Journalism education, research, and practice in Africa: Toward a transformative approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western conceptualisation of journalism as a profession and an academic discipline fundamentally represents systemic challenges to how journalism could be theorised, researched, and practised in ways that address and reflect the specificities of non-Western contexts such as Africa. It is in this context that calls for recognition of locally relevant epistemologies of journalism have generated vigorous debates among journalists, journalism educators, and communication academics. The authors argue that, in a rapidly changing world that recognises diverse perspectives, communities, cultures, national differences, and various ways of doing things, journalism education and practice should no longer be viewed through the linear and dominant lens of Western theoretical and practical ways of knowing. The comparative analysis presented in this paper provides critical insights into new approaches to theoretical and methodological developments that inform the discipline, with the aim to inspire and encourage wider debate in international communication field across cultures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".