Key words: journalism

Today algorithms are deemed to have a power similar to that of journalism to produce public spheres and constructions of reality. The debate relating to this proposition allow us to observe how questions, which have formed the core of journalism research, are now being reformulated. Such questions concern the definition of what underpins information in society and in the news, the definition of relevance, the appropriateness of selection processes, the idea of objectivity and how items offered as information relate to ‘reality’. The epistemological challenge of the reality of the mass media (to Communication Studies) has, therefore, waxed virulent again, given the new indexes of the changed conditions for communication in society. We use the possibilities of constructivism when observing the debate about the significance of algorithms for producing a public sphere/reality and propose a view of professional journalism and algorithmically generated information not as two separate sites for constructing reality but as interwoven with and relating to each other.

Empirical results in journalism research suggest that journalism cannot be clearly distinguished from other communication systems in society, such as public relations or advertising, and that its structural boundaries are blurring. Do radical constructivism and social systems theory, which are based on a logic of distinction and which usually observe processes of differentiation, provide analytic tools for observing processes of blurring boundaries? The article argues that both radical constructivism and social systems theory are able to address and explain such empirical findings on all levels of investigation: on the micro level of actors (journalists), on the meso level of organizations (newsrooms), and on the macro level of society (journalism).

Operating with paradoxes seems to infringe scientific rules, which try to avoid paradoxes as false argumentation. Both constructivism and system theory do not ignore logic paradoxes and practical dilemma situations. Rather, observing paradoxes theoretically and solving di-lemma situations practically is typical for constructivist research programmes (cf. Watzlawick, systemic therapy etc). The constructivist way of thinking in terms of paradoxes can be applied to journalism re-search (theory) and journalism (practice). Journalists have to cope with conflicting expecta-tions and demands in practice, and journalism researchers cannot ignore these dilemmas and the ways of overcoming them in theory-building. This volume collects almost fifty authors contributing relevant issues in journalism research which are more or less paradox in struc-ture. Although many of the authors are not committed to a constructivist or system-theoretical perspective, they manage to describe typical paradoxes and how these paradoxes can be “solved”. As this volume is also a festschrift for Siegfried Weischenberg, a prominent journal-ism researcher in Germany, it closes with an extensive interview the editors conducted with Weischenberg on major issues in journalism research and practice.

Context: Niklas Luhmann is considered to be a major proponent of the constructivist movement who based his highly complex sociological theory on constructivist concepts such as Maturana’s autopoiesis and Spencer Brown’s distinction. Problem: Despite heavily borrowing from constructivism, there are doubts as to whether his epistemological standpoint was properly constructivist. Method: In six papers and 14 Open Peer Commentaries, Luhmann’s epistemological understanding, understanding of science, and use and development of constructivist concepts is examined. Results: The authors’ papers and commentaries cover a broad range of topics including the concepts of the observer, meaning, environment, and structural coupling.

Key words: Luhmann, Maturana, Kant, observer, realism, autopoiesis, structural coupling, meaning, social system, epistemology

The introduction to this book describes the relevant criteria for a constructivist communication science. The author introduces the following chapters.

Key words: systems theory, radical constructivism, communication science

In the light of what can be called porous communication and with respect both to standardized and qualitative methodology, the article discusses several solutions to problems of respondents’ false understandings of the questions, of respondents’ incompatible answers, and the article applies Colin Grant’s approach of porous communication to the specific communication proceeding within surveys and social scientific interviews. Textbooks about interviewing and surveys seem to take for granted that the interviewer and the respondent understand each other well: They seem to presume that the meaning of the questions can be clarified (only) by the correct construction of the questionnaire. As a consequence the respondent’s answers should be clearly related to these questions, should be valid in terms of information and should easily be understood by the interviewer. However, these premises should be questioned as the apparent stability of the cognitive and social relationship between interviewer (or questionnaire) and respondent can permanently be challenged by misunderstood questions or answers or by sensitive topics.

Purpose: Explaining the relationship between theory and empirical research within the research process. The main motivation is to show that non-dualizing epistemology and constructivism have approximately the same ideas to explain this relationship. Problem: Josef Mitterer criticizes constructivism as a dualizing epistemology and “overlooks” that non-dualizing philosophy and constructivist perspectives are similar with regard to the relationship between theory and empirical research. Method: (1) Reconstruction of non-dualizing argumentation, (2) non-dualizing implications for the description of the relationship between theory and empirical research, (3) comparison of non-dualizing implications for the relationship between theory and empirical research with constructivist implications for this relationship. Solution: Finding a position on the description of the relationship between theory and empirical research that fits both epistemologies i.e. non-dualizing philosophy and constructivism. If we discard the critical rationalist idea to falsify theory with the help of empirical research (which reflects reality), we better conceive the relationship between theory and empirical research as a permanent and mutual refinement, stabilization and irritation. Implications: With the help of non-dualizing argumentation, constructivists have to clarify their position towards the relationship between theory and empirical research, particularly towards the choice of methods and the interpretation of the results; and non-dualizing epistemology can profit from constructivist second-order argumentation.

Key words: theory, empirical research, second-order observation, epistemology, methodology, methods

In the light of what can be called porous communication (according to Colin Grant) and with respect both to standardized and qualitative methodology, the article discusses several problems of respondents’ false understanding of the questions, of incompatible answers and of invalid information. The article is based on radical constructivist epistemology.