The analysis undertaken during this research was on two levels. The initial comparisons of nine local newspapers were enhanced by the more in-depth investigation of Johnston Press.
This particular company was selected because it is one of the largest local and regional multimedia organisations in the UK – reaching more than 29 million readers a month across its platforms (Johnston Press, 2015). The researcher was granted access due to her
employment within the firm. A series of semi-structured interviews were carried out with the most senior Johnston Press editorial executives. All but one was conducted face-to-face and led by pre-selected questions, which were formulated following the content analysis.
Precautions were taken to ensure everyone contacted and spoken to as part of the research was fully aware that it was being conducted completely independently of the company. Data was collected through interviews. This technique was chosen for a range of reasons. These included; the opportunity to generate rich data; to gain insight into the interviewees’
perceptions and values; the inclusion of contextual aspects which are significant to
understanding perceptions; and the opportunity to analyse collected data in a number of ways and create detailed case interpretations. Exploring the experiences and opinions of the most senior managers at Johnston Press was vital. Such questions within in-depth interviews allow researchers to “see and experience the world” through the eyes of the interviewees, and form
“one of the most powerful methods” in qualitative research, according to McCracken (1988:
9).
The qualitative findings combined with the earlier content analysis to create a comprehensive picture of the mobile platform and local newspapers. The quantitative findings focused on content and differences between the three platforms. The interviews give insight into the decision making process, the adoption of the platform, priorities within the industry and the future of mobile news.
A range of interview techniques were explored including structured, semi-structured and unstructured. It would not have been possible to use structured interviews to gain relevant information from interviewees and carry out reliable comparisons. At the other end of the spectrum, the vast diversity of topics and answers which can come to light through
unstructured interviews would have make comparisons impossible. Both these extremes were likely to have led to results which were difficult to validate and explore in any depth. It was also apparent that the interviewees were journalists who had vast experience in carrying out interviews themselves but were likely to be less experienced in being interviewed. Therefore, it was important to give them guidance with a clear list of questions while not overly
restricting their answers through a structured interview. One of the main advantages of a semi-structured qualitative interview as a methodology is that it can adapt and respond to interviewees’ opinion as it becomes apparent. Interviewing a group of people within the same industry and company also presents the opportunity to explore beliefs within that sub-culture.
It is also possible to gain unique insight into both areas of “broad cultural consensus” and explore individuals “personal, private and special understandings” (Arksey and Knight, 1999:4). That is helpful when analysing individual opinions but also views across the company. Arksey and Knight describe such research as being more interested in “describing and understanding complexity” than merely measuring (1999:4).
The interviews were semi-structured and analysis of the answers involved interpretation of
Huberman, 1994). The focused interviews shored up potential deficiencies of the textual analysis by offering greater exploration of the issues identified. However, at the outset it was important for the limitations presented by interviewing on a small scale and the many
assumptions carried by both researchers and research subjects to be recognised (Holloway and Jefferson, 2000:2). In particular, as the interviewees were speaking as employed professionals working for one specific company, it was crucial to be aware of personal deliberate or ‘unconscious filters’ in their answers e.g. avoiding negatively portraying their employer or themselves (Ribbens and Edwards, 1998). The information they provided was also limited by their own role within the company and, as with all qualitative research, it must be acknowledged that the findings will be “holistic and blatantly interpretive” (Iorio, 2010:6).
In a similar way, it is important to acknowledge that the content of a semi-structured
interview follows the interviewer’s own analytical thinking yet, while some would argue that it is impossible to completely avoid influences whether personal, political or theoretical (Ribbens and Edwards, 1998:121), this must not unduly influence the findings. As this research focused on journalism and was conducted by a journalist, the comparisons with the traditional techniques used by journalists in their daily interviews should also be
acknowledged. As Iorio explains: “Whether by infusion from the methods of social science or diffusion of sound journalism practice, basic tenets of the focused interview are also essential elements found in reporting texts (2010:113).”
The researcher’s employment within Johnston Press created access to senior executives. It placed the project within the field of practitioner-based research. In order to protect the validity and avoid insider bias the researcher did not focus on titles where she had worked and with which she had connections other than being part of Johnston Press. She also did not interview anyone involved in her role or directly responsible for her employment or
development. However, it should be acknowledged that the seniority of the interviewees
meant that they were ultimately responsible for all Johnson Press employees, including the researcher. As such, the interviewer took extra care to remain objective throughout and explored potential issues created by researching one’s own employers. At a basic level, it could create obvious challenges with regard to positive bias at one extreme or fears of being sacked at the other. Such research also requires sensitivity towards colleagues and an
awareness of potential impact as well as "the development of self" (Costley et al., 2010).
Challenges are found in all types of research. The researcher believes that her unique access created such valuable findings that it was appropriate to capitalise on her position while minimizing the potential problems it created. Bourdieu describes the initial response of researchers focusing on their own companies as fear of being accused of bias or "of using the weapons of science in the pursuit of personal interests, to abolish the self even as a knowing subject, by resorting to the most impersonal and automatic procedures ... which are least questionable" (Bourdieu, 1984:6). He believes this must be overcome to encourage the benefits of practitioner-based research and what it can add to academic and industry
knowledge. It is also worth noting the "relatively unique" research opportunity which Murray and Lawrence describe as creating the means to channel the eagerness of practitioners
(2000:3). At best such research challenges assumptions and propositions, including those of the researcher.
Practitioner researchers are under-represented in many fields, particularly media and journalism studies. Such work is described as being placed "at the bottom of the hierarchy"
(Lees and Freshwater, 2008:2). However, it brings new insight to the work undertaken by academics, including former practitioners who "rely on pre-designed methodological systems" (Lees, 20018:1). Schon highlights differences in the approach of researchers who are either inside or outside the group at the centre of the research (1983). Internal researchers,
or employees, may be accused of having pre-generated ideas, but the same can be true of all researchers. Every individual has predetermined ideas and reasons behind their choice of research subjects. Those more involved with the focus of the research must set such opinions to one side just as outsiders do. Insiders are better placed to recognise topics and issues which are most in need of research and investigation. The lack of research into weekly newspapers use of mobiles, highlighted in the literature review (see Section 3.2) could be seen as one such issue. This lack of cohesion between industry and academia is often so pronounced it is seen as rivalry in some fields. It is described by Gibbs and Garnett as weakening both (2007).
“In choosing to study the social world in which we are involved, we are obliged to confront, in dramatized form as it were, a certain number of fundamental
epistemological problems, all related to the question of the difference between practical knowledge and scholarly knowledge, and particularly to the special difficulties involved first in breaking with insider experience and then in
reconstituting the knowledge which has been obtained by means of this break. We are aware of the obstacles to scientific knowledge constituted as much by
excessive proximity as by excessive remoteness, and we know how difficult it is to sustain that relation of a proximity broken and restored, which requires much hard work, not only on the object of our research, but also on ourselves as researchers, if we are to reconcile everything we can know only as insiders, and everything we cannot or do not wish to know as long as we remain insiders."
Bourdieu (1984:1)
Coghlan and Brannick describe researchers undertaking projects from the inside as 'natives' immersed in situations and armed with the experience to examine knowledge within that specific context (2010). Academics have concluded that those existing within the context under examination can be better placed for research, and are sometimes the only ones able to access the necessary areas (Evered and Louis, 1981; Goffman, 1956; Lave, 1988; Schon, 2004; Wenger et al., 2002). It is also widely acknowledged that such research is often not straightforward and can be particularly difficult. Costley and Elliott describe researchers as 'experts' who have experienced and understand the minute details of companies or situations (2010; xvi). They call for a critical, reflective and evidenced-based approach in such research.
Rosenfeld et al. describe this as researchers who are engaged and participating but also critical and analytical observers (1995:10). This thesis extends academic concepts, particular around community, by using information that could only have been gained by the researcher through her employment with the company at the centre of the case study. It brings new insight to an industry which the literature review highlighted as being in crisis.