When Worlds Collide: Journalistic, Market, and Tech Logics in the Adoption of News Recommender Systems

IF 2.8 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Eliza Mitova, Sina Blassnig, Edina Strikovic, Aleksandra Urman, Claes de Vreese, Frank Esser
{"title":"When Worlds Collide: Journalistic, Market, and Tech Logics in the Adoption of News Recommender Systems","authors":"Eliza Mitova, Sina Blassnig, Edina Strikovic, Aleksandra Urman, Claes de Vreese, Frank Esser","doi":"10.1080/1461670x.2023.2260504","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An increasing number of media organisations are adopting news recommender systems (NRS). Such algorithmic technologies, which prioritise content based on, for example, previous user behaviour or popularity metrics, may have far-reaching repercussions for news work. Despite this, the implications of NRS implementation for intra-organisational practices as well as dynamics and tensions between involved actors remain understudied. Against this background, this study examines decision-making processes and relationships between actors participating in NRS projects from an institutional logics perspective and places a particular emphasis on resulting tensions between journalistic, market, and tech logics. Drawing on 32 in-depth qualitative interviews with news media professionals across ten news organisations in the Netherlands and Switzerland, we discover a wide range of strategies which aim to reconcile logic multiplicity in the specific case of NRS development. Such negotiation efforts can ultimately promote new work practices and forms of collaboration but may also have broader implications for the distribution of power and voice within news organisations.","PeriodicalId":17541,"journal":{"name":"Journalism Studies","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journalism Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670x.2023.2260504","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

An increasing number of media organisations are adopting news recommender systems (NRS). Such algorithmic technologies, which prioritise content based on, for example, previous user behaviour or popularity metrics, may have far-reaching repercussions for news work. Despite this, the implications of NRS implementation for intra-organisational practices as well as dynamics and tensions between involved actors remain understudied. Against this background, this study examines decision-making processes and relationships between actors participating in NRS projects from an institutional logics perspective and places a particular emphasis on resulting tensions between journalistic, market, and tech logics. Drawing on 32 in-depth qualitative interviews with news media professionals across ten news organisations in the Netherlands and Switzerland, we discover a wide range of strategies which aim to reconcile logic multiplicity in the specific case of NRS development. Such negotiation efforts can ultimately promote new work practices and forms of collaboration but may also have broader implications for the distribution of power and voice within news organisations.
当世界碰撞:新闻推荐系统采用中的新闻、市场和技术
越来越多的媒体机构采用新闻推荐系统(NRS)。这种算法技术可以根据用户先前的行为或受欢迎程度等指标对内容进行优先排序,可能会对新闻工作产生深远的影响。尽管如此,NRS实施对组织内部实践的影响以及相关参与者之间的动态和紧张关系仍未得到充分研究。在此背景下,本研究从制度逻辑的角度考察了参与NRS项目的参与者之间的决策过程和关系,并特别强调了新闻、市场和技术之间的紧张关系。通过对荷兰和瑞士10家新闻机构的新闻媒体专业人士进行32次深入的定性访谈,我们发现了一系列旨在协调NRS发展具体情况下逻辑多样性的策略。这种谈判努力最终可以促进新的工作实践和合作形式,但也可能对新闻机构内部的权力和声音分配产生更广泛的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journalism Studies
Journalism Studies COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
90
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信