Promoting Inclusive Contexts and Journalism: Testing the Effectiveness of a Training Program

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important topic. However, at this stage, I believe the manuscript needs significant work and revision to be worthy of publication. Please treat this is as constructive feedback and not as "criticism". 

The abstract itself needs to be re-written. Several sentences sound like random words strung together. I have italicized parts of sentences that do not seem like they belong in that sentence at all!  

Abstract: Struggles for social inclusion request to work for democratic communication. Communication practices and institutions are interwoven with movements for and against social justice, with contemporary processes of developing inclusion context (Hackett, 2010). To promote an inclusive society, we developed and evaluated the effectiveness of the "Telling the truth. How to inform by promoting an inclusive society” program aimed at promoting knowledge and positive attitudes toward inclusion in a group of sixty-one journalisms in quantitative and qualitative ways. The results show that the participants in the post-test present higher levels of positive attitudes toward the propensity to give value to a more supportive socio-economic vision and the propension to activism. Overall, the results highlighted the importance of journalism training activity in promoting a socially inclusive context. 

The introduction too, is full of disconnected sentences. One example is: So, today's journalists in the Western world deal with these trends, the mechanisms distorting the reality of digital platforms and social networks (Reale, 2019), and the processes of vulnerability of the profession.

What does the italicized and underlined part of the sentence mean?

Consider the sentence that comes immediately after this: workers are increasingly exposed to editorial pressures from corporatist groups that can push to implement the above for whining, fear, and personal statements and that there are the same difficult working conditions present in other sectors, such as precarization, the depreciation of professionalism and intermediation processes, the lack of investment in training, creating working conditions that are harbingers of hardship and professional dissatisfaction (Giulietti, 2020). 

The aim of the study is explained in a single sentence that is well over a 100 words in length! 

With the intent of promoting an inclusive context, with this research project, we wanted to carry out a training program to promote more positive attitudes towards inclusion and a greater propensity towards a socio-economic vision of solidarity and activism between pre and post-test, together with a more complex knowledge of inclusive processes and the role that journalism can have in building inclusive contexts, both as the intervention was carried out (ongoing reflections) and at the end of the same, with a quasi-experimental design that compares the qualitative and quantitative data collected in the pre-and post-intervention phase and in a longitudinal way during the nine sections of the training. 

This needs to be broken down to smaller/shorter sentences and explained in clearer terms. 

In the methods section you mention:  Sixty-one journalists, 21 men (34%) and 40 women (6%), took part in the project 219 (M = 45.08; DS = 4.35) residing in Northeast Italy.

Apart from the obvious typo (60% and not 6%) - how did they "take part"? What criteria was used to select your sample? 

I think the findings offer some significant insights into how training projects influence journalistic norms and behavior. However, these findings will only hold if the rational for the study, the literature review and the methodology is clearly outlined and the robustness of the methodology understood by the reader.   

Comments on the Quality of English Language

On several occasions, it seemed like parts of sentences from different referenced works have been strung together to form a sentence. As a result, the sentences are long and convoluted. Often, it is not clear what the authors mean. It would be better if the really long sentences (e.g., abstract; introductory two pages; parts of li review) were broken down to shorter sentences. Also, simplify wherever possible. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We have carefully considered all your suggestions and made the necessary revisions to improve the document. Below, we respond point by point to your comments, integrating the specific changes made that are also highlighted in red inside the text.

 

1. The abstract has been rewritten for coherence and clarity:

"Struggles for social inclusion demand efforts towards democratic communication. Communication practices and institutions are intertwined with movements for and against social justice, with contemporary processes of developing inclusive contexts. To promote an inclusive society, we developed and evaluated the effectiveness of the program 'Telling the Truth: How to Inform by Promoting an Inclusive Society,' aimed at fostering knowledge and positive attitudes towards inclusion in a group of sixty-one journalists. The results show that post-test participants exhibit higher levels of positive attitudes towards a more supportive socio-economic vision and a greater propensity for activism. Overall, the results highlight the importance of journalism training in promoting a socially inclusive context."

We removed irrelevant sentences and simplified the language for greater clarity.

2. In the review you report tha the introduction contained disjointed sentences and unclear parts. Specifically, the sentence "So, today's journalists in the Western world deal with these trends, the mechanisms distorting the reality of digital platforms and social networks (Reale, 2019), and the processes of vulnerability of the profession" was confusing. Revision: The sentence has been rephrased for clarity. It now reads: "Today, journalists in the Western world face trends such as mechanisms distorting the reality of digital platforms and social networks (Reale, 2019), and processes that make the profession vulnerable. These include editorial pressure from corporate groups, job insecurity, devaluation of professionalism, and lack of investment in training, creating working conditions that lead to hardship and professional dissatisfaction (Giulietti, 2020)." We restructured the sentences for better coherence and removed unnecessary expressions.

3. 3) The aim of the study has been divided into shorter and clearer sentences: "The goal of this research project was to develop a training program to foster positive attitudes towards inclusion and a greater propensity for a socio-economic vision of solidarity and activism. We used a quasi-experimental design to compare qualitative and quantitative data collected before and after the intervention, as well as during the nine sessions of the program. This allowed us to analyze both ongoing reflections and final outcomes."

4. 4) We expanded the section on the procedure, adding: "Training participants were recruited by national and local journalism trade unions, who described the project to their colleagues. The unions facilitated the recruitment process by reaching out to their members and providing detailed information about the training program. Interested participants were then enrolled and provided with comprehensive materials and schedules for the nine-session training. Throughout the program, regular updates and feedback sessions were conducted to ensure engagement and address any emerging issues." This detailed description clarifies the selection and participation process.

5. We included a detailed description of the data analysis, explaining the use of MANOVA analysis to examine differences in pre- and post-intervention scores. We also discussed the implications of the results, highlighting how the training program positively influenced journalistic norms and behaviors.

6. The entire manuscript was reviewed by a native English speaker, and we simplified the sentences wherever possible. Long sentences were broken down into shorter ones to improve readability and understanding. We removed redundancies and clarified technical language.

We are confident that the changes made have significantly improved the manuscript, making it clearer and more coherent. We once again appreciate your constructive feedback and are available for further clarification or suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article engages with a highly important topic of journalism, inclusion and sustainability. Based on investigation of effectiveness of journalism training aimed at meeting the challenges of increasingly complex social reality it examines attitudes, knowledge and understanding of inclusion and the visions  of economic and social solidarity and activism.

 

The author(s) successfully position the study within the wider context  of social crises and journalism’s role in building inclusive environment. Indeed, the idea of inclusive journalism goes beyond reporting on minority groups and vulnerable communities and the article’s promise to investigate the effectiveness of a well design,. Innovative course that focuses on journalism and big social issues such as poverty, inequality, migration, polarization of wealth, precariat nature of work and depletion of natural resources.

 

However, in its current form, the article promises more than delivers. There are number of issues that need clarification and I list them here in chronological order hoping that the author(s) might find it useful for further development.

 

Abstract (and across the text) – needs thorough editing, for example “…a group of sixty-one journalisms” should probably be “…a group of 61 journalists”. Also, the title of the article says ‘course’ and the abstract (and in the text too) refers to a ‘programme. There is a significant difference between course and programme and that has to be explained if both terms are used.

 

Introduction -  it reads as a randomly listed challenges of contemporary times (wars, disinformation, exploitation of work, technology, climate change…), not as a clear and well structured background to the upcoming text. Everything is there but it needs rewriting to provide more focused intro to the article.

p.1.line 40 – should ne news workers (not workers in general)

p1.line 44 ‘…that are CURRENTLY harbingers”

p.2.line 47 – the most recent Reuters Digital News Report would be a good reference too

 

Building inclusive contexts and journalism  - this is an important section and the author(s) nicely outline why it is essential  to foster positive attitude towards an inclusive vision of reality.  However, the subheadings (attitudes towards inclusion, The propensity..) need to be introduced properly by having a transition paragraph between lines 11 and 112

 

Educational training and journalism focused on inclusion and sustainability – more research is needed to bring examples that justify the subheading (MENA region comes first to mind)

 

Aim of the study – I would suggest turning hypothesis into research questions, it would reflect what is new and innovative in the assessment of effectiveness  instead of stating what is obvious when it comes to education, that the attitudes and knowledge would improve the end of the  course

 

Method – more details about the items are needed in the ‘Attitudes towards inclusion; subsection. It would be good if all ten questions stated 

p.5, line 219 – please check % of women

p.6 line 264, please translate Italian name (plus punctuation)

p.7, line 303 quali-quantitative approach?

 

Results – need rewriting to build a narrative, get focus, address the questions posed, not to be simply led by methods used The quantitative analysis results are too brief, either expand or in this article focus only on quali-quantitative part of the study. 

p.7.line 323 – formatting needed to align with the already used style

 

Discussion – needs development, I would suggest returning to the main themes from quali-quantitative analysis in more detail

 

Conclusions – missing

 

References – need fixing, currently not alphabetical order

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article needs proofing and editing, overall well written

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your detailed and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have thoroughly addressed each of your comments and made the necessary revisions to enhance the quality and clarity of our paper. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your feedback, outlining the specific changes made that you can also find highlighted in red inside the text

1. Clarity of the Manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and simplified the language. Technical jargon has been clarified or replaced with more accessible terminology. For example, the sentence "The mechanisms distorting the reality of digital platforms and social networks contribute to the vulnerability of the journalism profession" has been revised to: "Digital platforms and social networks often distort reality, adding to the challenges faced by journalists." A professional editor and native English speaker reviewed the manuscript to ensure clarity and coherence throughout.

2. Introduction and Literature Review. We imporved the introduction to provide a more logical flow of ideas. Key studies relevant to our research have been better integrated into the narrative. We added more explicit connections between previous research and our study's objectives, ensuring a comprehensive overview of the literature. We included additional citations of recent studies, making explicit how they relate to our research as you suggested referring to MENA region.

“Further examples include initiatives in the MENA region, where journalists face unique challenges due to political instability, social inequalities, and cultural diversity. In Egypt, for example, the "Journalism for Human Rights" program has been instrumental in training journalists to report on human rights issues, focusing on inclusivity and ethical standards (Elsheikh et al., 2024). Similarly, in Jordan, the "Media and Information Literacy" project has equipped journalists with the skills to critically evaluate sources and counter misinformation, promoting a more informed and inclusive public discourse (Dayyeh et al., 2024).

These examples underscore the critical role of journalism education in shaping a more inclusive and equitable society. By equipping journalists with the knowledge and skills to report accurately and sensitively, these programs contribute to a media landscape that values diversity, promotes understanding, and fosters social cohesion. Further research and investment in journalism education are essential to continue this positive trajectory, ensuring that journalists are well-prepared to meet the challenges of an ever-evolving global landscape”

 

3) We reviewed the aim of the study, turning hypothesis in research questions.

“To foster an inclusive environment, this research project involved implementing a training program to enhance positive attitudes towards inclusion and increase the propensity for socio-economic solidarity and activism. The program sought to achieve these goals by deepening participants' understanding of inclusive processes and jour-nalism's role in creating inclusive contexts. The intervention was evaluated using a quasi-experimental design, which compared qualitative and quantitative data collected before and after the intervention and longitudinally throughout the nine training ses-sions.

To explore the effectiveness of the training program and its impact on participants, the following research questions were formulated:

a) To what extent do participants in the project demonstrate a significant increase in positive attitudes toward inclusion and a greater propensity toward a more sup-portive socio-economic vision and social activism?

b) How does the knowledge about inclusion change among participants, as indicated by the frequency of topics covered in post-test training sessions, such as attention to het-erogeneity and consideration of diverse voices, and how does this knowledge affect the qualitative interpretation of data related to journalism professionalism?

c) What are the differences in participants' reflections on significant topics, such as inclusion, solidarity, and activism, across the nine educational training sessions?”

4) We inserted a table related to mean and standard deviation of quantitative analysis

5) We revised the Discussion section to more thoroughly relate our findings to existing literature. We improved as you suggest the section related to qualitative data.

6) The reference list was updated and all references were standardized according to the journal's style guide.

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We are grateful for your constructive comments and suggestions, which have helped refine our work. Please feel free to reach out for further clarification or additional information.

Thank you once again for your time and consideration.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well developed article now. All issues raised in my previous report have been sufficiently addressed.