FACING THE FUTURE:
Attitudes of Journalism Educators and Students
About New Media Technology
It has become impossible to use any of our traditional news media without
being told something about how those uses, as well as the media
themselves,
are being transformed. Information about information -- the
Information Age,
the Information Superhighway, the Information Revolution -- is
inescapable
and, inescapably, contributes to the ways in which those changes are
perceived. For journalists and journalism educators, the bombardment hits
particularly close to home. As members of the general public, of course,
they
see the same stories as everyone else: about business deals made and
broken,
about shifting communication policies, about the real and potential
impacts
of technological change. The number of such stories is increasing by
exponential leaps and bounds; for example, the term "information
superhighway," which appeared in seven news stories in 23 major print
and
broadcast outlets in January and February 1992, appeared in 1,145
stories in
those same media in the first two months of 1994. (Pavlik and Szanto,
1994)
But as people in the business of communication themselves, media
professionals face additional pressures. Quite aside from the
voluminous
coverage in the mainstream press, journalists cannot open an industry
publication without being told how their own jobs have changed, are changing
and will continue to change. Articles on new media technology and its
implications for journalists appear with increasing frequency in the
nation's
two major journalism reviews, as well as in Quill, the publication of
the
profession's largest umbrella
FACING THE FUTURE
organization, the Society of Professional Journalists. A small sample of
offerings within the past two years:
* American Journalism Review reported last year that although
phone companies, cable systems and entertainment producers
are "rushing headlong into the new interactive world," the
print media are trying "to figure out how they fit in."
(Moeller, 1994) AJR also reported recently on explorations
of alternate delivery mechanisms by both Knight-Ridder and
the Tribune Company, publisher of the Chicago Tribune.
* Last fall, Columbia Journalism Review offered an article titled
"Opening Up, Online: What Happens When the Public Comes at
You From Cyberspace?" The benefits, according to the story,
include "a heightening of journalistic accountability and
the opportunity to know better the needs of the people
journalism serves, notions too often overlooked in the world
of paper and ink." (Wolff, 1994) A year earlier, as part
of a cover story titled "Future Tense: Riding the High-Tech
Wave," CJR offered this vision of "tomorrow's journalist":
"The reporters (the ones equipped with the multimedia kits)
will come to their editors and say `Here are the still
photos we need to shoot, here's the video we need, here's
the audio to record, here are some new ways to illustrate
this information, and here's my script.' Editors will have
to be equally adept." (Oppenheimer, 1993)
* Quill has been especially devoted to covering industry change. Its
March 1995 cover, for example, offered "Big Talk From
Online Services: Who's Got What for Journalists." The
previous spring, back-to-back issues featured a special
report on new information technology and its impact on media
content, economics and employees, followed by an issue whose
cover story was "TV News in the Information Age: Boom or
Bust?" Articles included "Will The Techno Tsunami Wash Us
Out?" and "Driving the Info Highway Without a Map." Quill's "Technology
and the Media" section also provides regular
updates on journalistic forays into the online world.
Journalism educators, who help shape the ideas and attitudes of those
joining the profession, also have begun to be inundated with information
about new media technology. Academic exploration of the new media in
their
first decade was relatively sparse, with articles on "new technology"
accounting for just under 10 percent of the articles that were specifically
about telecommunications in 15 scholarly journals from 1984 to 1989.
(Vincent, 1991) But that pace has picked up considerably in the 1990s.
Articles now appear with some regularity in the Journal of Communication,
Journalism Quarterly and Communication Research, along with many of the
more
narrowly focused scholarly journals. Topics of recent discussion have
ranged
from the application of First Amendment rights to the Baby Bells as
the
telephone system becomes "a significant information medium to which mass
comm
unication concepts ... are relevant" (O'Neill, 1994) to an examination
of
virtual reality, described in the editor's note prefacing a special
Journal
of Communication symposium as "too important, too wondrous, too
powerful, to
permit continued disciplinary ignorance." (Levy, 1992)
In light of the growing attention to new media among both journalists and
journalism educators, this exploratory study considers the attitudes
toward
the new media among one group of soon-to-be journalists and current
journalism professors. It attempts to increase our understanding of the
concerns that may shape not only journalists' own decisions to adopt these
innovations but also the way journalists and journalism educators
structure
communication about evolving technologies for their audience. That
audience
includes journalism students, researchers and practitioners, as well
as
members of the reading and viewing public.
After the method and results are described, the results will be discussed in
the context of the theory of diffusion of innovation. This theory is
appropriate because both journalism educators and their students, who are
about to become new newsroom employees, are likely to play a vital role
in
shaping attitudes toward new media.
METHOD
Journalism students and faculty members at a major Midwestern university
described their attitudes by Q-sorting statements about new media. "New
media" means different things to different people. For some, cable TV may
be
viewed as a new medium. Others would not think of cable as new but
might
think of hypertext and interactive media as new, while still others may
not
yet even be fully aware of those technologies. Therefore, for the
purpose of
this study, the term "new media" was not defined for the participants.
Rather
than being limited to a definition that might have excluded or
included more
than their perceptions, participants were left to define the term for
themselves.
Q methodology (described in McKeown and Thomas, 1988, and Brown, 1980) was
used for this study because it is particularly well-suited to
developing
exploratory understandings of people's attitudes -- an appropriate goal
given
the newness of the study of new media. Q methodology does not make
claims to
generalizability, but provides a rich depiction of the attitudes of
small
groups or even individuals.
Subjects were almost equally divided among three groups: undergraduate
students, graduate students and faculty. All of the graduate students and
faculty had professional journalism experience, and seven of 13
undergraduates had professional or intern experience. The 42 subjects
ranged
in age from 19 to 67, with a median of 34. Twenty-four were women. All
were
computer-literate. All but seven had used Internet or e-mail; half had
a home
computer with a modem.
The subjects were asked to read a sample of opinion statements (e.g., "The
new media will narrow the information gap between the rich and the
poor") and
place them along an 11-point scale that ranged from most disagree (-
5) to
most agree (+ 5). Forty-eight statements were used from several hundred
gathered from articles in the popular and professional press about new
media,
as well as from personal interviews with faculty and students. The
statements
drawn from the larger pool were chosen to express the range of
viewpoints in
the larger group. The statements are presented in Table I.
Following normal Q-methodology procedures (McKeown and Thomas, 1988; Brown,
1980), the Q-sorts were correlated and factor-analyzed, producing four
attitudinal types, or ways of thinking about new media. After varimax
rotation, the principal components matrix accounted for 53 percent of the
variance (19, 14, 11 and 9 percent, respectively). Factor loadings of
.420
were considered significant (p <.01).
Standardized statement arrays for each factor also are presented in Table I.
For any factor, the two highest (+) Z-scores can be considered
equivalent to
+ 5 on the original 11-point scale.
Factor One, with 15 subjects, was the largest. Two-thirds female, the
factor's median age was 38. All but three had used the Internet or e-mail,
and eight had home computers with modems. All but one had professional
experience.
Factor Two had 14 subjects and a median age of 34. It was equally split
between women and men and between those with or without home computers
and
modems. All but two had journalism experience.
Six of the eight people on Factor Three were men. All but one on the factor
had used Internet or e-mail, although only two had access to a
computer at
home. Half had professional experience. The median age was 26, although
the
factor included the study's oldest participant, a 67-year-old male.
All of the five on Factor Four were men with considerable journalistic
experience. All were Internet or e-mail users, but only two had home
computers with modems. The median age was 37.
Interpretation of the factors incorporated use of the demographic data, the
factor Q-arrays and the comments that subjects made about the
statements with
which they most agreed and disagreed.
RESULTS
Based on the interpretations, the factors were named (I) Champions of
Change, (II) Pessimistic Prophets, (III) Laid-Back Liberals and (IV)
Skeptical Optimists.
FACTOR ONE: Champions of Change
Champions of Change are ready for the computer age. They are by far the most
eager of all the factors to be a part of the change they see coming
on, as
well as the least concerned about its social implications. They see
tremendous potential for the new media to improve their own lives. They
believe these media are empowering and will fundamentally affect both the
way
we access information as consumers and the way we provide it as
journalists.
Champions of Change, who make up the largest of the factors, include nine
women and six men, with ages ranging from late teens to mid-40s.
Although
they believe they have seen the future, the image may be somewhat
illusory
for some; two of the three people who loaded most heavily on this
factor
indicate they do not use the Internet or e-mail and do not have a
computer
with a modem at home.
Champions of Change are prepared to incorporate new media technology into
their lives, including their jobs, their entertainment and the way
they
communicate. They agree most strongly (+ 5, z=2.21) with Statement 1 ("The
possibilities created by new media technology are exciting"), an
emotional
statement rather than one that expresses a more concrete aspect of new
media.
Part of their excitement stems from the opportunities they see new
technologies providing for both audience and media. The audience will gain an
increased role through the ability to provide almost instant feedback
to
media organizations. And those organizations, in addition to being able
to
provide news and entertainment on demand, will need to incorporate the
feedback into their product.
But Champions of Change, while they recognize both the personal and
institutional potential of new media, also realize new technologies place a
burden on the existing media and on those associated with it. Beyond
their
initial excitement, they recognize that new technologies mean
journalists
will need to learn new ways of writing and working; they strongly agreed
(+
5, z=1.80) with Statement 5 ("The new media will call for different
ways of
teaching people how to write and work for the media"). These are
people who
ought to know; only one of our 15 Champions does not have at least
some
professional journalism experience. They see the new technology as a boost
to
the industry IF the industry learns to use it; they agreed more
strongly than
any of the other factors (+ 4, z=1.74) with Statement 30 ("It is
important
for the future of the newspapers that they try to exploit their
information
franchise to develop products for readers that use existing and
emerging
electronic technologies").
Champions of Change are the only factor to agree (+ 2, z=0.80) with
Statement 26 ("If, as author/journalist John Katzenbach says, `Information is
the currency of journalism,' you had better learn how to operate the
ATM
because there often isn't a teller anymore"). As one respondent said,
"With
advertising and circulation declining and other companies jumping into
the
information business, it's essential to the long-term survival of
newspapers
that they use these new forms of communication."
These attitudes also show up in the statements with which Champions of
Change most disagree. Someone afraid of being replaced by a machine would
not
be excited about the new technology and, in fact, our Champions do not
think
the changes they foresee will eliminate their jobs. They disagree most
heartily with Statements 7 ("New media technology will eventually eliminate
my job"; z=-1.76) and 39 ("Interactive media will make journalists
obsolete";
z=-1.71). "Far from eliminating my job," one respondent exclaimed,
"new media
technologies will create jobs we haven't imagined yet -- thousands of
them!"
Champions of Change also strongly disagree (- 3, z=-1.19) with Statement 21
("New media potentially could decrease the number of viewpoints"). One
person
who loaded heavily on this factor said new technology "will increase
the
number of viewpoints because more choice of stories and columns will be
available. Papers don't have the space to run them now. Electronic papers
can
have nearly unlimited news hole." In fact, the potential that
Champions see
in the new technology even exceeds the promotional efforts of media
organizations; they disagree (- 3, z=-1.26) with Statement 46 ("The
capabilities of interactive media are over-rated").
Champions of Change, then, think new media technology will cause fundamental
changes in the way people communicate, gain knowledge and entertain
themselves. And although they have some reservations about those changes,
they appear unafraid of them. Champions see the new media as something
they
can control, not as something that controls them. They disagree with
the
Pessimistic Prophets of Factor Two, for example, about the manipulative
power
of new media. Nor do they see new media as necessarily divisive, as do
the
Laid-Back Liberals on Factor Three. Like the Skeptical Optimists on
Factor
Four (with whom they have much in common), they believe new media
actually
can strengthen our sense of community.
Champions of Change are not blind to possible social problems caused by new
media, however. Privacy troubles them the most -- as can be expected
from
someone who envisions himself or herself personally using new media and
thus
thinks of problems as a user, not an outsider. The Champion is in
control of
his or her own use of the new media -- but cannot control what use
OTHERS may
make of the information available and is somewhat troubled by that
fact. For
example, Champions of Change disagree rather strongly (- 4, z=-1.40)
with
Statement 22 ("Privacy is not a problem with the new media"), and
express
some concern about the potential for government regulation, as well.
They
also may recognize other ethical concerns; Champions of Change agree (+
3,
z=1.10) with Statement 4 ("There are some serious ethical problems
related to
the new media technology"), and one respondent commented that "the
widening
of the information gap and knowledge gap has been one of my concerns
for 10
years."
As a group, Champions of Change believe a communications revolution is not
far away. They are comfortable with both technology and the prospect
of
change.
FACTOR TWO: Pessimistic Prophets
Like biblical prophets, the seven women and seven men on our Factor Two cry
out about the social ills they see looming because of a destructive
activity
that society will practice only at its peril. Pessimistic Prophets see
serious problems with new media and may believe they are trying to warn of
the dangers while everyone else is extolling the virtues of
technological
change: "New media comes in disguised as a friend," says one. The
Pessimistic
Prophets are afraid of new media technology and feel overwhelmed by
it. Only
one of the five statements with which they agreed most strongly was
optimistic.
The Pessimistic Prophets' strongest fear about the social effects of new
technology centers on a concern about manipulation of the individual
user;
the Prophet is particularly worried by authoritarian aspects of new
media
that threaten deeply held values and beliefs. The Prophets disagreed
most
strongly (- 5, z=-2.36) -- and much more vehemently than did any other
factor
-- with Statement 16 ("I am not concerned about the potential for
manipulation"). And they were alone in agreeing (+ 4, z=1.09) with
Statement
19 ("A tool is something you manipulate; technology manipulates you.
That's a
danger of new media"). As the woman who loaded most purely on this
factor
commented: "New media is the potential for manipulation. If allowed, it
could
be a problem beyond control. It's bad enough already."
Perhaps for similar reasons, Pessimistic Prophets are worried about privacy.
They disagree strongly (- 4, z=-2.03) with the statement that "Privacy
is not
a problem with the new media." More broadly, they express a strong
concern
with ethical implications of new technology. The statement with which
they
agreed most strongly (+ 5, z=2.11) was Statement 4 ("There are some
serious
ethical problems related to the new media"); not only was their
z-score on
that statement significantly higher (a difference of greater than 1.0)
than
that of any other factor, it also was 0.73 higher than their OWN
z-scores for
any other statement with which they agreed. As one Pessimistic
Prophet put
it, "Privacy, truth and fairness will decrease as diffusion [of new
media
technology] occurs."
The Pessimistic Prophets have several specific ethical concerns about the
new media and their effects on society. They disagree (- 3, z=-1.32)
with
Statement 42 ("The new media will narrow the information gap between the
rich
and the poor"). They also reject (- 3, z=-1.25) the idea contained in
Statement 25 ("New media technology can help create a better sense of
community"). As one put it, "If the viewer is allowed to retrieve only what
they [sic] want, their interests will turn to self, and not towards
their
community."
The Prophets fear that people will become immersed in their own interests
and less aware of the larger world because of new media's ability to
allow
users to choose only the news they want, thus missing the salience cues
provided by traditional media through headlines, layout or story
placement.
Pessimistic Prophets strongly agree (+ 4, z=1.15) with Statement 13
("The
ability to select only what you want may result on missing salience cues
about the world. For example, if you want to read only sports, you may at
least glance at the front page and note the headlines, thereby getting
some
other news"). In the words of one, "Missing salience cues could result
in:
closed minds, ignorance, negligence, etc." The Pessimistic Prophets are
also
dubious about the notion that new forms of television "could bring
families
closer"; they strongly disagreed (- 4, z=-1.62) with Statement 41
("The new
television could bring families closer. Because it would satisfy so
many of
our entertainment and informational needs at home, family members
should find
themselves gathering in the home more often").
This factor also feels overwhelmed, fearing that new media technology is
bringing sweeping changes and outrunning society's ability to understand
and
control it. The Pessimistic Prophets are uncertain of the promise of
the
future and appear acutely aware that change does not necessarily mean
change
for the better. The group's expectation of profound change is evident
in its
strong disagreement (- 5, z=-2.17) with Statement 12 ("The new media
won't
fundamentally change the way we communicate and gain knowledge").
Champions
of Change and Skeptical Optimists (factors one and four, respectively)
also
disagreed with this statement, but much less strongly. The Prophets'
sense of
failing to keep pace with change also comes through in strong
agreement (+ 5,
z=1.38) with Statement 34 ("Education is lagging technology in
general").
The Pessimistic Prophets' perspective on education is reflected in the
comments of one respondent: "Changes in education are constantly needed and
not attended. Technology is rapidly changing and is past the rate of
change
in education twice over."
Despite this sense of being overwhelmed, though, the Prophets, who range in
age from 19 to 49, are perhaps being drawn onto the new media
bandwagon --
and not entirely against their will. For example, they agree strongly
(+ 4,
z=1.30) with Statement 1 ("The possibilities created by new media
technology
are exciting").
At the same time, the Pessimistic Prophets believe new media will not have
an enormous impact on what they do as professionals. They strongly
disagree
(- 4, z=-1.45) with Statement 39 ("Interactive media will make
journalists
obsolete.") and, less strongly (- 3, z=-0.89), with Statement 7 ("New
media
technology will eventually eliminate my job."). More generally, they
believe
-- whether in hope or in denial -- that changes are less than
imminent; the
Prophets agree (+ 3, z=0.97) with Statement 9 ("For the vast majority
out
there in the real world, new media technology is going to be something
they'll read about, but it's not going to affect their lives to any great
degree. At least not for 5 to 10 years.").
Interestingly, the fears and predictions of the Pessimistic Prophets do not
come from ignorance about new media. Eleven of the 14 people on this
factor
say they use Internet or e-mail, and six have computers with modems at
home;
only two of the younger respondents lack media experience. For the
people on
this factor, however, use of new media means something far short of
wholehearted acceptance.
FACTOR THREE: Laid-Back Liberals
The Laid-Back Liberal sees new media as problematic but is less concerned
with manipulation than the Pessimistic Prophet. This difference may
stem from
the Liberals' belief that most people, themselves included, can think
and act
independently and therefore are not easily manipulated by technology.
The
Liberal sees people who use new media technology as active
decision-makers,
not passive subjects of social control. As the most highly loaded
respondent
on this factor put it: "Technology doesn't manipulate -- corrupt
people in
power do."
These two women and six men -- who range in age from 19 to 67, the oldest of
any respondent -- are fiercely individualistic, agreeing far more
strongly
than any other factor (+ 3, z=1.08) with Statement 33 ("I want
electronic
interaction to be as individualistic and anarchic as it has been").
Laid-Back
Liberals see the user in control of technology -- and they consider
user
control an attractive feature. They like the idea of being able to
retrieve
what they want when they want it.
More than half the Laid-Back Liberals are young men at or near the start of
their journalism careers; four of the Liberals do not yet have
professional
experience. However, all but one Liberal has used Internet or e-mail,
and
most also have computers with a modem at home. Yet although they are
aware of
the possibilities of new media technology, they do not see it becoming
pervasive any time soon. They believe real changes are at least five years
away; the group gave its highest nod of agreement (+ 5, z=1.86) to
Statement
9 ("For the vast majority ... [new media technology] is not going to
affect
their lives to any great degree. At least not for 5 to 10 years").
Furthermore, new media technology, as an emerging phenomenon, remains largely
inaccessible to a wide audience, the Liberal believes. As the
respondent who
loaded most highly on this factor said: "That's how technology is --
it's
available to a select few until it's been out a while."
Computers do not seem to threaten the Laid-Back Liberals' future as
professional journalists. They disagreed vehemently (- 5, z=-2.02 and -1.70,
respectively) with Statements 39 ("Interactive media will make
journalists
obsolete") and 7 ("New media technology will eventually eliminate my
job.")
-- the same two statements with which the Champions of Change most
strongly
disagreed. "No matter how interactive the media are," one Liberal
said, "we
still need someone to get the news from the scene."
What makes this group distinctive is its concern about elitist aspects of
new media and their effect on a pluralistic society. The Pessimistic
Prophet
sees new media as a threat to the individual, both in isolation and as
a
member of a broader community. The Liberal sees these media as a threat
to
the social cohesion linking the individual members of that community.
Laid-Back Liberals are extremely concerned about new technology's potential
to deepen divisions among the social classes, threatening
communication
across the widening gulf. They believe new media might increase the
information gap, disagreeing (- 3, z=-1.50) with Statement 42 ("The new media
will narrow the information gap between the rich and the poor").
Liberals
commented that "New media technology is often expensive, which means
only
people in higher social classes can afford it," and "using interactive
media
usually requires higher education."
Perhaps some of this concern stems from a worry that they personally might
be left behind. For example, Liberals -- the group with by far the
highest
percentage of "Generation Xers," five of the eight people on this
factor --
are more sensitive than the other factors to the potential effect that
age
differences will have on perspectives about new media. They agree very
strongly
(+ 5, z=1.67) with Statement 18 ("I would guess there is a big difference in
perspective about the new media depending on age"). Nor do they think
new
media technology will help unite families, disagreeing (- 3, z=-1.08)
with
Statement's 41 proposition that new media will bring families closer
together.
However, they seem uncertain whether new media will limit the number of
ideas to which people are exposed. Liberals disagree more strongly (-4,
z=-1.66) than the other factors with Statement 21 ("New media potentially
could decrease the number of viewpoints"), yet they strongly agree (+ 4,
z=1.43) with the lack of salience cues provided by new media described in
Statement 13. Perhaps the Liberals recognize both the potential breadth
of
the new media AND the potential for the user to actively limit the
range of
ideas to which he or she chooses to become exposed.
Like everyone else, the Liberals see privacy as a potential problem with
new media, strongly disagreeing (- 4, z=-1.56) with Statement 22
("Privacy is
not a problem with the new media"). They are concerned about
manipulation,
but again, they see that manipulation coming from other people and not
technology itself.
The statements about which Laid-Back Liberals do not express a strong
opinion also are telling. Liberals are less excited than the other factors
about new technology, agreeing only weakly (+ 1, z=0.50) with the
statement
that new media technology creates exciting possibilities. This
relative lack
of enthusiasm is understandable, given the Liberals' social concerns
and
their belief that technology will not change their lives that much in the
near term. They are willing to give new media technology a try -- if it
is
available to them -- and they are not afraid of it. Yet they will bring
a
large grain of salt and a sizable serving of concern for social costs to
the
table with them when they dig into this new technology.
FACTOR 4: Skeptical Optimists
The Skeptical Optimist wants to believe in the potential of new media to
improve society as well as the personal quality of life -- but is not
convinced they will. He (the five Skeptical Optimists are all male, ranging
in age from 33 to 53) sees new media as a tool that is both personally
and
socially empowering. The Skeptic agrees very strongly (+ 5, z=1.87)
with
Statement 25 ("New media technology can help create a better sense of
community"), and his z-score on that statement is significantly higher (1.0
or more) than that of any other factor. He also strongly agrees (+ 4,
z=1.50)
with Statement 8 ("New media technology developments will help to
improve my
quality of life."). He disagrees very strongly (- 5, z=-1.71) with
Statement
43 ("Interactive media are impersonal and depersonalizing"), seeing
new media
as potential agents for positive change.
However, more than the other factors, Skeptical Optimists express a lack of
conviction about the future. They might be characterized as Champions
of
Change with their feet firmly planted on the ground. They agree with the
Champion that there is enormous potential inherent in new technology; all
the
Skeptics are users of e-mail or Internet, so they all have personal
experience with at least one aspect of that potential. However, they are
somewhat cynical about the likelihood that the potential will be
realized,
and so are reluctant to get on board. The Pessimistic Prophets are
pretty
sure the future will be dark; the Champions of Change are prone to think
it
will be rosy. The Skeptics think it COULD be rosy, but probably won't
be. For
example, although new media can help create a better sense of
community, they
likely will deepen divisions among the social classes (+ 3, z=1.11 on
Statement 48).
The demographics show that each of our Skeptical Optimists is a child of the
mid-twentieth century, aged 33 to 53, probably a member of the middle
class,
living in an upscale, education-oriented community -- and he is on the
predictable guilt trip. He believes he is a relatively privileged member of
society now and will be in the future; hence, his belief that he will
benefit
from new media technology. But he also is troubled by his social
conscience.
He sees new media as one more potentially empowering tool that will
fail to
live up to its ability to create positive changes for society as a
whole and
may even hasten social fragmentation. He recognizes the controlling
elements
of new technology -- and believes he will be among the people to
exercise
that control.
For example, he does not think the new media will narrow the information gap
between rich and poor (- 4, z=-1.15 on Statement 42), and fears that
new
media may actually decrease the number of viewpoints (+ 2, z=0.77 on
Statement 21). In the words of one respondent: "If somebody is far away from
new media technology, he/she will be isolated in society."
Interestingly, and
perhaps ironically, he is not greatly concerned with privacy, ethics
or
manipulation, and is somewhat more open than the other factors to the idea
of
government regulation to address the potential abuses of new media
(though
the Pessimistic Prophets also are willing to consider the possibility);
the
Skeptic disagrees (- 3, z=-1.06) with Statement 23 ("The government
should
not regulate new media").
Most of the Skeptical Optimists also are fathers of relatively young
children -- or at least have friends who are. The Skeptical Optimist is
particularly sensitive to the cluster of statements (Nos. 14, 18 and 45)
relating to the difference of perspective between children and adults; he
thinks the new media will isolate him from the next generation, perhaps
much
in the same way he felt isolated from his parents' generation by other
enormous social changes. For example, he agrees more strongly (+ 3, z=0.97)
than the other factors with Statement 14 ("I think the new media will
create
a huge generation gap as to how we conceive knowledge and what
knowledge
means").
Finally, the Skeptic is much more socialized as a journalist (a profession
that rewards and reinforces skepticism) than the other factors, which
have a
mix of undergraduates and older respondents. He tends to evaluate new
media
professionally as well as personally and vehemently disagrees with the
idea
that these media will eliminate his job (- 5, z=-2.06 on Statement 7).
He
does not see the new media as a potential threat, perhaps because people
still will need a mediator to help make sense of information.
However, he does see new technology as something that will profoundly affect
his job and his industry. He agrees (+ 5, z=1.74, and + 3, z=1.32,
respectively) with Statements 6 ("New technologies will make it possible and
necessary for those in the news business to incorporate feedback into
what
they produce") and 5 ("People in the media will have to think more
about the
content of news and less about the specific means of telling the
story"). He
is more convinced than other factors that new technologies differ
significantly from previous ways of communicating information; he
strongly
disagrees (-4, z=-1.5) with Statement 35 ("The new technologies are not
providing new information, merely the same stuff in different packages").
CONSENSUS ITEMS
The four factors agree on the relative placement (within +/- 1.00 Z) of
several statements, including four (statements 10, 27, 32 and 37) that
indicate a degree of ambivalence and uncertainty about new media. Of the
four, Statement 27 ("For the consumer's standpoint, the information
future is
rich with choice and possibility. For journalists, it is much more
troubling
... people won't need a mediator any more") elicited the strongest
reaction;
though all four factors disagreed, the Skeptical Optimist (who
generally is
more attuned to statements directly relating to journalists' roles)
disagrees
most strongly (- 4, z=-1.19). The four were in almost perfect harmony
about
Statement 32 ("When I look at where we were 10 years ago and where we
are
today, I don't know if anyone could have imagined where we would be with
technology and surely it's going to be like that in the next 10 years").
All
agreed somewhat (+ 1 or + 2) with the statement; their z-scores barely
varied: from 0.5 to 0.8.
These consensus items seem to indicate that while respondents tend to see
the future very differently, as indicated by their Q-sorts, they are
not
wedded to their perceptions. Whether they are open-minded or merely
confused
by the flood of information about changes in their profession is open
to
interpretation. What seems certain, however, is that while the journalism
students and educators in this study all have definite attitudes and
ideas
about their journey along the "superhighway," they are not be quite
sure what
lies around the bend. Some see that uncertainty as exciting; some see
it as
scary. Most probably see at least a little of each.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Although this study did not seek to predict patterns of diffusion of new
media knowledge or use based on this group's attitudes, diffusion theory
does
shed light on possible implications of these attitudes for the spread
of new
media knowledge and use.
Rogers defines diffusion as "the process by which an innovation is
communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social
system." (Rogers, 1983) Because the messages being communicated
concern a
new idea, some degree of uncertainty is involved; information is the
means of
reducing that uncertainty. The innovation may or may not be
"objectively"
new; certainly, many aspects of "new media technology" have been tested
before, with varying degrees of success. What is important is that the
innovation be perceived as new. The recent flood of articles, in both the
trade and scholarly press, certainly seem to position this technology as
having an impact on journalists and journalism.
Individuals pass from first knowledge of an innovation, to formation of an
attitude toward it, to a decision to adopt or reject it, to
implementation,
then to confirmation of that decision. (Rogers, 1983) Innovativeness
is the
degree to which a person (or organization) is relatively early or late
in
adopting new ideas. Innovators, the first 2.5 percent to adopt, are
venturesome, excited by the possibilities of new ideas and eager to try them
out. Behind them come the early adopters, who tend to be more closely
socialized to their norms and values of their group and tend to be its
opinion leaders. They are followed by the early and late majority and,
finally, by the laggards.
Diffusion theory also incorporates the idea of a social system, bound by a
common objective and constituting a boundary within which an
innovation
diffuses. Most social systems have a hierarchy. Opinion leaders are at the
center of interpersonal communication networks, allowing them to serve
as
social models whose innovative behavior is imitated by others in the
system;
indeed, the heart of the diffusion process, according to Rogers,
consists of
interpersonal exchanges and social modeling between the people who
already
have adopted and the people they, in turn, influence. (Rogers, 1983)
Stated in terms of diffusion theory, our Champions of Change are likely to
be the early adopters, and perhaps even the innovators, of new media
technology -- the people near the start of Rogers' s-shaped diffusion curve.
Innovators are eager to try out new ideas and willing to accept the
uncertainty that goes along with anything new. (Ibid.) In the words of one of
our Champions: "The possibilities are unlimited if we approach them
with
vision, creativity and a desire to put new media to uses that will
benefit
society." Seven of our 15 Champions of Change are in their late teens
or 20s;
as they move through their first jobs in the industry and assume
positions of
increasing authority, they seem likely to become the opinion leaders
who take
on "early adopter" roles and help guide other journalists through the
twists
and turns on the road ahead.
The early and late majority of adopters are more apt to come from our other
factors. These people, who form the slope of the diffusion curve, are
categorized by Rogers as somewhat more skeptical about change, willing to go
along but also more deliberate in their evaluations of its impact.
(Ibid.)
The factors focus on different concerns -- ranging from manipulation
to a
widening knowledge gap -- but only in a very few individual cases do
their
reservations seem likely to stand in the way of eventual adoption. Even
our
Pessimistic Prophets, who express the most profound doubts about new
media
technology, are unlikely laggards. Despite their misgivings about new
media
technology, they also seem to accept its inevitability and even admit
to
excitement about at least some of its potential aspects. In the words of
one
Prophet, explaining his strong disagreement with Statement 39, that
interactive media will make journalists obsolete: "Journalists convert data
to information. They will be needed."
Several additional aspects of diffusion theory are interesting in light of
this study, as well. For example, Rogers proposes that innovations
likely to
gain a more rapid acceptance are those perceived as having a high
relative
advantage, or as being better than the idea they supersede; journalists
excited about the changes inherent in the technology, then, may see it as
offering them a better way to get information to (and from) the public.
Innovations with a high compatibility with existing values, past
experiences
and needs of potential adopters also have an advantage. Journalists
who
perceive new media as potentially expanding the number of viewpoints in
the
"marketplace of ideas" -- for instance, our Champions of Change and
Laid-Back
Liberals, who disagreed (- 3, z=-1.19, and - 4, z=-1.66, respectively)
with
Statement 21 ("New media potentially could decrease the number of
viewpoints") -- may be more likely to embrace them than others, such
as our
Pessimistic Prophets, who are gravely concerned with technology's
potential
to be manipulative.
Of interest as well is the proposition that mass media channels are most
important for informing people about an innovation, while interpersonal
channels are more important in persuading someone to adopt a new idea.
(Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971) The transfer of ideas is most effective when
participants belong to the same groups or are drawn by the same
interests --
those who, for instance, read the same trade publications or scholarly
journals. Shared meanings and mutual language mean communication is likely
to
result in greater knowledge gain, attitude formation and change, and
overt
behavior change. (Rogers, 1983) When we talk about journalism students
and
educators as the client group for an innovation, however, mass media
and
interpersonal channels may overlap. The people who disseminate
information
(be it to students or to the public) are themselves a primary reference
group
for those in their own industry. Thus, they may perform both a
knowledge
function and a persuasion function.
New media, according to Williams, Rice and Rogers (1988), encompass
technologies that are mostly electronic and digital; their distinctive
feature is their interactivity. That interactivity means they require a
critical mass of adopters in order to spread: There must be other people
online for the technology to be useful enough to convince additional
people
to adopt it. (Rogers, 1986) At least one researcher, in fact, thinks
diffusion of interactive media is likely to result ultimately in either
universal adoption by a community or universal rejection. The technology
will
not survive unless the mutual benefit increases. (Marcus, 1987) If,
indeed,
people generally gain knowledge about an innovation through the media,
then
the way media professionals themselves perceive these technologies is
of
great importance to their success.
This study has considered the attitudes toward the new media among future
journalists and current journalism educators, all of whom have been
besieged
with information about these technologies and now must play a central
role in
the further dissemination of additional information. It has attempted
to
increase our understanding of the concerns that may shape not only
journalists' own decisions to adopt these innovations but also the way they
structure communication about evolving technologies to their audience.
"May you live in interesting times," say the Chinese, offering in that
single statement both a blessing and a curse. Journalists are part of
an
information industry that lies at the very center of sweeping changes,
and
the way they approach those changes will affect our entire society.
Like it
or not, journalists are, in many ways, in the driver's seat on this
high-speed highway. It promises to be an interesting trip indeed.
REFERENCES
Brown, Steven R. (1980.) Political Subjectivity: Applications
of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Levy, Mark R. (1992.) "Editor's Note," symposium on virtual reality.
Journal of Communication, 42: 3-4.
Marcus, M.L. (1987.) "Toward a `Critical Mass' Theory of Interactive
Media: Universal Access, Interdependence and Diffusion." Communication
Research, 14: 491-0511.
McKeown, Bruce, and Dan Thomas. (1988.) Q Methodology. Beverly Hills CA:
Sage.
Moeller, Philip (1994.) "The Age of Convergence." American Journalism
Review, January/February 1994: 34-39.
O'Neill, Patrick. (1994.) "Editorial Rights of Telephone Carriers."
Journalism Quarterly, 71: 99-109.
Oppenheimer, Terry. (1993.) "Exploring the Interactive Future." Columbia
Journalism Review, November/December 1993: 34-37.
Pavlik, John, and Andras Szanto. (1994.) Special Report: Separating Fact
from Fiction on the Information Superhighway. Freedom Forum Media
Studies
Center Research Group. (Everette E. Dennis, executive director.)
Preliminary
report, April 1994: 5-9.
Rogers, E.M. (1983.) Diffusion of Innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free
Press.
Rogers, E.M. (1986.) Communication Technology: The New Media in Society.
New York: Free Press
Rogers, E.M., and F. Floyd Shoemaker. (1971.) Communication
Channels (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Vincent, Richard C. (1991.) Telecommunications Research
Productivity of U.S. Communications Programs: 1984-89. Journalism Quarterly,
68: 840-851.
Williams, F., R.E. Rice and E.M. Rogers. (1988.) Research Methods and the
New Media. New York: Free Press.
Wolff, Jennifer. (1994.) "Opening Up Online." Columbia Journalism Review,
33(4): 62-65.
FACING THE FUTURE:
Attitudes of Journalism Educators and Students
About New Media Technology
Submitted for consideration to:
Communication Technology and Policy Division
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Annual meeting, August 1995
All the authors can be reached at the following address:
School of Journalism
University of Missouri-Columbia
P.O. Box 838
Columbia, MO 65205
David Craig
Ph.D. candidate, School of Journalism
(314) 449-3965
[log in to unmask]
Jane B. Singer
Ph.D. candidate, School of Journalism
(314) 882-7763
[log in to unmask]
Chris W. Allen
Ph.D. candidate, School of Journalism
(314) 882-5057
[log in to unmask]
Virginia Whitehouse
Ph.D. candidate, School of Journalism
(314) 875-0636
[log in to unmask]
Anelia Dimitrova
Ph.D. candidate, School of Journalism
(314) 875-0739
[log in to unmask]
Keith P. Sanders
Professor, School of Journalism
(314) 882-7685
[log in to unmask]
ABSTRACT
FACING THE FUTURE:
Attitudes of Journalism Educators and Students
About New Media Technology
The media are being transformed by sweeping changes in the way information
is gathered, processed and disseminated. This study, which uses
Q-methodology
to examine attitudes of journalism students and educators at a
Midwestern
university toward new media technology, identifies four factors.
Champions of
Change are eager, seeing technology primarily as a tool empowering
users.
Other factors express profound concerns about issues ranging from
manipulation potential to an increasing knowledge gap among media
consumers.
TABLE I
STATEMENTS AND FACTOR Z-SCORES
FACTOR ARRAY Z'S
STATEMENTS
1 2 3 4
________________________________________________________________________________
__________________
1.The possibilities created by new media technology are exciting.
2.2 1.3 .5 1.7
2.Soon we'll be in a situation where we'll have access to any
.6 -.4 -.7 1.5
information we want instantly, updated continuously. When we
pick up the morning paper in the afternoon it's outdated. That
won't happen with new media.
3.We have to struggle with the question of whether or not just
.5 .7 .5 .2
because we can deliver advertising to more targeted individuals
than ever before, should we do it and will people stand for it?
4.There are some serious ethical problems related to the new
1.1 2.1 .7 -.3
media technology.
5.People in the media will have to think more about the content of
-.4 -1.1 .3 1.3
of news and less about the specific means of telling the story.
6.New technologies will make it possible and necessary for those
1.3 -.1 -.3 1.7
those in the news business to incorporate feedback into what
they produce.
7.New media technology will eventually eliminate my job.
-1.8 -.9 -1.7 -2.1
8.New media technology developments will help to improve my
.7 -.8 -.2 1.5
quality of life.
9.For the vast majority in the real world, new media technology
-.8 1.0 1.9 .5
is going to be something they'll read about but it's not going
to affect their lives to any great degree. At least not for
5 to 10 years.
10.I'm truly ambivalent about the new media.
-.8 -.3 -.1 -.9
11.I have a strong sense of being able to absorb less and less of
.2 1.0 -.4 -.9
the increasing amount of information available.
12.The new media won't fundamentally change the way we
-1.3 -2.2 .6 -1.0
communicate and gain knowledge.
13.The ability to select only what you want may result in missing
.6 1.2 1.4 .7
salience cues about the world. For example, if you want to read
only sports, you may at least glance at the front page and note
the headlines, thereby getting some other news.
14.I think the new media will create a huge generation gap as
-.0 .7 .4 1.0
to how we conceive knowledge and what knowledge means.
15.The new media will call for different ways of teaching
1.8 1.0 .8 .9
people how to write and work for the media.
16.I am not concerned about the potential for manipulation.
-.4 -2.4 -1.0 -.9
17.The new media are more authoritarian. Huxley and Orwell
-.9 .8 .1 -.7
thrown into one. You won't even realize you're being controlled
or manipulated.
18.I would guess there is a big difference in perspective
.9 .3 1.7 1.0
about the new media depending on age.
19.A tool is something you manipulate; technology manipulates
-1.0 1.1 -1.6 -.1
you. That's a danger of new media.
20.I'm apprehensive about the future.
-.6 .5 -.8 -1.1
21.New media potentially could decrease the number of viewpoints.
-1.2 .5 -1.7 .8
22.Privacy is not a problem with the new media.
-1.4 -2.0 -1.6 -.8
23.The government should not regulate new media.
.2 -.7 .7 -1.1
24.New media technology won't have much influence on entertainment
-1.5 -1.4 .1 -.9
25.New media technology can help create a better sense of community.
.7 -1.3 -1.1 1.9
26.If, as author/journalism John Katzenbach says, "information is
.8 .2 -.1 .1
the currency of journalism," you had better learn to operate
to operate the ATM, because there often isn't a teller anymore.
27.From the consumer's standpoint, the information future is
-.9 -.8 -.4 -1.2
rich with choice and possibility. For journalists, it is much
more troubling...people won't need a mediator anymore.
28.New media technology will be a lot harder to introduce
-.7 -.3 .4 .2
than anyone expected.
29.User control is one of the most attractive features of
1.7 .6 1.2 .4
interactive media, permitting people to retrieve what they want
when they want it.
30.It is important for the future of the newspapers that they
1.7 .3 -.1 .6
try to exploit their information franchise to develop products
for readers that use existing & emerging electric technologies.
31.If newspapers grasp the inherent values of the changed
1.5 .7 -.1 .4
technology, they can become even more important than they have
been because they are the databases of local communities.
32.When I look at where we were 10 years ago and where we are
.7 .5 .6 .8
today, I don't know if anyone could have imagined where we would
be with technology and surely it's going to be like that in the
next 10 years.
33.I want electronic interaction to be as individualistic and
.4 -.3 1.1 -.5
anarchic as it has been.
34.Education is lagging technology in general.
.7 1.4 .8 .0
35.The new technologies are not providing new information;
-.4 -.1 .9 -1.5
merely the same stuff in different packages.
36.Having been exposed to the new media technology, I don't
1.0 .0 .1 .2
want to do without it.
37.What now passes for the information superhighway is merely
-.2 -.1 -.2 -.9
a slogan in search of a mission.
38.As television becomes more democratic by offering greater
-.5 .6 -1.1 -.8
choice, it no longer will provide a common forum for the sort
of pluralistic debate that helps make a democracy work.
39.Interactive media will make journalists obsolete.
-1.7 -1.5 -2.0 -1.0
40.Only computer-literate people will be able to use emerging
-.9 .2 .6 .7
interactive media.
41.The new TV could bring families closer. Bccause it would
-.2 -1.6 -1.1 -.1
so many of our entertainment and informational needs at
home, family members should find themselves gathered in the
home more often.
42.The new media will narrow the information gap between the
-.5 -1.3 -1.5 -1.2
rich and the poor.
43.Interactive media are impersonal and depersonalizing.
-.8 1.0 -1.1 -1.7
44.Interactive media are elitist.
-.4 .8 1.5 .3
45.Children are more comfortable with computers than are adults.
.9 .1 1.3 1.3
46.The capabilities of interactive media are over-rated.
-1.3 .1 -.4 -.6
47.Increased microcasting may ultimately spell extinction
.3 .1 -.7 -.6
for the big commercial networks.
48.New media technology will deepen divisions among the social
-.2 .9 1.6 1.1
classes.
|
