Intermediaries between Journalism and Arts: Shared Concerns, Work Processes and Strategies Outlining an Emergent Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-developed paper that explores the intermediaries between journalism and the arts. Based on in-depth interviews with artists-journalists and a thorough literature review, the paper outlines the dynamic interplay between journalism and the arts. The interviews give detailed insights into the complexity of boundary work, as experienced by the interviewees, as much as it contextualises a shift in journalism towards more aesthetic, engaged, sensorial, and interventionist practices.

This paper will push the inquiry into arts-based methods in journalism, journalism-as-art, and artistic journalism.

One minor suggestion - though by no means a necessity to withhold publication - is to clarify what kinds of art theory the paper builds on. As things stand, journalism is conceptualised throughout the paper. However, a more generic and common sense definition of the arts is employed. As such, the reader predominantly relies on, on the one hand, their own familiarity with the arts and, on the other, insights by the interviewees.

While this may exceed the scope of the current paper - and possibly the journal as such - I believe this may be one of the future tasks for researchers interested in this emergent and interdisciplinary practice. 

Author Response

Comment 1.

This is a well-developed paper that explores the intermediaries between journalism and the arts. Based on in-depth interviews with artists-journalists and a thorough literature review, the paper outlines the dynamic interplay between journalism and the arts. The interviews give detailed insights into the complexity of boundary work, as experienced by the interviewees, as much as it contextualises a shift in journalism towards more aesthetic, engaged, sensorial, and interventionist practices.

This paper will push the inquiry into arts-based methods in journalism, journalism-as-art, and artistic journalism.

One minor suggestion - though by no means a necessity to withhold publication - is to clarify what kinds of art theory the paper builds on.

As things stand, journalism is conceptualised throughout the paper. However, a more generic and common sense definition of the arts is employed. As such, the reader predominantly relies on, on the one hand, their own familiarity with the arts and, on the other, insights by the interviewees.

While this may exceed the scope of the current paper - and possibly the journal as such - I believe this may be one of the future tasks for researchers interested in this emergent and interdisciplinary practice. 

 

Reply 1

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your review of this paper. I agree with you that the departure point from journalism raises the question which art theories are followed, especially because some references to for example socially engaged arts have been made in the analysis. I also agree that a more in-depth art theory integration exceeds the scope of this paper.

In line 167, I included a reference to the work of Gaut and Lopez, emphasising the generic perspective of arts in this paper, whi theoretically grounding the art definition.

Thank you for your time to read the paper, I was really happy to read your comments.

 

best wishes,

 

author 1

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript tackles a significant issue in journalism research, namely how journalistic innovation takes place in the fringes between mainstream journalism and other fields - in this case, the art field, and how the establishment of such a new field entails a process of innovation and "boundary work", an approach here identified with its use in journalism studies, but really a more general issue, which has been dealt with by many in different traditions. 

 

We could e.g. mention Thomas Gieryin (who is often credited with coining the concept) for differences between science and non-science, anthropologist Mary Douglas on "pollution control" (which harks back to Durkheims sacred-profane discussions), Max Weber (and later sociologists of professions following Weber, like Abbott) in discussion on how professional groups exercise social closure, in Lamonts work on symbolic boundaries, and Pierre Bourdieu's concept of social fields as social micro-universes of struggle, where a central part of this is the struggle about legitimation - between insiders and outsiders. In the last perspective, the study in this article can be seen as one of an emerging (intersecting) social subfield of both the journalistic field and the field of arts (1). Note: I do not think that the article needs to refer to these traditions. I only bring it up to emphasise that such boundary work is not limited to journalism.

 

I think the manuscript is both clearly written and interesting, with a good grasp (and discussion) of both its theories and methodology, and the analysis provides an in-depth understanding and unpacking of some important characteristics of their research object, which is also still quite original. I would perhaps have expected some more references to typical discussions of work situations, norms and influences which characterise cultural journalists and arts journalists, seemingly quite similarly around the globe (2). At least several of the findings seem to resonate with some research, e.g. Kristensen's research on literary journalism, which perhaps could be mentioned in a sentence at least in the discussion (maybe also be included in the literature review).

 

I have really few critical remarks about the manuscript, only a few more minor comments:

 

- the table of participators in the method section (p6) lacks a title, and it is not clear in the text why two organisations and three respondents are anonymous.

- In line 7, the sentence ends with "transformation at" - should it probably be "at bay"?

- line 76 "though school" should probably be "school of thought".

 

I thank the author(s) for an enjoyable and interesting article.

 

(1) Here the authors might find useful the idea of culture/arts journalists as dual (and dominated) members of both the art field and the journalistic field, c.f. Hovden, J. F., & Knapskog, K. (2015). Doubly Dominated. Cultural journalists in the fields of journalism and culture. Journalism Practice, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2015.1052214

 

(2) See e.g. 

 

Kristensen, N. N. (2022). The Kinship of Literary Journalism and Cultural Journalism: Everyday Life, Interpretation, and Emotionality. Literary Journalism Studies, 14(1).

 

Hovden, J. F., & Kristensen, N. N. (2018). The cultural journalist around the globe: A comparative study of characteristics, role perceptions, and perceived influences. Journalism, 22(3), 689–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918791224

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English is overall excellent. There are some minor language mistakes, which I have noted.

Author Response

Comments 1:

The manuscript tackles a significant issue in journalism research, namely how journalistic innovation takes place in the fringes between mainstream journalism and other fields - in this case, the art field, and how the establishment of such a new field entails a process of innovation and "boundary work", an approach here identified with its use in journalism studies, but really a more general issue, which has been dealt with by many in different traditions. 
We could e.g. mention Thomas Gieryin (who is often credited with coining the concept) for differences between science and non-science, anthropologist Mary Douglas on "pollution control" (which harks back to Durkheims sacred-profane discussions), Max Weber (and later sociologists of professions following Weber, like Abbott) in discussion on how professional groups exercise social closure, in Lamonts work on symbolic boundaries, and Pierre Bourdieu's concept of social fields as social micro-universes of struggle, where a central part of this is the struggle about legitimation - between insiders and outsiders. In the last perspective, the study in this article can be seen as one of an emerging (intersecting) social subfield of both the journalistic field and the field of arts (1). Note: I do not think that the article needs to refer to these traditions. I only bring it up to emphasise that such boundary work is not limited to journalism.
I think the manuscript is both clearly written and interesting, with a good grasp (and discussion) of both its theories and methodology, and the analysis provides an in-depth understanding and unpacking of some important characteristics of their research object, which is also still quite original. 
I would perhaps have expected some more references to typical discussions of work situations, norms and influences which characterise cultural journalists and arts journalists, seemingly quite similarly around the globe (2). At least several of the findings seem to resonate with some research, e.g. Kristensen's research on literary journalism, which perhaps could be mentioned in a sentence at least in the discussion (maybe also be included in the literature review).

 

Response 1:

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for pointing at the broader relevance of the ‘artistic journalism’ case for a broader understanding of intersecting fields through the perspective of different sociological traditions. Especially Bourdieu’s concepts feel useful for future research and theorising. I agree that for the paper at hand bringing up these traditions is not necessary.

Also thank you for referring to Kristensen. I am a huge fan of her work. I felt that this reference provides a useful nuance and added a footnote (below line 668) and a final paragraph (line 685) to the conclusion.

In response to your other remarks:

 

Comments 2

the table of participators in the method section (p6) lacks a title, and it is not clear in the text why two organisations and three respondents are anonymous.

Response 2

A title/ caption is now included in line 259

All respondents signed an informed consent form, and these three respondents wished to remain anonymous. I happen to know the reason for their confidentiality (one person lost his/her job some months after the interview was conducted – uncorrelated, of course). However, my informed consent form states that the respondents do not have to specify why they desired to remain anonymous. I solved the issue by adding to line 256: “All respondents, except for Respondent 1 to 3, preferred to be identified in this paper.”

 

Comments 3

In line 7, the sentence ends with "transformation at" - should it probably be "at bay"?

Response 3

Corrected

 

Comments 4

line 76 "though school" should probably be "school of thought".

Response 4

Corrected

 

Thank you and best wishes,