NO QUICK FIX: How Journalists Assess the Impact and Define the Boundaries of Solutions Journalism

ABSTRACT

The U.S.-based Solutions Journalism Network (SJN) defines its mission as supporting and connecting journalists interested in “rigorous reporting on responses to social problems” that can “strengthen democracy” and “improve the overall quality and impact of journalism.” Yet journalists and scholars lack a shared framework for assessing the impact of solutions journalism and its contributions to democracy. As an emerging practice, solutions journalism would benefit from clarity regarding its objectives, metrics used to measure its impact, and when and how its impact should be shared. This mixed-methods study investigates how journalists who practice and promote solutions journalism view its purpose, assess its impact, and define its boundaries. A textual analysis uncovers how solutions journalism is conceptualized and how impact is referenced in SJN's materials and comments from organization representatives. A survey examines how journalists (n = 50) who are SJN members and have worked on a solutions journalism story evaluate and discuss its impact. Implications for the practice of solutions journalism and scholarship on journalism's impact are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Advocacy
• boundary work
• engagement
• impact
• solutions journalism
• survey
• textual analysis

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Solutions Journalism Network for its help distributing the survey to its members.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Researchers searched for “engagement” because the term is often used synonymously with impact.

2 All members received the first e-mail (33.6% open rate), 1066 who did not open the first e-mail received a reminder (17.4% open rate), and 901 who did not open the first two e-mails received a final reminder (11% open rate).

3 SJN did not then track members’ specific demographics.

4 The Facebook group had 1314 members. SJN does not track how many Facebook group members also are SJN members.

5 On this Likert scale, 1 = very unimportant, 2 = somewhat unimportant, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat important, 5 = very important.

6 This and the remaining questions used the following Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree.