More Constructive Research?

By Peter Bro, Professor, Ph.D., and Head of Journalism Programs at the University of Southern Denmark (SDU)

A quiet revolution is spreading through Danish newsrooms these years. There are no gunshots, no craters, no wounded journalists or fallen news editors. Yet the changes are noticeable across the media landscape. Increasingly, newspapers, TV and radio stations, and other publishing media are presenting news stories with a constructive focus.

It is a new development. For generations, journalists have been trained to believe that a good news story is a bad news story. "If it bleeds, it leads," as they say across the Atlantic. But now, news media are increasingly sharing stories with a more positive and even inspiring angle. These may be news stories about better primary schools, reduced violence, new solutions to climate challenges, and other positive reports that previously would have been discarded by editorial teams.

This quiet revolution is called "constructive journalism," a radically different way of thinking about journalism that has sparked much debate in media circles. Yet, while editorial battles continue within news organizations, it is worth considering whether other sectors could also benefit from adopting a constructive approach. In particular, I am thinking about another key societal institution and profession: universities and their researchers.

That universities can sometimes play a more active role in society is hardly newsworthy, and in academic circles, we distinguish between what is called Mode 1 and Mode 2 research. Mode 1 research is characterized by research being an end in itself, with researchers allowing the often years-long scientific projects to unfold without concern for external outcomes. This approach is also known as classical basic research and continues to dominate many fields. Mode 2 research, on the other hand, is characterized by having an application perspective.

These two forms of research are not necessarily opposites. H.C. Ørsted’s groundbreaking discovery of the relationship between electricity and magnetism is an old but excellent example. The story goes that Ørsted, during a public lecture at the auditoriums on Nørregade in Copenhagen, noticed that every time he activated an electric current, a nearby compass needle would react. Ørsted published his discovery in a brief paper sent to the leading scientific institutions of the time, but many innovative individuals and companies outside the universities also drew inspiration from his work.

Ørsted’s discovery subsequently led to a series of inventions. These innovations contributed to transforming communication — from messages needing to be physically carried by humans or animals to being transmitted instantly via electric wires. Samuel Morse’s famous telegraph alphabet is one such example. Moreover, the discovery of the relationship between magnetism and electricity laid the groundwork for the invention, development, and later application of many other technologies that today are integral to both our personal and professional lives.

This example shows that Mode 1 and Mode 2 research are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, Mode 1 research often lays the foundation for Mode 2 research. Unfortunately, for generations, researchers have largely left it to others — outside the universities — to react to and capitalize on scientific discoveries, while many of us have not concerned ourselves much with ensuring the practical application of our work. But in a time marked by increasingly complex societal challenges, perhaps it is time we draw inspiration from the developments seen in journalism.

Universities and news organizations actually have a lot in common. Their employees live off first conducting research and then communicating it to the outside world. Both types of institutions have, over hundreds of years, built strong norms and methods for how research and communication should be conducted. It is worth remembering now that we are seeing news media supplement traditional problem-focused reporting with an increasing emphasis on societal potentials — highlighting what already works today or could work in the future.

If editorial leaders and staff in the news media can supplement their traditional work with new, more constructive forms of journalism, surely we in academia can do the same. A constructive focus in research does not mean abandoning centuries-old methods. Nor does it mean researchers must become fiery activists or standard-bearers for particular interest groups or political parties. Constructive journalism demonstrates that it is possible to remain objective, neutral, and impartial while still ensuring that one’s work constructively contributes to societal development.

All it really requires is that we not only describe the world as it is but also take responsibility for ensuring that our discoveries are transformed into something directly usable. This means we should not merely publish scientific articles that only a few people actually read, but also find new ways to communicate and engage with the world around us — something that many researchers, thankfully, are already doing. But who knows — perhaps we professors, associate professors, and other university professionals truly have something important to learn from journalists. Not only when it comes to the goals and methods of the future, but also when it comes to the name: constructive research.