与指标和平相处:在线新闻生产中的关系工作

Q3 Social Sciences
Angèle Christin, Caitlin Petre
{"title":"与指标和平相处:在线新闻生产中的关系工作","authors":"Angèle Christin, Caitlin Petre","doi":"10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/11178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How do workers make peace with performance metrics that threaten their professional values? Drawing on Viviana Zelizer’s concepts of relational work and “good matches,” we focus on the case of online news production and analyze efforts to align audience metrics with journalistic values. Whereas existing research on web metrics tends to frame editorial production and audience data as “hostile worlds” of professional and market forces that cannot be reconciled, we show that journalists rely on relational work to make metrics acceptable within organizations. Drawing on ethnographic material, we identify five key relational strategies: moral boundary-drawing between \"good\" and \"bad\" metrics, strategic invocation of \"best-case scenarios,\" domestication through bespoke metrics, reframing metrics as democratic feedback, and justifying metrics as organizational subsidies. We then turn to cases of failure and document a process that we call overspelling, which can coincide with organizational breakdown. We conclude by discussing the concept of “failed matches” and the indirect relationship between metrics and markets in online news production.","PeriodicalId":35251,"journal":{"name":"Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making Peace with Metrics: Relational Work in Online News Production\",\"authors\":\"Angèle Christin, Caitlin Petre\",\"doi\":\"10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/11178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How do workers make peace with performance metrics that threaten their professional values? Drawing on Viviana Zelizer’s concepts of relational work and “good matches,” we focus on the case of online news production and analyze efforts to align audience metrics with journalistic values. Whereas existing research on web metrics tends to frame editorial production and audience data as “hostile worlds” of professional and market forces that cannot be reconciled, we show that journalists rely on relational work to make metrics acceptable within organizations. Drawing on ethnographic material, we identify five key relational strategies: moral boundary-drawing between \\\"good\\\" and \\\"bad\\\" metrics, strategic invocation of \\\"best-case scenarios,\\\" domestication through bespoke metrics, reframing metrics as democratic feedback, and justifying metrics as organizational subsidies. We then turn to cases of failure and document a process that we call overspelling, which can coincide with organizational breakdown. We conclude by discussing the concept of “failed matches” and the indirect relationship between metrics and markets in online news production.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/11178\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/11178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

员工如何与威胁其职业价值的绩效指标和平相处?借鉴Viviana Zelizer关于关系工作和“良好匹配”的概念,我们将重点放在在线新闻制作的案例上,并分析将受众指标与新闻价值观相结合的努力。尽管现有的网络指标研究倾向于将编辑制作和受众数据框架为专业和市场力量无法调和的“敌对世界”,但我们表明,记者依靠关系工作使指标在组织内被接受。根据民族志材料,我们确定了五种关键的关系策略:道德边界-在“好”和“坏”指标之间绘制,战略调用“最佳情况”,通过定制指标进行驯化,将指标重新构建为民主反馈,并将指标视为组织补贴。然后,我们转向失败的案例,并记录一个我们称之为过度拼写的过程,这可能与组织崩溃同时发生。最后,我们讨论了“失败匹配”的概念以及在线新闻生产中指标与市场之间的间接关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Making Peace with Metrics: Relational Work in Online News Production
How do workers make peace with performance metrics that threaten their professional values? Drawing on Viviana Zelizer’s concepts of relational work and “good matches,” we focus on the case of online news production and analyze efforts to align audience metrics with journalistic values. Whereas existing research on web metrics tends to frame editorial production and audience data as “hostile worlds” of professional and market forces that cannot be reconciled, we show that journalists rely on relational work to make metrics acceptable within organizations. Drawing on ethnographic material, we identify five key relational strategies: moral boundary-drawing between "good" and "bad" metrics, strategic invocation of "best-case scenarios," domestication through bespoke metrics, reframing metrics as democratic feedback, and justifying metrics as organizational subsidies. We then turn to cases of failure and document a process that we call overspelling, which can coincide with organizational breakdown. We conclude by discussing the concept of “failed matches” and the indirect relationship between metrics and markets in online news production.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas
Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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