Clarifying Journalism’s Quantitative Turn

TLDR

As quantitative forms have become more prevalent in professional journalism, distinguishing between them and examining their roles in contemporary practice has become increasingly important. This study defines and compares three quantitative forms of journalism—computer‑assisted reporting, data journalism, and computational journalism—examining the points of overlap and divergence among their journalistic values and practices. The study introduces a four‑part typology, classifying these forms along axes of professional expertise versus networked participation, transparency versus opacity, big‑data versus targeted sampling, and active versus passive public engagement, set against the convergence of open‑source culture and professional journalism. These three quantitative journalistic forms are ultimately characterized as related but distinct approaches that integrate open‑source and social‑science values with professional journalism, each with its own flaws yet contributing uniquely to democratically robust practice.

Abstract

As quantitative forms have become more prevalent in professional journalism, it has become increasingly important to distinguish between them and examine their roles in contemporary journalistic practice. This study defines and compares three quantitative forms of journalism—computer-assisted reporting, data journalism, and computational journalism—examining the points of overlap and divergence among their journalistic values and practices. After setting the three forms against the cultural backdrop of the convergence between the open-source movement and professional journalistic norms, the study introduces a four-part typology to evaluate their epistemological and professional dimensions. In it, the three forms are classified according to their orientation toward professional expertise or networked participation, transparency or opacity, big data or targeted sampling, and a vision of an active or passive public. These three quantitative journalistic forms are ultimately characterized as related but distinct approaches to integrating the values of open-source culture and social science with those of professional journalism, each with its own flaws but also its own distinct contribution to democratically robust journalistic practice.