press institution.

Within African contexts, a few studies have equally documented their findings on what constitute African journalists’ role conceptions, following the scale provided in Western studies. In spite of the differences such as regularly contested frameworks of press freedom, political pluralism, and poor working condition that contextualized these studies, their findings reflect some of the general themes established in earlier studies conducted in Europe and America. For instance in his work on Cameroonian journalists’ role conceptions, Ngomba (2010) presents a review of some prominent studies from which African journalists’ role conceptions have been explored. The review coverage includes journalists from some African Countries such as Tanzania, Algeria, Uganda, and Egypt (e.g. Lederbogen, 1992; Kirat, 1998; Ramparasad, 2001; 2003; Mwesige, 2004), with NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development), a non-governmental agency, spearheading some research along this direction. Ngomba (2010) observed that these studies make similar conclusions as the Western studies, pointing out that in spite of contextual differences, journalists in Africa tend to share the same role conceptions ideas with their Western counterparts. Kanyegirire (2006) stresses that African journalists have adopted and adapted several ideas from the Western and Post-colonial development journalism models to their contexts. This domestication of universal ideology/ professional role conception has a convergence domain where, within multiple views of journalistic functions, liberal objectivist and developmental dimensions are added as part of an effort to satisfy conflicting and diverse needs of their profession and their developing societies (Ebo, 1994 cited in Kanyegirire, 2006, p. 162).

Ngomba (2010) identifies the source of friction and volatile relationship between African states and their journalists to be an attempt by African journalists to practically reconcile the “demands” of these two models. Interpreting this within the frame of identity (re)construction model (Oni, 2013), African journalists can be said to be manipulating their

70

operational face and contextually role-playing based on the script prescribed by work setting and available artifacts. This interpretation becomes vivid in view of other findings that African journalists considered “dissemination of information about development activities”, “promotion of national unity”, or “societal growth”, to be the most important role of the mass media and/or news maker (Oni, 2014; Wete, 1986) and pointing the differences among English- speaking and French-speaking Cameroonian journalists to the different journalism cultures inherited from both the British and French colonization of Cameroon.

Though journalists’ role conceptions studies in Africa are at best scanty, Ngomba (2010) worked with Cameroonian political journalists to determine their professional role conceptions as first order in the “Fourth Estate of the Realm”. He (or she?) finds that Cameroonian (by extension African) journalists’ espouse roles which can be grouped into the

following four categories: the teacher/educator/informant role, the watchdog/surveillance

role, agenda-setting role, and social responsibility role (Ngomba, 2010, p. 14).

From these discussions so far, the multidimensionality of the concept of journalistic role conceptions have been established. The chapter has presented the multi-disciplinary perspectives from which the reviewed authors have drawn their common but divergent operational definitions and theoretical orientations in role theory. The uniqueness of these different interventions has enabled the mapping of academic discussions on role theory and journalistic role conceptions in particular. This has also helped in finding the trajectory for this current study. The review exercise so far has presented the opportunity of constructing an integrated model of technology adoption in journalism and its adoption for the task of studying the extent to which technology adoption for participatory programming in broadcasting could shape or shaped by broadcast journalists’ conception of their roles. The community of southwest Nigerian broadcast journalists would afford us a situation to empirically study dynamism in newsroom within media and allied studies theoretical frames.

71

Figure 2.6: Conceptual Framework: An Integrated Model of Technology Adoption in Broadcast Journalism