Skip to content

A couple of good questions

March 24, 2010

This week I’ve had an email conversation with a journalism academic keen to come to grips with where writing for Research Journalism will sit in relation to her other journalism and academic work.

She asked good questions about ethics and peer review  that I answered by going back to conversations I’ve had with others about the journal. I thought they were worth sharing, edited for brevity, for others who may be wondering about the same things, or who may want to comment on these editorial decisions.

Q:

I’m thinking of submitting a script from a radio documentary I co-produced [a few years ago] that won a Walkley for radio documentary. It has a great transcript but the project was not run through ethics at my university. I am a .5 appointment and the fuss about research and practice based work has not been encouraging – so I have always argued that my ABC productions are separate from my [university] job and then argued that they count as research. If you find this confusing, well so do I but for some time it has satisfied [the university] because it means they don’t fund my research but count it for their funding … or something like that.

A:

The main problem is not with the ethics committee, but with the fact that the work can’t be blind peer reviewed because your name is already firmly attached to it.

As an editor I am not obliged to ask about ethics approval. And I would take an article from a freelance journalist who is not attached to a university without requiring her to find an HREC, so if you submit as an individual rather than as an employee of your university then that is fine. Your university can wrestle with its own conscience about whether it will or won’t “count” it as research, despite the lack of HREC approval. But I suspect that it will count it.

 I do want to get on well with HRECs though, so I am asking all writers to make a clear declaration about ethics approvals. If you didn’t get approval just state that that is the case and that you followed MEAA ethics (if you did, and if not why not). The upshot of this is that, as with journalism, if you have been unethical it will come back on you, not on me or your university’s HREC.

The idea of the journal is that it will be publishing new work, and getting it blind peer reviewed by three journalism academics before it runs in the mainstream media. This is meant to ensure that the quality is high, and the peer review process actually improves the quality, it doesn’t just check it. (You get three amazing people reading your work and advising you about how it can be better).

As such, I am more interested in whatever you are working on now, than something that you produced a few years ago, especially as it has already had a good run.

Q:

Thanks for the clarification about the ethics.  

However – I don’t know if the issue of the peer review is quite as straightforward.  

Program producers broadcasting nationally on the ABC might have considerable problems planning broadcast dates around blind peer reviews.  I really am not trying to be picky and value the opportunity to publish professional work in a journal with an important task but I am struggling a bit.

For example the latest documentary I worked on went to air last Sunday and we finished editing it on the Saturday – the day before. I realise that there are very few sane people who listen to documentaries on ABC Radio National – but some of them COULD be journalism academics.

I suppose that peer review could happen offshore to avoid any chance of listeners but then there is the internet and podcasts. The point is that because of news values the broadcast would precede any academic journal submission – especially where there is a considerable amount of investigation that requires legal scrutiny by the broadcaster.

I don’t think that I am unusual in my working habits and, if I am missing something obvious here, I would welcome your advice.

A:

I think the best way to operate may be for you to work in two mediums, because it is important that your work for the journal is a significant new contribution not just a re-use of material produced for other reasons.

 So, if you are investigating a topic for ABC radio, do your investigation and keep track your sources etc, make your radio piece and let it go to air, with your name on it, as ABC requires. Then use your interviews and your research to write a text piece that could be longer and more detailed than the radio piece, and wrap around it an exegesis about why it was an important topic, the methodology you used, limitations, significance etc.

 Don’t mention that you were the author of the piece that ran on the ABC. Just make it a good stand alone piece that you or a colleague or another journalist could have done. This piece can then be genuinely blind peer reviewed and published in Research Journalism, and at the point of publication, where the blind can be lifted, we can link it to the ABC piece on the ABC website, or we can attach the ABC sound file to the piece. If at that point the ABC want to attach the Research Journalism piece to the original piece, or commission you to do a follow up radio piece, that’s all possible too.

 Post by Kayt Davies (Editor)

Advertisements

From → Posts

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: