Aligning communication, cultural and media studies research and scholarship with industry and policy : Australian instances

This article reflects on aspects of what is claimed to be the distinctiveness of Australian communication, cultural and media studies, focusing on two cases – the cultural policy debate in the 1990s, and the concept of creative industries in the 2000s – and the relations between them, which highlight the alignment of research and scholarship with industry and policy and with which the author has been directly involved. Both ‘moments’ have been controversial; the three main lines of critique of such alignment of research and scholarship with industry and policy (its untoward proximity to tenets of the dominant neo-liberal ideology; the evacuation of cultural value by the economic; and the possible loss of critical vocation of the humanities scholar) are debated.

Australian Library and Information Studies (LIS) researchers' ranking of LIS journals

The paper describes the processes and the outcomes of the ranking of LIS journal titles by Australia’s LIS researchers during 2007-8, firstly through the Australian federal government’s Research Quality Framework (RQF) process and then its replacement, the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative. The requirement to rank the journals titles used came from discussions held at the RQF panel meeting held in February 2007 in Canberra, Australia. While it was recognised that the Web of Science (formerly ISI) journal impact approach of journal acceptance for measures of research quality and impact might not work for LIS, it was apparent that this model would be the default if no other ranking of journal titles became apparent. Although an increasing number of LIS and related discipline journals were appearing in the Web of Science listed rankings, the number was few and it was thus decided by the Australian LIS research community to undertake the ranking exercise.

Why adopt now? Multiple case studies and survey studies comparing small, medium and large firms

While a number of factors have been highlighted in the innovation adoption literature, little is known about whether different factors are related to innovation adoption in differently-sized firms. We used preliminary case studies of small, medium and large firms to ground our hypotheses, which were then tested using a survey of 94 firms. We found that external stakeholder pressure and non-financial readiness were related to innovation adoption in SMEs; but that for large firms, adoption was related to the opportunity to innovate. It may be that the difficulties of adopting innovations, including both the financial cost and the effort involved, are too great for SMEs to overcome unless there is either a compelling need (external pressure) or enough in-house capability (non-financial readiness). This suggests that SMEs are more likely to have innovation “pushed” onto them while large firms are more likely to “pull” innovations when they have the opportunity.

Communication, Cultural and Media Studies : The Key Concepts (4th Edition)

This fourth edition of Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts is an indispensible guide to the most important terms in the field. It offers clear explanations of the key concepts, exploring their origins, what they’re used for and why they provoke discussion. The author provides a multi-disciplinary explanation and assessment of the key concepts, from ‘authorship’ to ‘censorship’; ‘creative industries’ to ‘network theory’; ‘complexity’ to ‘visual culture’. The new edition of this classic text includes: * Over 200 entries including 50 new entries * All entries revised, rewritten and updated * Coverage of recent developments in the field * Insight into interactive media and the knowledge-based economy * A fully updated bibliography with 400 items and suggestions for further reading throughout the text

If it’s sick, how can we well? : Four criteria for evaluating the health of journalism

This paper seeks to address the highly pervasive discourse that journalism is ‘in crisis’ by outlining four criteria by which we might evaluate the ‘health’ of the practice (measures of both quantity and quality of output). It offers an extremely brief meta-level analysis of existing research, and posits that when judged according to these four criteria, journalism might actually in reasonable health,and that we ought to be far more optimistic about its future. This assessment therefore challenges the ‘business-centric’ evaluation which often dominates discussions (in the media as well as academia) about the profession’s supposedly dire future.