Where's all the 'good' sports journalism? Sports media research, the sociology of sport, and the question of quality sports reporting

Across newsrooms and journalism schools, questions as to what constitutes or ‘counts’ as excellent reporting are currently inciting much debate. Among the various frameworks being put forward to describe and encourage ‘excellent’ journalism in its various forms, sport is seldom mentioned – a legacy perhaps of its perennial dismissal as trivial subject matter. This essay grew from our curiosity as to whether the reverse was also true: that is, whether and what those who study sports journalism and sports media – in particular sociologists of sport – have contributed to understandings of ‘best’ and even excellent journalistic practice. We identified and analysed 376 articles from eight leading scholarly journals that feature sports media research with the aim of examining instances where ‘excellent’ sports reporting was either highlighted, described or advocated. After outlining the major themes that emerged from this analysis, we reflect on why so few of the sampled articles explicitly advise on what best practice sports journalism might look like – especially when it comes to coverage of the sport-related social issues that sociologists of sport tend to focus on – and why so little theoretical attention has been afforded to the question of excellent sports journalism more generally. While there are good sociological reasons for focusing on problematic sports reporting, on structural and systemic issues in which media are implicated, and on producing alternatives to hegemonic sports media, we conclude that it is high time for instances of excellent sports journalism to be afforded the theoretical and empirical attention long granted to their ‘bad’ journalistic counterparts

Formation and performance of collaborative disaster management networks: Evidence from a Swedish wildfire response

AbstractNatural disasters present a multitude of entangled societal challenges beyond the realms and capacities of single actors. Prior research confirms that effective collaboration is of critical significance to address such complex collective action problems. Yet, studies rarely investigate if patterns of collaboration are appropriately aligned (‘fit’) with how different challenges (tasks) are interdependent, or how levels of fit influence collective action performance. We develop a set of hypotheses specifying what constitutes a good fit between collaborative networks and task interdependency. Using unique empirical data from the response to a major wildfire in Sweden, we examine how individual actors select collaboration partners and tasks during the formation the collaborative crisis response network. Then we test if levels of fit in the established network influence performance. We show that patterns of actor and task interdependency influence the formation of collaborative networks and that a good fit seems to be associated with more effective collaboration. Our data even suggest that a good fit is more important for performance than actors’ prior crisis management experience and level of professionalization. Further, we show that actors only partially engage in actor-task configurations conducive to high performance. Our study probes the limitations of simplified accounts of collaborative disaster management by enabling more precise and theoretically informed empirical inquiries regarding the mechanisms that shape the structure and performance of collaborative networks

Do Advocacy Coalitions Matter? : Crisis and Change in Swedish Nuclear Energy Policy

This study applies the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to developments in Swedish nuclear energy policy in the 1970s and 80s. In an effort to contribute to the refinement and debate regarding the generalizability of ACF theory, the objective is to assess the utility of ACF assumptions when applied in this case. The study explores hypotheses about advocacy coalition stability and examines the motivations explaining policy change in the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Utilizing different sources of data, the study confirms patterns of coalition stability and shows that interests and political learning were important in explaining policy change in this case. Theoretical implications derived from this study call for further specification of basic ACF concepts(external perturbations, dominant coalitions, and skillful exploitation) and posit the intensity and breadth of political conflict and strategic action as critical factors contributing to the explanation of policy change in contested policy areas

Assessments and Aspirations

The conclusion of this book highlights the major insights surrounding the comparative study of advocacy coalitions and public policies on hydraulic fracturing across seven countries. Based on the chapter findings, it discusses insights into factors influencing the structure and functioning of policy subsystems, the characteristics of advocacy coalitions, and the nature of public policies on hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore, the conclusion presents critical challenges to the comparative study of policy processes and public policy. Finally, it offers a discussion of the contributions to hydraulic fracturing politics and three recommendations for future advocacy coalition framework research: the incorporation of subsystem contexts, the development of methodological best practices, and a focus on coalition resources and strategies