Employment equity in Canadian newspaper sports journalism : a comparative study of the work experiences of women and men sports reporters
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
There is continuing evidence that North American newspaper sports departments are under pressure to rethink the contents of their sports pages as part of an overall strategy to gain larger readerships and rebuild their revenue base which eroded during the last recession (Sparks, 1994). Rambo (1986) has noted that some sports departments in the United States have hired more women sports journalists as a strategy to appeal to women readers and expand thereby their section readerships and potential advertising income. However, as reported in the literature, the overall number of women sports journalists working in major daily newspapers remains low. Women represent approximately 9% of the total work force of newspaper sports reporters in the United States (Eberhard & Myers, 1986) and 4.3% in Canada (Sparks, 1991). In addition to being under represented, women working in sports journalism often face discrimination on the job. This discrimination is, for example, revealed in a lack of high profile assignments and in difficulties with accessing senior editorial ranks (Eberhard & Myers, 1988; Creedon, 1994). This thesis investigated the work environment in Canadian daily newspaper sports departments and assessed the differential impacts of hiring practices, assignments procedures and promotion opportunities on women and men sports reporters respectively. Data was collected through a national survey. Questionnaires were sent to all women sports reporters (N=21) working full-time in a Canadian daily newspaper and to all men sports reporters (N=134) working full-time in a Canadian daily newspaper that employed one or more women sports reporters full-time. Questionnaires were also sent to all sports editors (N=106) working for a Canadian daily newspaper. Separate questionnaires were designed for sports reporters and for sports editors. For sports reporters a total of 88 questionnaires (56.8%) were completed and returned, 16 (76.2%) from women sports reporters and 72 (53.7%) from men sports reporters, for a total response rate of 56.8%. The information obtained from sports reporters was first analyzed as a whole and then analyzed with a matched sample. The matched sample included all women sports reporters who had responded (n=16) and an equivalent selected number of men sports reporters. The information obtained from sports editors was used to support the findings from the sports reporters. Four major themes emerged from the data analyses of the matched sample. First, the nature of the assignments and the visibility of the work was different for women and men sports reporters. Women sports reporters covered less prestigious assignments, published 17 articles less per month than their male peers, and a significantly higher number of women than men (p=.0170) agreed to covering more women's sports than their male peers. Second, there was a lack of opportunities to advance in the field of sports journalism and for women working in sports journalism. Although, the opportunities to advance in the field of sports journalism were limited, significantly (p=.0281) more women than men respondents tended to think that women did not have the same opportunities to advance in the field than their male peers. Third, sports journalism was male dominated and women and men sports reporters tended to belong to different networking groups. No woman was affiliated with a professional sports association. Fourth, although women reporters were unhappy with a number of things, they would still be willing to become reporters again. Over 50% (n=8) of them were not satisfied with issues surrounding career advancement, working schedule and work assignments. However, seventy five percent (n=12) of them said they would choose to become sports reporters if they had to decide again.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».