The prescription for a better journalism

I am currently at AEJMC in San Francisco and on Wednesday attended a pre-conference on Engaged Journalism organized by Andrea Wenzel and Jacob Nelson. The charm of these pre-conferences is that they are smaller and more focused than the main event. But this particular annual workshop also invites a cross-section of academics, independent researchers, and industry practitioners. So, the discussions are always insightful.

The workshop runs on Chatham House Rules, but it's safe to note that one session was organized by Jennifer Brandel and jesikah maria ross about the information needs frameworks emerging from a News Futures working group. The discussion was framed as “what comes first, connection or content?” as a path to understand how newsrooms might work to better connect with and serve relevant news and information to their communities.

I am ambivalent about the broader industry discussion around information needs, but struggle to explain why, even though I am involved with several research efforts utilizing the Critical Information Needs framework.

But a question on Wednesday provided some insight. To broadly paraphrase: “What actually is the difference between social, or political, or economic connections, and/or social, political, or economic information solutions?" Of course, to non-academics, there is no meaningful difference. The distinctions are just arbitrary labels we deploy to simplify reality for study. Life is not experienced within neatly organized categories.

Which is why so much of the debate about information needs bothers me. It is only valuable to break journalism into component parts for analysis if we can also reassemble it in a way that helps us make the system work better. Academics study normative frameworks of media: “what should people want,” and descriptive: “what do people actually want.” But we lack enough use of prescriptive frameworks that blend normative and descriptive findings to suggest “how we can improve the system.”

Many academic researchers use prescriptive frameworks including Action research, Theory of Change, and the various Intervention Models in health communication. And some journalists use prescriptive models in practice. Both Solutions Journalism and Engaged Journalism bridge ideals and realities while working to improve journalism and communities.

So, is the study of information needs normative, descriptive, or prescriptive? Yes. Depending on the method.

But only the prescriptive approach is of immediate use to industry. To serve that need, researchers need to first understand the practical constraints faced by newsrooms and then align research goals to develop evidence-based findings that provide actionable insights.

In this approach, information needs might be normatively defined as that which helps people understand their community, reality, and selves. Then descriptive research discovers how, which, or if a community's needs are being met. This leads to prescriptive questions about how to improve the provision of news and information in a community—and a dilemma about where and how to begin that phase of inquiry

And opinions differ. A community organizer would start with a listening project, an MBA with a business model, and a newsroom founder with a hypothesis about important topics needing coverage. But prescriptive research in this context is about business strategy, not theory. It doesn't matter where you start as long as you don't skip any steps.

Because a theory of change in a system this dynamic and complex can be understood as an iterative loop resembling the Design Thinking Venn Diagram. And much like the academic researcher's normative-descriptive-prescriptive triad, human-centered business research orbits questions of capability, desirability, and sustainability:

1. What am I as an information provider able to offer, and what can I do better or differently? (Capability)
2. How/if does that help my community, and how are they using the information? (Desireability)
3. How can I do it profitably and non-extractively? (Sustainability)

Since 1-2-3 are points on a circle, you can start at any number, ask its questions, and move to the next: 1-2-3, or 2-3-1, or 3-1-2.

And that’s the trick: prescriptive research emerges by integrating normative theory with descriptive analysis, and because it centers on action and change, it naturally lends itself to practical application—especially in business contexts. It provides a framework for academics, MBAs, and editors to understand the journey from research to actionable insights, effectively bridging these different domains. At least in theory.