This paper will analyse and look at the research methods and methodology of the journalism research study Eyewitness to disaster: How journalists cope with the psychological stress inherent in reporting traumatic events by Hal Himmelstein and Perry Faithorn. The introduction of the research paper starts with an extensive literature review, something the authors recognises �An exhaustive review of the literature..�(Himmelstein & Faithorn, 2002:537). However they have simplified it somewhat as the literature has been divided into categories of opinions, pointing out the three most prominent categories. �Three overarching analytical frames emerge from this research� (Himmelstein & Faithorn, 2002: 538) The paper then goes on to describe the three categories, and gives the grounds for this study in the third and last category; psychological analysis. They explain that they have decided to focus on one very specific area of the psycho analysis of reporting that has previously been absent from this literature, namely an elaboration of journalists mental activities � specially ego functions � that aid them in coping with stress. (Himmelstein & Faithorn, 2002: 538) The language used is aimed at fellow professionals and this way of dividing the material makes the paper more readable. To carry out this study the authors have used qualitative research in the form of personal interviews as their main research method. Thus getting the interviewees� personal accounts on how they cope with the trauma they have experienced. In an interview conversation the researcher listens to what people themselves tell about their lived world, hears them express their views and opinions in their own words (�) The qualitative research interview attempts to understand the world from the subjects� point of view, to unfold the meaning of peoples experiences. (Kvale, 1996: 1) �The qualitative interview is sometimes called an unstructured or a non standardized interview�, (Kvale, 1996: 13) because the interviewees have the freedom to talk about what is of central significance to him or her, rather than to the interviewer. However by applying some loose structure they can ensure that the topics considered to be crucial to the study are covered. The interviews in this case are classified as focused interviews as they evolve around a specific topic; coping with trauma. A framework is established because the researches select the topics to be discussed, while the interviewee is free to answer in his or her own words. By doing this they can eliminate some of the problems of entirely unstructured interviews. (Bell, 1999: 138) To select their interviewees the authors chose to consult with news managers and broadcast executives which they were acquainted with. (Himmelstein & Faithorn, 2002: 538) However the choice of the Finnish journalists was based on Himmelstein�s own experience while teaching in Finland. (Himmelstein & Faithorn, 2002: 554) The four veteran journalists who were selected were chosen because they �had seen it all� (Himmelstein & Faithorn, 2002: 539) The journalists were questioned in both face to face interviews, over the phone and by post. The paper describes the different amount of time and what interview method they used on each interviewee, and also gives a merits list to show the credibility of their sources. However while they reveal the merits of their sources there is no mention of their own background and interviewing experience, except the fact that Faithorn is a psychiatrist. We also don�t know who interviewed who; whether both authors were present at each interview, or if they divided the workload between them. This may have had an effect on the interviews as �Different interviewers can produce different statements on the same themes, depending on their sensitivity to and knowledge about the topic.� (Kvale, 1996: 31) The sample size of this research was rather small, only four people. This might be seen as a too small sample to draw any reliable conclusions from. On the other hand it is claimed that to focus on a few intensive case studies is the best way to obtain general knowledge. (Kvale, 1996: 102) The sample was also narrow as it was comprised of only male interviewees, of which two were former employees of ABC and two were currently working for the Finnish broadcaster YLE. (Himmelstein & Faithorn, 2002: 539) Both Finland and America are part of the western world, so this sample does not give any attention to the experiences of journalists from other cultures, or of the opposite sex. This method of sampling fits in with what is called strategic informant sampling, where �Researchers often wish to locate persons who have the most information about a social system or one of its components.� (Smith, 1981: 278) In this case the researchers chose to only interview a few western male veteran journalists who have travelled extensively and reported on catastrophes, war and conflicts. The research paper goes on to highlight that �the authors were careful to avoid the limitations inherent in the traditional depth interviews, in which the informant merely reminisces on his/hers experience� (Himmelstein & Faithorn, 2002: 539) While discussing their experiences, both professional and personal, the authors also encouraged retrospection and introspection so that the informants �virtually re-experienced the situation to aid their report� (Himmelstein & Faithorn, 2002: 539) Here the authors use a reference to published work on the subject to provide credibility to the value of their research method. Qualitative interviews were also used to get background information. This was gathered by a face to face interview with psychiatrists Michael Blumenfield, a professor with New York Medical College. The authors also list his merits to certify the information released as credible, but nothing is mentioned about the questions asked or what kind of background information was gathered. The authors use the interviewees words as reference to illustrate their points, but these extracts have been chosen from the full extent of the material available, so as with all research papers it could be worth considering what have been left out, and if it was in any way contradictory to what the researches have concluded with. Interviews with the main informants were also conducted over the phone and by post. The paper does not say anything about what kind of structure was used in these instances. Questionnaires and checklists may have been used, especially in the case of corresponding by post, but as this is not mentioned there is no way of knowing whether they used qualitative or quantitative methods. As there is no mention of any numbers or percentage it is fair to assume that the research for this paper was carried out by the means of qualitative methods only. The authors use a realist approach to back up and interpret the psychological portraits they have constructed of the interviewees. To do this they rely on modern ego psychology, �which includes elaborations of and advances on Sigmund Freud�s seminal concepts regarding the ego and the specific mental operations it performs.� (Himmelstein & Faithorn, 2002: 540) This adds value and credibility to their interpretations. For the research information to be of any scientific importance the reliability and validity of the material must be satisfactory. Reliability is the extent to which a measurement procedure yields the same answer however and whenever it is carried out; validity is the extent to which it gives the correct answer. (Kirk and Miller, 1986: 19) As with all qualitative research the reliability and validity of the research outcome is difficult to measure. However the use of leading questions can help to check the reliability of the interviewees� answers. The qualitative research interview is particularly well suited for employing leading questions to check repeatedly the reliability of the interviewee�s answers, as well as to verify the interviewer�s interpretations. (Kvale, 1996: 158) It is a lot harder to test the validity of the research as �the issue of validity is (�) a question of whether the researcher sees what he or she thinks he or she sees. (Kirk and Miller, 1986: 21) Validity has to do with the trustworthiness of the interviewees� reports and the quality of the interview itself. Questions should be asked so that the meaning of what is being said is clear to both parties. (Kvale, 1996: 237) In this research paper there is not given any facts to build up under the validity or the reliability of research. If both authors are involved in interviewing and interpreting the responses this would make the research more valid as there is more than one person passing judgement. Objectivity is also an important issue, as bias can have an impact on the interpretations and analysis done. This is always an issue worth considering because of the personal nature of the qualitative interview. The research paper reveals in a footnote on the first page that the research was supported by a grant from the City University of New York Research Award Program, but it does not say anything about the possible restraints and the relationship between the researchers and the funders. This might give cause to question the credibility of the research. Great care should be taken in accepting conditions that give funders the right to censor or dictate as this leaves the researcher open to undue influence and can compromise their capacity to conduct professional research fully and fairly. (de Vaus, 1996: 348) |
| Analysis of "Eyewitness to disaster: How journalists cope with the psychological stress inherent in reporting traumatic events" by Hal Himmelstein and Perry Faithorn (2002) |