Key words: journalism

“New Realism” is more than just a catchphrase. It offers the opportunity to reconcile theoretical and methodological standpoints such as realism and constructivism, which have so far been irreconcilable. Ontologically, this occurs through the inclusion of objective reality and observer perspective (‘Sinnfeldontologie’), epistemologically it occurs through the broadening of the concept of empiricism and the reference to the mediality of perception and experience (‘documentality’). This is relevant to journalism and journalism research, because the relevance of reality in journalism is evident. However, this cannot be substantiated adequately through constructivism, although this theory is very popular within Media and Communication Studies. Moreover, the concept of reality is closely related to the concept of truth in journalism; the latter even being standardised by law. A ‘moderate realism’ or ‘soft constructivism’ can, therefore, theoretically substantiate this claim, and thus unify objective factuality and subjectively meant meaning.

Key words: Epistemology, methodology, constructivism, realism, truth

PR’s roots as research subject in communication studies lie within its recognition as a source of journalism. This may explain why PR is still reduced to ist role as an external communicator of organizations. In this article, I will suggest – on a system-theoretical basis – to regard business self-governance, i.e. the influence on the company’s policies, as equiivalent to external self-governance, i.e. the self-presentation capacity of PR. Furthermore, I will suggest understanding PR as difference management of external governance and business self-governance; while the context governance will always be the preferred aspect.

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.

Key words: algorithms, constructivism, journalism, epistemology, constructivist epistemology, media reality

Historically, journalism owes its authority to giving valid information about social reality from the use of specific forms as genres. However, this authority has doubtlessly become fragile. To examine this development and explain some of the reasons this article discusses the impact of constructivist theory on the development of a genre theory in Journalism Studies. While in the beginning, forms were mostly discussed in practical guides for future journalists, the constructivist theory of media forms offered a complex model of communication. Forms were understood as regulating, structuring and standardizing expectations of media texts for journalists and audiences alike. This article draws on discussions of communicative forms in social constructivism as a predecessor of radical constructivism. The assumption of a sharp distinction between factual and fictional journalistic forms, which produce an unambiguous reference to reality, then becomes theoretically and empirically problematic. Processes of hybridization are dissolving distinct journalistic genres – institutionalized communicative forms become contingent hybrids. Based on a constructivist analysis, this paper argues for an inclusion of the performative dimensions of forms. In such an understanding, any form is emerging in its performance as iteration and re-signification of established conventions.

Key words: Journalism, communicative figuration, media forms, radical constructivism, social constructivism, genre, hybrid forms

New media technologies, changing student learning styles and high employer expectations in a tightening job market necessitate innovation and constant adaptation of journalism and public relations teaching materials. Building on a constructivist paradigm, this essay proposes a service-based, collaborative approach to teaching that involves students, peers, employers and faculty. It offers a model, strategies and a case study using this teaching style. Faculty, students and employers benefit from departments that maintain a good relationship with key stakeholders and incorporate convergent media into course assignments. Collaboration and service learning also are essential to keeping up with emerging trends. Relevance: The paper addresses how to implement a constructive approach in service-learning projects.

Key words: Collaborative, constructivist, journalism, media convergence, public relations, service learning, stakeholders

This essay deals with question how we can understand and model the relationship between (constructivist) theory and the practical usage of this theory in a wide ranging and steadily growing field (coaching, education, public relations, journalism etc.). How is it possible to use and apply a communication theory which wants to offer a complex and non-trivial understanding of communication? How can one meet the challenge of a (necessary) reduction of complexity in the act of practical usage – that nonetheless preserves complexity and a notion of fundamental contingency? The upshot is all in all: constructivist communication theory lacks immediate prescription-like relevance for any kind of practice – but it can help and inspire, if applied with sensitivity and with an openness to surprise, to create informing irritations: these are not only differences that make a difference, but differences and effects that at least correspond in a functional way with the goals one wants to achieve.

It is the central assumption of all constructivist approaches that we are biased in becoming aware that access to an absolute truth is impossible, and must be impossible. Based on forerunners and central reference theories of the history of philosophy – in this article the different theoretical strands of constructivism are described, which originate from the natural sciences, the humanities and the social sciences. This is followed by an account of the debate in journalism and communication studies, which – initially in an extremely robust form – was conducted on constructivism. In the meantime, however, constructivist considerations have become part of the normal science of the discipline. [Curator’s translation]

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.