Env Journ

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/240699131
Newspaper Reporters' Priorities and Beliefs About

Environmental Journalism: An Application of Q-
Methodology
Article in Science Communication · January 2010

DOI: 10.1177/1075547010364927
CITATIONS READS
22 520
3 authors, including:
Christos Giannoulis Iosif Botetzagias

Valencia College University of the Aegean
9 PUBLICATIONS 56 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 352 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Certified as a Neusrel Analyst View project
CLIMATE CHANGE VIDEO VOTE! View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Constantina Skanavis on 28 February 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Science Communication
http://scx.sagepub.com/
Newspaper Reporters' Priorities and Beliefs About Environmental

Journalism: An Application of Q-Methodology
Christos Giannoulis, Iosif Botetzagias and Constantina Skanavis
Science Communication 2010 32: 425 originally published online 18 August
2010
DOI: 10.1177/1075547010364927
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://scx.sagepub.com/content/32/4/425
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Science Communication can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://scx.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://scx.sagepub.com/content/32/4/425.refs.html
Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Science Communication
32(4) 425–466
Newspaper Reporters’ © 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
Priorities and Beliefs sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1075547010364927
About Environmental http://scx.sagepub.com
Journalism: An
Application of
Q-Methodology
Christos Giannoulis,1,2 Iosif Botetzagias,1

and Constantina Skanavis1
Abstract
This article assesses the variety of discourses articulated by journalists
reporting on environmental issues. In particular, it investigates how
environmental journalists perceive their role and function as reporters of
environmental issues as well as the problems they face while reporting. The
authors interviewed 23 newspaper reporters covering environmental issues
for the nine largest (in terms of daily circulation) daily Greek newspapers, by
employing Q-methodology, a qualitative statistical approach specially adjusted
for small samples. The subsequent analysis reveals three “factors,” or distinct
discourses, labeled “scientifically objective, environmentally responsible
journalist,” “environmental crusaders,” and “objective-pure journalists.”
By analyzing factors’ discourses, the authors concluded that these groups
are highly similar to the “disseminator,” “interpreter/investigator,” and
“populist mobilize” categories identified in previous research for journalists
with different field orientations. However, the last category (“adversarial”)
did not appear in our sample. The authors encourage the replication of
1
University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece
2
University of Ioannina, Agrinio, Greece
Corresponding Author:
Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, University Hill, Xenia Building,
Mytilene 81100, Greece
Email: cgiannoulis@env.aegean.gr

426 Science Communication 32(4)
this research study in other countries as an effective method of obtaining

a broader understanding of the practices and impacts of environmental
journalism at a global level.
Keywords
environmental reporters, environmental journalism, Q-methodology, Greece,
environmental communication
The environmental challenges of the 21st century will be far more subtle,
demanding, and global than in the past. They range from questions on how
chemicals may be altering our genetic make-up to the long-term ramifica-
tions of climate change and related natural hazard preparedness to adaptation
measures. The issues are becoming more complex, and a number of advo-
cates with competing stakes make it more difficult to communicate what is
happening to the environment. Understanding the facts and making judg-
ments has become critical. This is the most crucial task for journalists
working on the environmental “beat,” because they are the ones communi-
cating these issues to the general public (Cox, 2009; Wyss, 2008). In this
high-stakes milieu of environmental reporting, the main aim is to better por-
tray the contours of the varied aspects of environmental change, as better
reporting has critical implications for understanding, meaning, and potential
public engagement (Boykoff, 2009).
Environmental journalism carries an array of possible meanings and often
embraces several at once. It can be considered an advocate’s beat, journalism
with a purpose, or simply journalism about the environment. Elements of
science and health reporters’ beat also play a part in the environmental jour-
nalist’s job (Rademakers, 2004).
Over time, the definition of environmental journalism has varied, and
environmental issues have evolved from traditional issues involving preser-
vation to more modern, pollution-related ones. The way the media have cov-
ered the environment has also changed. Environmental issues can range from
those associated with the natural environment of the earth to those associated
with environmental threats to the health of living things. Today, media cov-
erage of the environment may be classified as risk reporting or science jour-
nalism or as part of a more general field called environmental communication
(Rademakers, 2004).
Often, the literature on environmental journalism leads one to the litera-
ture on science and risk communication, with the latter further delving
into the literature on environmental communication. This study incorporates

Giannoulis et al. 427
information from the literature on risk communication studies and science

communication studies. In the scholarship of journalism, science journalism
is the oldest of the three and risk communication the newest. However, much
environmental journalism can be classified as risk communication and/or sci-
ence journalism. Consequently, much of the discussion about science journal-
ism applies to environmental journalism, as risk communication scholarship
applies to environmental journalism. Because environmental journalism, like
science journalism, is so complex and can be highly technical, scholarship
criticizes coverage that uses the same traditional news values found in other
news (Rademakers, 2004).
News journalism, especially environmental journalism, is often thought to
contribute vital resources to the process of gathering information, deliberat-
ing, and acting. News, particularly environmental news, is what journalists
make it (Fenton, 2009; Schneider, in press). According to Fjæstad (2007),
journalists’ mission is to serve their audiences, the citizens, by informing
them about recent developments (“news”) and naming and warning of insuf-
ficiencies of various kinds. These tasks may be summarized as the three Cs:
•• Chronicle: to inform about what has happened since the last instance
of publication,
•• Criticism: to protect the audience and warn of dangers and inade-
quacies, and
•• Commentary: to explain and interpret what is happening.
Sometimes a fourth C is added, for communication, or the transfer of social

heritage between generations and between ethnic groups (entertainment
might also be recognized as a separate media assignment).
The most important factor in journalists’ successfully accomplishing their
mission is their working environment, which is shaped by economic, social,
political, and technological factors, all of which form a dense web of inter-
meshing commercial, ethical, regulatory, and cultural components. Focusing
on environmental journalism, scholars report a shrinking news hole imposed
by the heavy influence of sociopolitical factors and, over time, the increased
effect of political and industry interests (A. Anderson, 2009; Boykoff, 2009;
Simon, 2009). Cox (2009) listed five factors that constrain news production
in general and environmental news in particular: media political economy
(i.e., the influence of ownership and the economic interests of the owners of
newspapers and television networks on the news content of these media
sources), gatekeeping and the environmental beat (i.e., the decisions of edi-
tors and media managers to cover or not to cover certain environmental

stories), newsworthiness (i.e., the ability of a news story to attract readers or

viewers), media frames (i.e., central organizing themes connecting different
semantic elements of a news story), and journalistic norms. The latter term
refers to processes, rules, tools, textual devices, and modes of representation
that journalists apply in their everyday work to further shape news content
(Rupar, 2007).
Boykoff and Boykoff (2007) outlined and examined such journalistic
norms (“personification,” “dramatization,” “novelty,” “authority-order bias,”
and “balance”), which shape both what becomes news and how news is por-
trayed. According to Boykoff’s (2009) review, personification refers to the
inclination to personalize stories, such as with coverage focusing on charis-
matic humans struggling in the negotiated spaces of cultural politics and the
environment (Archibald, 1999). This tendency is connected with dramatiza-
tion, whereby coverage of dramatic events tends to downplay more compre-
hensive analysis of the enduring problems in favor of covering the surface-level
movements (Wilkins & Patterson, 1987, as cited in Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007,
p. 3). Both norms intersect with the journalistic attraction to novelty, to novel
ways of portraying or depicting already existing things within the context of
ongoing storylines (Wilkins & Patterson, 1991, as cited in Boykoff & Boykoff,
2007, p. 3). In tandem, journalistic valuations of drama, personalities, and
novelty can serve to trivialize news content, as it can also lead to the blocking
out of news items that do not hold an immediate sense of excitement or con-
troversy. Furthermore, these three norms inform authority-order bias, where
journalists rely largely on official sources (Wilkins & Patterson, 1991, as cited
in Boykoff & Boykoff 2007, p. 4). Finally, all the aforementioned norms
intersect with the journalistic norm of balance, an activity that often appears
to fulfill pursuits of objectivity (Cunningham, 2003; Rupar, 2007). With bal-
anced reporting, journalists “present the views of legitimate spokespersons of
the conflicting sides in any significant dispute, and provide both sides with
roughly equal attention” (Entman, 1989, as cited in Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007,
p. 4). However, the practice of balancing scientific findings with skepticism
seems to introduce more uncertainty than the reports themselves contained
(Boykoff, 2009; Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007; Brainard, 2009). Overall, scholas-
tic adherence to these norms, along with the other factors of news production,
limits mainstream media in different ways, resulting in a kind of framing that
fails to place stories into (sufficient) context (Boykoff, 2009; Corbett, 2006;
Cox, 2009; Wyss, 2008).
The multiple challenges and constraints in covering this complex field
confirm the need to understand the ideational underpinnings of environmen-
tal reporting. One must analyze the role ideology and social factors play in

the production of news, with a special emphasis on the relationship between

media professionals and their “sources.” Furthermore, one must assess how
journalists’ everyday organizational routines and professional norms affect
coverage (A. Anderson, 2009). To that extent, research (Carvalho, 2007) has
indicated that various dimensions of environmental science representation
are interlinked with ideology in all journalistic genres, from news reports to
opinion articles. First, ideology has implications for the interpretation of
“facts.” The reliability attributed by the media to scientific “truth” claims, the
preferred definitions of “facts,” and the quantity of media space dedicated to
a given scientific claim both derive from and sustain a certain ideology.
Second, the selection of agents who provide scientific knowledge also con-
tains an ideological twist: Which “experts” and “counter-experts” are given
voice depends on and reproduces particular viewpoints. Third, the goals
associated with knowledge have an ideological basis: The (in)direct implica-
tions for individual or governmental action, which are drawn from scientific
claims, result from views of the status quo and contribute to its consolidation
or challenge. In a nutshell, journalists rely on personal values and on cues
within the social system regarding the importance of a particular item or event
in order to make their judgments about news.
Previous research has identified a limited number of belief systems or
social perspectives that frame journalists’ reporting. Weaver and Wilhoit, in
their 20-year research study examining the role of journalists in society, found
that U.S. journalists’ “core belief systems” can be roughly categorized into
four attitudinal categories (Weaver, Beam, & Brownlee, 2006). They caution
that these categories (see below) are not mutually exclusive and that most
journalists “load” on two or even three of them. More recent research by
Stocking and Holstein (2009) reached similar conclusions. Stocking and
Holstein’s research is particularly interesting because they investigated how
journalists deal with industries’ claims of “doubt” and/or “ignorance” about
science that threaten their interests, a topic having obvious connotations for
most environmental reporting issues. The journalists Stocking and Holstein
interviewed understood their role in such controversies as follows:
•• Disseminator: The disseminator journalist sees his or her primary

role as getting the facts straight and getting them to the public
quickly (Weaver et al., 2006). He or she uses ignorance claims as
they are presented, distancing him or herself from assessing their
“truth” by simply reporting, with scrupulous accuracy, what the
industry sources have said about the science and trusting the public
to decide (Stocking & Holstein, 2009).

•• Interpreter/investigator: The interpretive/investigative journalist

sees his or her role as “investigating the truth about facts” and pro-
viding useful context (Weaver et al., 2006). He or she assesses the
claims with independent research and dismisses those found false,
writing an editorial that ignores the industry’s claims and praises the
scientists’ research (Stocking & Holstein, 2009).
•• Populist mobilizer: In the spirit of “public journalism,” the populist
mobilizer journalist seeks to engage audiences with entertaining sto-
ries that give a voice to the public and set political agendas (Weaver
et al., 2006). He or she emphasizes the views of nonexpert citizens
whose claims are normally not admitted to such debates, reports on
the industry’s ignorance claims, but neglecting the more incendiary
ones, and uses lay claims in ways that bolster the representation of
the research as credible science (Stocking & Holstein, 2009).
•• Adversary: The adversarial journalist sees his or her role as remain-
ing “constantly skeptical” of public officials and special interests
(Weaver et al., 2006). He or she appears to be skeptical of all claims,
including those of scientists, thereby enhancing the credibility of
industry claims of bias in the research. The resulting story is, in
effect, supportive of industry and hostile to science (Stocking &
Holstein, 2009).
According to Borden and Tew (2007) such journalists’ role expectations

as the aforementioned give them latitude to perform the news in a variety of
ways that give body to their role. However, the practice has a momentum in
terms of the performance range that it allows and that the audience will
accept. Individual journalists take a risk if they choose performances that fall
outside this range unless the situation morally demands it. In such cases,
journalists must carefully calibrate their performances to the context.
Thus, journalism scholar Wyss (2008) stated,
Journalists must determine what news is. They cannot delegate what
should be on the public agenda to any one group, be it science, govern-
ment or political and environmental advocates. No matter how frenzied
the agenda, journalists must report what they consider the most impor-
tant issues in their beat. (p. 121)
Whether this should be the case, journalists cannot report the news without
expressing some values, even if unconsciously, through what some have
called enduring values (Gans, 2004). As Corbet (2006) asserted,

If three journalists attended a protest rally, it is very likely they would

report three different versions of the event. Even with news values as
guidelines, each individual would select and order the information
either slightly or much differently. One account might focus on the
number of protesters, what they were chanting, and the reaction of
police. A second story might tell a personal tale of struggle and convic-
tion waged by the protest leader. A third report might elicit crowd
reaction and interpretation as to what the protest was about and whether
it was a good idea. None of these stories would be any less correct or
newsworthy; each journalist merely chose a different piece of the
world outside to present as social reality. Each story has a unique frame
through which to view the same event (p. 236).
Yet personal values may blind journalists to structural faults in the system
and thus not allow them to question the legitimacy of the existing order. This
could lead to their creating news that serves business and political interests.
Yang (2004) observed that there was a tendency among journalists to present
news “in a monocausal frame that fails to encompass the multifacetedness
and interconnectedness of the environmental problems” (p. 99). One problem
arising from this simplification process that A. G. Anderson (2002) has
noticed is “that by simplifying complex scientific information one inevitably
distorts it” (p. 7).
In trying to assess the influence of personal values and traits, researchers
often have journalists subjectively evaluate their own performance as well as
that of their peers in order to determine the quality of the news, a method often
defined as intramedia perception (O’Donnell & Rice, 2008). A number of
studies have conducted in-depth interviews or surveys with journalists report-
ing on environmental issues (Boykoff & Mansfield, 2008; Harbinson,
Mugara, & Chawla, 2006; Harrabin, 2000; Maillé, Saint-Charles, & Lucotte,
2010; Mormont & Dasnoy, 1995; Sachsman, Simon, & Valenti, 2002,
2004, 2005, 2006, 2008; Schneider, in press; Skanavis & Sakellari, 2007;
Wilson, 2000; Yang, 2004). Virtually all the journalists interviewed agreed
that environmental reporters need to be objective in their coverage and fair in
dealing with both corporations and environmental organizations. Most also
asserted that it was not their role to work with community leaders in solving
environmental problems. Many did worry that too many of their colleagues
slanted stories toward environmental proponents and advocates. They also
expressed concern that too many stories concentrated on environmental prob-
lems and pollution rather than working to help readers understand the growing
complexity of environmental issues. The very recent research of Maillé et al.

(2010) showed that environmental journalists do not challenge the media’s

functioning. Surely, they disapprove of the media’s speed, the lack of time to
do their work well, the quest for sensationalism, the occasional lack of accu-
racy of editors, and so on, but, very often, they immediately accept those
aspects as being inherent constraints of their work. Still, as Maillé et al. under-
lined, “Without an in-depth challenge to these realities of working in media,
which cannot be accomplished by a single person, the goal of environmental
education that we attribute readily to the media can hardly be reached” (p. 77).
The present study aims to explore these issues further within the Greek
context. Previous research on journalism covering environmental science
issues in Greece is limited. Most researchers have employed traditional meth-
ods of content analysis (e.g., Christidou, Dimopoulos, & Koulaidis, 2004;
Demertzis, 2002; Dimopoulos & Koulaidis, 2002, 2003; Hovardas &
Korfiatis, 2008; Tsekos & Matthopoulos, 2008), and the majority of studies
focus on local press (Hovardas & Korfiatis, 2008; Skanavis and Sakellari,
2007). Almost none delve into the investigation of the ideologically based
perspectives of journalists through unveiling the way in which they believe
they can cope with the challenges of reporting on environmental issues. Thus,
a first goal of our research is to assess how Greek journalists perceive their
role in environmental reporting and what kind of influences and/or obstacles
they encounter.
Furthermore, we wish to anchor our research of the Greek case to the
broader theoretical discussion concerning journalists’ different belief sys-
tems and the way they influence their reporting. Previous research (Stocking &
Holstein, 2009; Weaver et al., 2006) has identified a number of types based
on interviews, questionnaires, and content analysis techniques. For our
research, we use Q-methodology (see Method section), which was initially
developed specifically for dealing with instances where the respondent’s
subjective view is of the essence and needs to be measured (Brown, 1996;
Hutchinson & Wolf, 2004). Since we are interested in identifying environ-
mental journalists’ self-reference, that is, the journalists’ “internal” frame of
reference regarding environmental reporting, we should ensure that the
researchers’ intervention is kept to a minimum. This is not easily the case
with other techniques where it is the researcher who ultimately chooses
what questions to ask, what issues to address, and what documents to ana-
lyze in terms of content. Q-methodology offers an alternative research
methodology tackling those problems, and, in recent years, it has been
occasionally used in environmental communication and journalism studies
(Esrock, 2005; Hashim & Meloche, 2007; Popovich & Massé, 2005). There-
fore, by using it as our methodological tool, we wish to assess whether those

categories that have been previously identified by researchers for the broader
journalistic community also emerge (semi)”naturally” from the actual dis-
courses of environmental journalists and thus complement (or, in some
cases, inform) previous research.
Our article develops as follows: In the next section, we discuss sampling
issues as well as the methodological tool used in our research, namely the
Q-method—a qualitative statistical approach widely accepted as a mixed sur-
vey method of measuring subjectivity and assessing a variety of discourses.
Our sample consists of 23 newspaper reporters on environmental issues in
nine major Greek dailies. Based on our analyses, these journalists are orga-
nized in three groups, each characterized by a distinctive discourse concerning
the goals, practice, and problems facing environmental reporting. Analyzing
each factor’s discourse, we reached the conclusion that these groups are
highly similar to the “disseminator,” “interpreter/investigator,” and “populist
mobilize” categories identified in previous research (Stocking & Holstein,
2009; Weaver et al., 2006). However, the last category (adversary) did not
appear in our sample. In the concluding section, we discuss our findings and
offer suggestions for further research.
Method
For our study, we interviewed 23 newspapers reporters covering environ-
mental issues in 9 Greek newspapers, one of the most important sources of
information on scientific issues.1 The newspapers covered were the follow-
ing (in parentheses, we include the newspaper’s name in Latin and the
number of journalists interviewed from each): The Daily (Kathimerini, 6),
Freedom of Press (Eletherotypia, 5), Free Press (Eleytheros Typos, 4), Inde-
pendent Press (Adesmeutos Typos, 1), The Tribune (To VIMA, 2), The News
(Ta NEA, 2), The Nation (Ethnos, 2), and Aurora (Avgi, 1). These newspa-
pers were selected both in terms of their daily circulation, being the largest in
Greece, and in terms of their political orientation, ranging from the Center–
Right (e.g., The Daily) to the Left (e.g., Aurora). Outside of these two
characteristics, all the aforementioned newspapers were also chosen because
they had adjusted to the new digital era by being available online, updated on
daily basis, and free (on the Internet).
As far as the participants’ profile is concerned, the vast majority of news-
paper reporters were female. In particular, 18 out of 23 reporters (approxi-
mately 78%) were female, whereas only 5 were male (approximately 22%).
All reporters were graduated journalists with more than 5 years on the job
covering environmental issues. However, it is also important to note that none

of the participants had a particular degree or postgraduate specialization in

environmental reporting. Therefore, the first challenge related to the purpose
of our study was to examine what different perspectives existed in a group
of people who shared so many characteristics and were drawn from the
same area.
We focused on journalism in broadsheet newspapers because this has
been the forum where journalists historically have claimed to serve the public
interest (Rupar, 2007). Furthermore, daily newspaper are far more likely than
television stations to have an environmental reporter, and newspapers with
larger circulations are most likely to have more than one environmental
reporter (Hansen, 2009; Sachsman et al., 2008). Another critical point for our
decision was their full availability in digital print form.
However, what perhaps is more important to stress here is the fact that print
versions of newspapers are still considered to provide a fairly representative
reflection of the social process of the public arena. This is not to claim that
other forms of journalism, such as public and civic journalism, talk radio pro-
grams, or blogs lack the potential to affect public debate: They do affect pub-
lic debate, but evidence exists that their respective agendas are interconnected
(Wallsten, 2007). We focus on environmental journalism in mainstream
newspapers because of the significant influence print journalism exercises on
the ways issues are presented in other media and to the public. We focus on
print journalism not only because the “wider society depends on the quality of
its journalism for the efficacy of its institutions and for understanding in every
sphere” (de Burgh, 2003, p. 95) but also because any assessment about the
role of the news media in society is impossible without a detailed discussion
about professional ideology as a system of norms and standards that define
journalistic work. All these make the detailed examination of environmental
journalists’ perceptions concerning their profession and role an issue of both
practical and theoretical importance.
Research into attitude strength has shown that it is much weaker than the
traditional view of attitudes might suggest (Bohner & Wänke, 2002). This was
most pointedly demonstrated by Schooler and Wilson (1991), who found that
simply asking people to think why they hold a certain attitude often leads to
dramatic changes. In addition, Clarke (1999) suggested that a new experience
may influence an individual in modifying or rejecting existing attitudes. Thus,
various researchers have proposed that attitudes should be considered as
context-dependent, temporary constructions (Bohner & Wänke, 2002).
Nevertheless, interest in them persists—not least in the field of environ-
mental journalism and more broadly in environmental communication and
education field.

Surveys, focus groups, and multi-attribute utility analysis have all been
employed by researchers to investigate individuals’ attitudes and priorities
among diverse goals, yet these approaches are not problem free. Surveys suf-
fer from difficulties in designing and administering the questionnaire and
interpreting the results. Focus groups are often small and unrepresentative,
and no specific guidelines exist to elicit a systematic understanding of value-
relevant information. Multi-attribute utility analysis is often difficult for
lay people to understand. Thus, an inductive, yet systematic, methodology is
needed to provide information on public viewpoints, values, and positions
(Steelman & Maguire, 1999).
Q-methodology attempts to tackle this issue (for further detail, see Brown,
1980, 2008; B. McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Stephenson, 1953; van Exel, &
de Graaf, 2005; Webler, Tuler, & Danielson, 2009). It promises to lend sharper
and more systematic insight into the values and preferences held by partici-
pants. Oftentimes, bureaucrats, researchers, and analysts prefer to deal with
“facts” or empirically established data and therefore avoid addressing value
issues and subjective preferences. This is usually the case because subjectiv-
ity, or an individual’s personal point of view, is often thought to be difficult, if
not impossible, to study with any degree of precision. Q-methodology provides
researchers and analysts with “a qualitative systematic and rigorously quantita-
tive means for examining human subjectivity” (Bohner & Wänke, 2002, p. 7).
To better understand the underlying assumptions of Q-methodology, we should
also note its epistemological foundations.
Q-Methodology: Epistemological Foundations

Q-methodology founder William Stephenson started his research as a com-
munication theorist, trying to understand why the same message does not
produce the same effect on all audiences. In order to clarify his view on sub-
jectivity and its role in communication, Stephenson differentiates between
information theory, characterized by the substantive–objective doublet, and
communication theory, defined in terms of the transitive–subjective doublet.
Information, he stated, refers to matters of fact, whereas communication
involves self-reference. Information can be assessed in terms of truth or false-
hood, whereas communication, because it involves self-reference, cannot
(Boroş, 2006). This distinction confirms an observation made quite early in
communication studies that a message’s meaning depends on those involved
in the communication process, not on the message itself (Brenner, Aucoin, &
Xiaoming, 1998; Stephenson, 1982). Hence, according to Stephenson (1982),
studying meaning in communication implies studying human subjectivity.

A Comparison of Two-Factor Analysis Techniques

Q-methodology differs from the usual body of statistical techniques employed
in communication research in ways that have profound implications for its use.
The reason for the name “Q-methodology” is unusual. In the analysis of survey
data, statistics are used to find patterns in responses across respondents, and
computing a correlation coefficient by comparing responses is common. The
most popular statistical test used produces an “r” statistic (Pearson product
moment coefficient). This “little r” was capitalized to “R” and marshaled to
serve as a representative of that generalized approach to the study of traits
(Webler et al., 2009). The letter “Q” was selected to emphasize that that method
was different from R-methodology techniques. In fact, the designation of this
method as Q is intended to differentiate it from R-methodology, the statistical
methods used for “objective” or “scientific” research in the social sciences.
The differences between Q- and R-methodologies are not simply a matter of
technique; they reflect different philosophies of inquiry that encompass com-
peting epistemologies and different understandings of what constitutes sound
scientific practice (Brown, Durning, & Selden, 2007).
Brown et al. (2007, p. 726) summarize the main difference between
Q- and R-methodologies are as follows:
•• Q-methodology seeks to understand how individuals think (i.e., the

structure of their thoughts) about the research topic of interest.
R-methodology identifies the structure of opinion or attitudes in a
population. Thus, the results of Q-methodology will identify how an
individual, or individuals with common views, understand an issue;
the results of R-methodology describe the characteristics of a popu-
lation that are associated statistically with opinions, attitudes, or
behavior (e.g., environmental reporting) being investigated.
•• Whereas R-methodology is intended for the “objective” analysis
of research issues, Q-methodology is designed to study subjec-
tivity. R-methodology is founded on logical positivism in which
the researcher is an outside objective observer. In contrast,
Q-methodology is more closely related to postpositivist ideas
(Durning, 1999) that reject the possibility of observer objectivity
and question the assumption that the observer’s vantage point, if
not objective, is in some sense superior to that of any other observer,
including the person being observed. Thus, Q-methodology is in
tune with phenomenological (Taylor, Delprato, & Knapp, 1994),
hermeneutic (B. McKeown, 1990, 1998), and quantum theories
(Stephenson, 1983).

•• Q-methodology is an intensive method that seeks an in-depth

understanding of how at least one person thinks about the topic of
investigation. As an intensive method, Q-methodology requires a
small number of well-selected subjects to complete the Q-sort.
R-methodology involves extensive methods designed to extract
an understanding of populations through representative samples;
thus, they require—depending on the population size and sam-
pling techniques—data from a certain percentage of the popula-
tion of interest.
Although some researchers are attracted to Q-methodology because of

its philosophical underpinnings, others value it for the insights it provides.
The first set of researchers view Q-methodology as an alternative to
R-methodology, which includes what they consider the inadequate tools of
a discredited positivism, whereas the second group is drawn to it for practi-
cal reasons: It yields information that often differs from that obtainable
through R-methodology. For these researchers, or communication profes-
sionals, Q-methodology is a new research or analytic tool to add to their
repertoire. It provides them with another lens with which to investigate an
issue or research topic.
Q-methodology is widely used in a range of fields where revealing subjec-
tivity is the aim, especially in the social sciences, including public administra-
tion and public policy research (Brown et al., 2007), health sciences (Yang,
2004), psychology research (Shemmings, 2006), mass communication and
journalism (Esrock, 2005; Hashim & Meloche, 2007; Popovich & Massé,
2005; Singer, 1997), and environmental communication (Johnson & Chess,
2006; Valenti, 1998).
Instrumentation
The stages of Q-methodology are represented schematically in Figure 1.
The first step in Q-methodology research is statement generation and
selection. Having identified the area of interest, the researcher mines a num-
ber of statements relevant to that area, as they lay in the discourse about a
specific topic (referred to as a concourse). The concourse may be obtained
from both primary and/or secondary sources: primary sources include inter-
views, group discussions, and talk shows, whereas secondary sources include
photographs, newspaper clippings, literature, and editorials (M. McKeown,
Hinks, Stowell-Smith, Mercer, & Forster, 1999). These primary and/or sec-
ondary sources can be further elucidated by means of “Q-sample types,”
usually divided into “naturalistic” and “ready-made” Q-samples.

Figure 1. The steps of Q-methodology
For the present research, we used both ready-made Q-samples (question-

naire items, Sachsman et al., 2002, 2006; Q-sorts, Valenti, 1998) and quasi-
naturalistic type Q-samples (e.g., interviews from books, Schwartz, 2006;
Smith, 2000; research papers, Schoenfield, 1980; Yang, 2004; online maga-
zines, “Top Environment Reporters,” 2006) for collecting statements. This
procedure resulted in approximately 200 statements’ being used. We then
selected a number of representative and manageable statements, to be pre-
sented to the group of people under investigation. For our analysis we followed
Dryzek and Berejikian’s (1993) approach in employing a 4 × 4 (16 cells) “con-
course matrix” to filter the available statements. This is necessary in order to
obtain what can be termed as the quintessential statements about the discourse
area under investigation. The broad categories used were “discourse element”
and “type of claim.” By employing this process, we reduced our statements’
sample to 36 entries (for the definitions of terms as well as the complete list of
statements refer to the Appendixes A and B), organized in the 4 × 4 concourse
matrix referred to previously (Table 1).
Once the categories and statements were finalized, the person-sample was
selected, and the participants were asked to arrange the statements in their
own order of preference through the Q-sorting process. Our study used an
extensive person-sample because the participants were requested to do the
Q-sorting under an identical condition of instruction. The respondents were
asked to rank-order statements using a 9-point Likert-type scale ranging from

Table 1. Selection of Statements in Terms of the Concourse Matrix
Discourse Element
Types of Claim 1. Ontology 2. Agency 3. Motivation 4.Natural/Unnatural
5. Definitive 6, 9, 17 31 21 32
6. Designative 13, 30 5, 16, 18, 25 20, 36 10, 14, 15, 24
7. Evaluative 3, 23, 29,34 1, 8 7, 12 28,
8. Advocative 4, 11 26, 2 19, 33 27, 35
most agree (+4) to most disagree (-4), with (0) as the middle position.
A forced-choice condition of instruction was employed, meaning that a cer-
tain number of statements were prescribed to each rank resulting in a Q-sort
diagram. The range and shape of the Q-sort distribution have no effect on the
statistical results, as has been repeatedly demonstrated (Brown, 1971, 1985;
Cottle & McKeown, 1980). The Q-sort diagram assumes fewer items on
either end and more items as one moves toward the middle position. Such an
(inverted) “pyramidal” structure for a Q-sort is typical and is used to encour-
age the participants to give careful consideration to their ranking of prefer-
ences. An enlarged version of the Q-sort diagram was used to facilitate the
Q-sorting process. Each statement was numbered and printed on a card. The
cards were shuffled before handed over to the participants, who were
instructed to sort the Q-sort cards onto the larger Q-sort diagram.
Results
Once the Q-sorts were completed, the data were analyzed through factor anal-
ysis of the correlation matrix. PQMethod version 2.11 (Schmolck & Atkinson,
2002), an MS-DOS statistical program designed for Q-studies, was used for
the statistical analysis. As for the standard recommended procedures (Brown,
1980), principal components analysis was performed on the correlation matrix
of participants (i.e., the correlations between participants’ Q-sorts), and the
factors were rotated orthogonally using varimax rotation. Varimax rotation
was selected to improve the interpretability of the results and maximize high
correlations so that patterns differentiating participants could be explored fur-
ther. After varimax rotation, the rotated factor matrix was Q-analyzed, a
procedure that differentiates the factors based on the original Q-sort state-
ments. It should be stressed that what Q-methodology correlates are “persons”
(i.e., respondents), and the resulting factors represent points of view. The
respondents’ loadings on each factor indicate the level of agreement a given
individual holds for the specific factor. Nevertheless, the focus of data

Table 2. Factor Loadings of Greek Journalists After Varimax Rotation
QSORT Factor A Factor B Factor C
Journalist 1 0.2894 0.4112 0.3297

Journalist 2 0.4924 0.5043* 0.1004
Journalist 3 0.2376 0.1798 0.5055*
Journalist 4 0.1290 -0.0555 0.5669*
Journalist 5 -0.0737 0.4386 0.6149*
Journalist 6 0.1358 -0.2168 0.2680*
Journalist 7 0.7798* 0.0833 0.1922
Journalist 8 0.6649* -0.0282 0.0889
Journalist 9 0.5513* 0.1422 0.2921
Journalist 10 0.4492* -0.0142 0.2921
Journalist 11 0.4025 0.4606* -0.0743
Journalist 12 0.5099 0.1985 0.4881
Journalist 13 0.3929 0.3464 0.2594
Journalist 14 0.0139 0.3556 0.4339*
Journalist 15 0.3554 0.5801 -0.3524
Journalist 16 0.5814* 0.0834 0.3241
Journalist 17 -0.0991 0.6568* 0.2013
Journalist 18 0.5818* 0.0834 0.3241
Journalist 19 0.3603 -0.0651 0.4902*
Journalist 20 0.3008 0.6012* 0.0327
Journalist 21 -0.0654 0.6870* -0.0412
Journalist 22 0.2523 0.4118 0.6066*
Journalist 23 0.4599* 0.1172 -0.0914
No. of loaded 7 6 7
Explained variance (%) 17 13 14
Note. Entries marked with an asterisk (*) are the statistically significant “pure” loadings.
interpretation is on the factor scores of each statement and not of individuals

(Brown, 2008).
The number of factors extracted was determined by examining the number
of pure loadings per factor. The factor loadings are effectively correlation
coefficients indicating the degree to which each Q-sort correlates with each
factor. Factor loadings may theoretically range between +1 and -1 and repre-
sent the amount of variation (or communality) that is accounted for by each
factor. A loading is “significant” when it is sufficiently high to assume that a
relationship exists between the variable (i.e., journalist) and the factor. A load-
ing is “pure” if it loads significantly on only one factor.
For our analysis, a significance level of .01 was used, so a loading greater
than 0.43 (=standard error × 2.58) was significant. The correlations
between individual Q-sorts and the extracted factors are shown in the Table 2.

Table 3. Correlations Between Factor Scores
A B C
A 1.0000
B 0.2996 1.0000
C 0.4669 0.2672 1.0000
A three-factor solution containing factors with 7, 6, and 7 “pure” loadings

(i.e., individual journalists’ viewpoints) was determined to be the best solution
after several rotations and following the rule of eigenvalues and scree test
(individual respondents’ loading “purely” on a factor are indicated by an
asterisk [*] next to their loading score).2 The three-factor solution presented
herein accounts for 44% of the variance. We should note that the three factors
are correlated (Table 3), with Factors A and C exhibiting the highest correla-
tion (R = .4669) indicating some communalities in the discourse represented
by these two factors.
As we have already mentioned, the focus of interpretation is on statements’
scores on each factor, and not individuals. This allows us to reconstruct the
discourse encapsulated in the specific factor as delimited by the correspond-
ing statements. The standard approach to do this (Brown, 1980) is to analyze
each factor based on the statements characterizing it, that is, statements distin-
guishing it from other factors and for which we find the highest approval
(scores of +4 and +3) or disapproval (scores of -3 and -4). This results in a
“rank-statement” table (see the table in Appendix B for our results), where
each statement is given a score for each factor (ranging from -4 to +4). In
effect, this score stands for the agreement (or otherwise) with the specific
statement by all respondents “belonging” to each factor. These scores are then
used in eliciting the discourse for each factor.3
From the table in Appendix B, we single out those statements, if any, for
which there exists a consensus across all factors. In effect, these are state-
ments for which all Greek journalists share the same opinion. As it turns out,
in all three factors, we find a shared suspiciousness on the common-wisdom
“knowledge” that a study by an environmental nongovernmental organiza-
tion is more objective than a ministry study (Statement 34): It seems that
Greek journalists are leery of such black and white generalizations. We also
find a general disagreement on the view that environmental journalism would
improve if reporters thought like scientists while reporting on environmental
issues (Statement 12): Clearly, our respondents perceive their role as some-
thing different from mere science correspondents. And finally, they all
agree that environmental journalists are at the edge of the fight for a clean

environment and should lead their readers to assume their own responsibili-
ties (Statement 27). We now turn our attention to the differences between the
three factors. We chiefly discuss the statements that differentiate each factor
from the others while complementing them with those on which they mostly
agree, or otherwise.
Factor A: “Scientifically Led, Environmentally

Responsible Journalist”
A total of 7 out of 23 participants (30%) load on this factor, which accounts
for 17% of the explained variance (Table 1). Its characterizing statements are
presented in Table 4.
The journalists who ascribe to Factor A (Table 4) conceive their role as
interpreters of environmental related issues (Statement 5) and think that scien-
tific knowledge, which they value (Statement 29), enhances this particular
role. Taking the “side of science” is a safe rule of thumb (Statement 2), yet the
ultimate burden of proof rests with “facts” (Statement 3): As long as one does
that, there is no danger in “getting bamboozled by scientists” (Statement 30).
So proper environmental reporting need neither make “science [appear] more
certain than it is by loss of caveats, single-source stories” and so on (State-
ment 16) nor belittle itself by “dramatizing” events (Statement 10) or becom-
ing “lifestyle” reporting (Statement 13) in order to simply get the story out.
Because lay people’s “misunderstanding regarding environmental science
issues represents the greatest challenge” in environmental reporting (State-
ment 36), a journalist’s role is to convey the whole picture: “what science has
revealed about a question, what is not understood, what aspects of an issue can
be clarified through future research, and what amount of unavoidable uncer-
tainty society is saddled with at the end” (Statement 5). And, although “most
of the journalists are in the field because they care and are concerned about
environment” (Statement 20), one should not get carried away too far by per-
sonal sympathies: The “dichotomy” between ‘being an objective reporter
[and] a “concerned citizen” is arguably a weak one but nevertheless existent
(Statement 6).
This self-perception of interpreters of environmental issues is further
substantiated by the general pattern of agreement or disagreement on other
statements. Environmental journalism will not improve if “reporters [think]
like scientists” (Statement 12). Theirs is a more complicated role: The
journalist–reader relation should be based “on the grounds of environmental
sensitization” and not “on sterile information” (Statement 35). But again,
personal sympathies should not let one deviate from reporting only what is

Table 4. Scientifically Led, Environmentally Responsible Journalists
Factor A Factor B Factor C

Top (Z-Scores) Distinguishing
Statements Rank Z-Score Rank Z-Score Rank Z-Score
5. My role as an 3 1.338 0 -0.093 0 0.066

environmental reporter is
to convey what science has
revealed about a question,
what is not understood,
what aspects of an issue
can be clarified through
future research, and what
amount of unavoidable
uncertainty society is
saddled with at the end
29. I think the more 3 1.198 0 -0.062 0 -0.048
knowledge you have of
science in general, the
better prepared you are
not only to balance both
sides but also to put some
perspective in it
20. Most of the journalists 3 1.086 1 0.261 -2 -0.0994
are in the field because
they care about the
environment
30. You can get bamboozled -2 -1.041 0 -0.031 3 1.340
by scientists as easily as
you can get bamboozled by
politicians
10. Competition for shrinking -2 -1.189 1 0.410 2 0.854
news space increases
pressure on environmental
journalists to dramatize
issues to ensure that a
story gets out
14. Traditional news values -3 -1.547 -1 -0.372 -1 -0.337
depreciate journalism on
the environment
13. Reporters generally apply -4 -2.195 -3 -1.068 -1 -0.676
the same standards to
environmental issues
reporting than they do
to Hollywood or sports
reporting
(continued)

Table 4. (continued)
Strongest Agreement
Rank Z-Score Statements
(+4) 2.076 22. Although I very much sympathize with the environmental

movement, it’s still critically important to me not to say or
write anything of substance that I haven’t documented or
verified
(+4) 1.473 35. The environmental journalist–reader relationship should based
on the grounds of environmental sensitization and not on
sterile information
(+3) 1.338 5. My role as an environmental reporter is to convey what
science has revealed about a question, what is not understood,
what aspects of an issue can be clarified through future
research, and what amount of unavoidable uncertainty society
is saddled with at the end
(+3) 1.198 29. I think the more knowledge you have of science in general, the
better prepared you are not only to balance both sides but
also to put some perspective in it
(+3) 1.086 20. Most of the journalists are in the field because they care
about the environment
Strongest Disagreement
(-4) -2.195 13. Reporters generally apply the same standards to

environmental issues reporting that they do to Hollywood or
sports reporting
(-4) -1.700 25. Environmental news is “manufactured” by a journalist through
interpreting and selecting events to fit the predetermined
scope of his or her environmental newspaper
(-3) -1.547 14. Traditional news values depreciate journalism on the
environment
(-3) -1.287 1. The bottom line for me is that when a reporter takes sides in
a political dispute, the reporting, its credibility, and its impact
all suffer
(-3) -1.205 12. Environmental and health journalism would be improved if
reporters thought like scientists
“documented or verified” (Statement 22). Thus, environmental news is not

“manufactured” by the journalist through interpreting and selecting events
to fit a predetermined scope. Rather, the available data are collected,

assessed, and reported/contextualized. We believe that this is precisely why

this group disagrees with the statement that “when a reporter takes sides in
a political dispute, the reporting, its credibility, and its impact all suffer”
(Statement 1): Taking sides is not bad as long as one has good and substanti-
ated reasons for doing so, as long as one’s “facts” direct one a certain way.
Factor B: “Environmental Crusaders”

A total of 6 out of 23 participants (approximately 26%) load on Factor B,
which accounts for 13% of the explained variance. The statements character-
izing Factor B are shown in Table 5.
For this group, environmental journalism is all about increasing the pub-
lic’s awareness about environmental issues (Statement 31), a view that sets
them apart from Factors A and C. For them, journalists should lead their read-
ers in assuming responsibility for a better environment (Statement 27), and
this is why reporting should be based on sensitization and not on sterile infor-
mation (Statement 35). Obviously, then, such environmental reporting has
little in common with its leisure-time counterparts (Statement 13). The jour-
nalists of Factor B also shy away from science: Science is not the only side
they take (Statement 2), and, accordingly, they do not think that their report-
ing would improve if they thought like scientists (Statement 12). This group
ascribes the least importance to the value of “facts” (Statement 3), while they
feel that journalists themselves make science look more certain that it is
(Statement 16). Because they exhibit such a high sense of mission, one could
even call them biased. For example, they disagree that taking sides in a politi-
cal dispute hurts the credibility and impact of their reporting (Statement 1).
For them, the dichotomy between a “concerned citizen” and an “objective
reporter” is a false one (Statement 6), while they show the least agreement
with the view that “it is [not] corrective for reporters to become activists
[but] simply to apply the standards of journalism—fairly and rigorously”
(Statement 4).
We could claim that they consider themselves “objective” but not impar-
tial. They admit that journalists are “influenced by a number of vested inter-
ests such as political parties, scientists, and governmental or nongovernmental
organizations” (Statement 32), but, in view of their perceived “duty to heighten
the public’s environmental awareness” (Statement 31), we can assume that
the “green” vested interests influence them the most, because they agree the
most with the view that “a lot of environmental coverage should be along the
lines of ‘we accept the idea of wildlife and nature and the environment as a
good thing’” (Statement 19). And it is those interests’ perceived legitimacy
and rightness (Statements 31, 27, and 35) that shape this group’s mindset on

Table 5. Environmental Crusades

32. In environmental -2 -0.967 4 2.017 1 -1.572

journalism, you are
influenced by a number of
vested interests, such as
political parties, scientists,
and governmental
or nongovernmental
organizations
31. The journalist’s duty is to 0 0.098 4 1.917 1 0.266
heighten public awareness
about environmental
issues
18. The lack of black and -2 -0.808 -4 -2.135 -2 -1.064
white issues makes
environmental reporting
frustrating: Everything is
in shades of gray. There
aren’t good guys and bad
guys. The good guys are a
little bad and the bad guys
aren’t all bad
Strongest Agreement
(+4) 2.017 31. The journalist’s duty is to heighten public awareness about

environmental issues
(+4) 1.917 32. In environmental journalism, you are influenced by a number
of vested interests, such as political parties, scientists, and
governmental or nongovernmental organizations
(+3) 1.391 35. The environmental journalist–reader relationship should based
on the grounds of environmental sensitization and not in sterile
information
(+3) 1.347 27. An environmental writer on a major metropolitan newspaper
today, being at the cutting edge of the fight for a clean and
healthy environment, should lead his readers to assume
responsibility for their clean skies, waters, forest, open spaces,
and wildlife
(continued)

Strongest Agreement
(+3) 1.314 6. There is something of a false dichotomy in the notion that being
an objective reporter is at odds with being a “concerned citizen”
(-4) -2.135 2. The only side I take is the side of science

(-4) -2.127 18. The lack of black and white issues makes environmental
reporting frustrating: Everything is in shades of gray. There aren’t
good guys and bad guys. The good guys are a little bad and the
bad guys aren’t all bad
(-3) -1.596 1. The bottom line for me is that when a reporter takes sides in
a political dispute, the reporting, its credibility, and its impact all
suffer
(-3) -1.068 13. Reporters generally apply the same standards to environmental
issues reporting that they do to Hollywood or sports reporting
issues of “objectivity” (Statements 1 and 2). Such a (green) version of “right”

and “wrong” also explains why they strongly disagree that “the lack of black
and white issues makes environmental reporting frustrating: Everything is in
shades of grey. There aren’t good guys and bad guys. The good guys are a
little bad and the bad guys aren’t all bad” (Statement 18). Similar to the
respondents of Factor A, who had “facts” as their guiding criterion for inter-
preting a situation and taking a stance, the respondents in Factor B have their
pro-environmental convictions to help them make moral decisions and ulti-
mately take sides.
Factor C: “Impartial Journalist”

A total of 6 out of 23 participants (26%) load on Factor C and 14% of the
explained variance was accounted for by this factor. The statements charac-
terizing Factor C are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Impartial Journalist

3. I believe in facts; it’s our 2 0.858 0 -0.027 4 1.517
only real value-add as
journalists. Anyone can
provide spin
30. You can get bamboozled -2 -1.041 0 -0.031 3 1.340
by scientists as easily as
you can get bamboozled by
politicians
15. Environmental journalism 0 -0.040 1 0.444 -3 -1.165
is often belittled because
of tendencies to be event-
oriented and the failure to
explain larger issues
Strongest Agreement

(+4) 1.849 3. I believe in facts; it’s our only real value-add as journalists.
Anyone can provide spin
(+4) 1.724 22. Although I very much sympathize with the environmental
movement, it’s still critically important to me not to say or
write anything of substance that I haven’t documented or
verified
(+3) 1.517 4. I don’t think the corrective is for reporters to become
activists. It is simply to apply the standards of journalism—fairly
and rigorously
(+3) 1.340 30. You can get bamboozled by scientists as easily as you can get
bamboozled by politicians
(+3) 1.084 27. An environmental writer on a major metropolitan newspaper
today, being at the cutting edge of the fight for a clean and
healthy environment. should lead his readers to assume
responsibility for their clean skies, waters, forest, open spaces,
and wildlife

(-4) -1.730 2. The only side I take is the side of science
(-4) -1.628 25. Environmental news is “manufactured” by a journalist through
interpreting and selecting events to fit the predetermined
scope of his or her environmental newspaper
(continued)


(-3) -1.572 32. In environmental journalism, you are influenced by a number
of vested interests, such as political parties, scientists, and
governmental or nongovernmental organizations
(-3) -1.165 15. Environmental journalism is often belittled because of
tendencies to be event-oriented and the failure to explain
larger issues
This last factor is the one most concerned with facts and “impartial”
reporting. A number of opinions distinguish it sharply from the other two.
Thus, the journalists making up this group “believe in facts” more than any
other (Statement 3). This does not necessarily mean scientific facts. Scien-
tists can “bamboozle” you as easily as politicians (Statement 30); thus, one
should “only report on what the major scientists are saying and if there are
counter-expressions within the legitimate scientific community, to reflect
their relative weight within the community” (Statement 8). Environmental
reporting should not be based on any notions of the desirability of environ-
mental protection (Statement 19) or “sensitizing” the public about it (State-
ment 35). At the end of the day, most environmental journalists are not “in
the field because they care and are concerned about environment” (State-
ment 20) but rather to do their job. And in order to do that job properly, one
primarily needs to “provide the facts” rather than “the context and background
that readers and viewers need to understand the issues” (Statement 9) or
“explain the larger issues” (Statement 15).
This detachment/impartiality resurfaces vis-à-vis the statements this set of
journalists most (dis)agree with. In environmental journalism, one is not
“influenced by vested interests” (Statement 32) because one (should not)
take sides: neither those of “science” (Statement 2) nor those of the environ-
mental movement (Statement 3). One does not have to start thinking like “a
scientist” (Statement 12) or “become an activist” (Statement 4): “Apply the
standards of journalism—fairly and rigorously” (Statement 4) and do not
“say or write anything of substance that [one hasn’t] documented or verified”
(Statement 22) and one is on safe ground, clear of any notions that one might
be “manufacturing environmental news through interpreting and selecting
events” (Statement 25).

Discussion
This article’s aim was twofold: first to assess the ideologically based per-
spectives of newspaper journalists’ reporting on environmental issues in
Greece, an issue of theoretical importance yet never before studied, and thus
address a caveat in the existing literature. The second was to use the insights
of previous research, which analyzed the broader journalistic community,
and check whether previously identified categories can be traced in the envi-
ronmental journalists’ discourse. To this end, we approached 23 environmental
journalists working in 9 Greek newspapers and asked them to rank-order 36
statements that tap on the concourse of environmental reporting. Using
Q-methodology, we were able first to determine the ways these journalists
perceive their role with reference to environmental reporting and then to
concept-map the emerging discourses’ variation. By employing person factor
analysis and varimax rotation, we identified three distinct discourses, or, in
other words, three distinct ways of thinking about how to present and inter-
pret environmental news as well as the problems facing journalists when
trying to do so. In all, 20 out of the 23 journalists (87%) were accounted for
by the resulting three discourse types, or factors. The remaining three indi-
viduals were either not statistically significant (with loadings of less than
0.45 on any factor) or confounded (loading significantly on more than one
factor; Stricklin, 1996). The three factors identified were labeled as Factor
A—“scientifically led, environmentally responsible” journalists (7 individ-
uals), Factor B—“environmental crusaders” (6 individuals), and Factor
C—“impartial” journalists (7 individuals), explaining 44% of the variance
between them.
Our study offers new clues and updates previous research on Greek envi-
ronmental journalists. Thus, we found that an “ecological conscience” is a
predominant attitude. This is supported by the high loadings of agreement
regarding the opinion that environmental journalists “are at the edge of the
fight for a clean environment and should lead their readers to assume their
own responsibilities in this fight” (see ranking of Statement 27 in the Appendix B
table). On the other hand, our results indicate that the reasons for the sup-
posed weaknesses in their environmental coverage are much deeper and
more complex than has been suggested by previous research (e.g., Tsekos &
Matthopoulos, 2008). For example, lack of training in science is not per-
ceived as a problem by these reporters (see ranking of Statement 11 in the
Appendix B table), while the rejection of a scientific way of thinking as
a way of improving reporting was unanimous (Statement 12). Rather, the
reporters’ lack of confidence in scientists and in scientific information seems

to be more influential in how they deal with science and scientists in their
reporting and on what issues they choose to pursue. Similarly, the suspicion
of some previous researchers (Tsekos & Matthopoulos, 2008) that profes-
sional characteristics on news values and routines are responsible for the
limitations of environmental news coverage does seem to hold (see ranking
of Statement 14 in the Appendix B table, especially for Factor A). The major-
ity of journalists do not believe that the solution is to have reporters become
activists but simply to apply the ethics of the profession of journalism—fair
and rigorous news presentation (Statement 4 in the Appendix B table).
Turning to our second goal, our study revealed for environmental journal-
ists most of the patterns that were identified for journalists in general, as far as
their practice is concerned (Stocking & Holstein, 2009; Weaver et al., 2006).
Our “scientifically led, environmentally responsible” journalists (Factor A)
demonstrate substantial similarities with the “interpretive/investigative” jour-
nalists identified in previous research. Similar to the latter type, our Factor A
journalists think of their role as investigating and reporting the truth about facts
as well as providing a useful context. Of course, our group also has a pro-
environmental attitude. Yet this is hardly surprising if we consider both their
specific beat as well as the fact that our whole sample considers it their role to
“lead [ . . . ] readers to assume responsibility for their clean skies, waters, forest,
open spaces and wildlife” (Statement 27). Factor B (environmental crusaders)
exhibits most of the characteristics of “populist mobilizers.” This factor’s
members promote “crusading-spirited” journalism, poised to advance a cause,
in our case the environmental one. For this category, reporting is embedded
within the more generic societal context while emphasis is placed on what
people/readers need to know rather on reporting and judging all the scientific
facts. Finally, our “impartial journalist” (Factor C) category mirrors that of the
“disseminator.” Facts are of the essence here, and the prevailing viewpoint is
that they should be presented as they are, without the journalist’s trying to elu-
cidate issues, educate his or her readership, or promote any particular agenda.
Even when reporting on scientific matters, minority or counter views should
also be considered in order to provide a balanced account.
On the other hand, the “adversarial” journalist type was not identified in
our sample. We cannot determine with certainty whether this type is actually
nonexistent in the case of environmental journalists or whether it is subsumed
in other discourses. The reader should note that past research (Stocking &
Holstein, 2009, p. 34) indicates that this role was embraced by a minority of
journalists, so there is a chance that none of the kind is included in our sample.
Or it could also be the case that, because we are reporting on factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1 and using varimax rotation, this discourse is

existent yet statistically insignificant or “technically” diffused in all other fac-

tors. Obviously, further research is necessary to clarify this issue.
Although our study met the goals set, as a final note, we would like to point
out to some of its limitations. Because attitudinal research ultimately depends
on the cooperation and frankness of the respondents, we have to consider that
respondents may try to fake responses or “give a great many uncertain
responses” (Oppenheim, 2001). Although the number of uncertain responses
is limited by the forced distribution of the statements in the Q-sort, there is
still the risk that respondents will use the instrument to give an account that
they think is acceptable to the researcher rather than how they actually feel
about an issue. A way of dealing with such a problem is to ask the respondents
to do the Q-sorting again, after some time. Yet this approach is neither practi-
cal nor popular with respondents, especially considering that journalists are
known to be “notoriously adverse to surveys” (Valenti, 1998, p. 222).
Another consideration relates to the selection of the Q-set. Because this is
the responsibility of the researcher, an effective Q-study depends on thor-
ough sampling of the items, in this case, attitude statements. The prime prin-
ciple of a Q-study good practice involves careful and methodological review
of the things people write and say about the topic in question (Eden, Donald-
son, & Walker, 2005). Although every effort was made to do this thoroughly,
because of the predetermined nature of the statements used in our study, we
should bear in mind that respondents could only give limited accounts of
their view. Because the selection of Q-sort items and the burden of factor
interpretation rest with the researcher (Robbins & Krueger, 2000), we have
asked the participants to provide their own personal definitions of environ-
mental journalism, a fact that broadened the discussion and has been crucial
in interpreting the factor perspectives. Moreover, and in order to give more
depth to the Q-sorting, this could have been followed by interviews or focus
groups, as advocated by Brown (1996). Future research could consider using
such techniques also prior to the Q-sort, as a way to derive the statements:
Such an approach helps to represent the subjects’ views more accurately, not
relying solely on the decision making of the researcher.
Another issue of concern is the forced-entry nature of the matrix. Most par-
ticipants in this study complained about the forced nature of the matrix, which
left no room for compromise. In order to tackle this, the option to “freely sort”
the items could have been given (Cross, 2005), but, as we have already men-
tioned, this would not have altered the final Q-sort. Furthermore, as Brown
(2006) suggested, the fact that participants complain about the forced distribu-
tion is not a good reason not to use it. Indeed, complaints can be taken as evi-
dence that the forcing is doing what it is supposed to do, that is, inducing
participants to make judgments that they would otherwise resist making.4

The communication of environmental knowledge to the general public via

mass media requires a new relationship between the world of environmental
science and that of the news media, and this relationship in countries such as
Greece is still just beginning to be explored. Journalists are mediators of this
relationship. In particular, the journalist’s role is to synthesize, or make sense
of, conflicting claims and, some would argue, provide directions for obtain-
ing additional or more specific information (Valenti, 1998). However, as a
number of scholars have noted, there needs to be more internationally com-
parative work if we are to understand how different socioeconomic, political,
and cultural contexts set the agenda for environmental issues and problems.
The foundations, as A. Anderson (2009) pointed out, have been laid (Boykoff &
Boykoff, 2007; Brossard, Shanahan, & McComas, 2004; Dispensa & Brulle,
2003; Sachsman et al., 2008). Nevertheless, future research focusing on envi-
ronmental journalists’ intramedia perceptions would encourage efforts to
concept-map the different levels and variations of journalistic beliefs and
priorities regarding reporting on environmental issues. Such research should
play an important role in improving communication and help to identify the
main barriers toward change. To this end, and as Schneider (in press)
remarked, it is of utmost importance to reclaim the opportunities provided for
dialogue between scientists and journalists at environmental journalists’
workshops. They provide an opportunity for metacommunication, that is, for
communicating about communication.
Based on our experience, we think that Q-methodology could be a useful
supplement to existing, purely quantitative, methods. Albeit using a “ques-
tionnaire” format and returning “quantitative” results, Q-methodology is nev-
ertheless an instrument for measuring the respondent’s subjective worldview.
Thus, it allows for a more thorough qualitative and interpretive analysis of the
data than most other methods commonly used in environmental communica-
tion research.
Reliance on the ecological conscience of journalists reporting on the
environment as reported in this study should facilitate change. As this
report reveals, and as Valenti (1998) underscored more than a decade ago,
encouraging public involvement by providing the average citizen with
clear information about the range of alternatives and their foundations still
remains a major journalistic goal. To this end, journalists themselves
should reflect more on the opportunities and difficulties facing environ-
mental journalism. This might be achieved through continued discussion
between journalists about their environmental journalism role. Continued
and advanced environmental education for journalists covering environ-
mental issues might contribute to a sound knowledge base and promote
confidence and competence in practice.

Appendix A
Glossary
Concourse: An ordinary conversation, commentary, and discourse
about everyday life, including all communication about a specific
topic (Brown, 2008). A concourse is not restricted to words, but
might include collections of paintings, pieces of art, photographs,
and even musical selections (M. McKeown et al., 1999).
Concourse matrix: A 4 × 4 matrix used as filtering device (also com-
monly employed in political discourse analysis), not only reducing
the available statements into a manageable set for Q-sorting but also
acting as an independent method for choosing statements, thus mini-
mizing (but of course not completely eradicating) researcher biases.
The columns of the matrix consist of discourse elements, whereas
the rows consist of types of claims (Dryzek & Berejikian, 1993).
Discourse elements: (a) Ontology refers to sets of entities (states,
nations, individuals, or classes); (b) agency refers to degrees of
agency of these entities; (c) Motivation, such as self-interest,
public-spiritedness; and (d) natural/unnatural relationships,
taken-for-granted relationships (Dryzek & Berejikian, 1993).
Type of claims: (a) Definitive concerns the meaning of terms, (b) des-
ignative, issues of fact, (c) evaluative, expressions of the worth of
something, and (d) advocative, something that should or should not
exist (Toulmin, 1964).
Naturalistic Q-samples: Samples that are compiled by obtaining writ-
ten or oral statements on the topic by the participants who will be
involved in the sorting procedure. This type of sample is beneficial
in that the participant is able to “Q-sort” the statements much faster
and understands them better (B. McKeown & Thomas, 1988).
Ready-made Q-Samples: Samples that are compiled from sources other
than communication of the participants. According to Shemmings
(2006, p. 151), they might consist of items taken from conven-
tional rating scales or questionnaires. In addition, several subtypes
exist, namely quasi-naturalistic Q-samples; Q-samples drawn from
conventional rating scales; standardized Q-sorts; and a hybrid cat-
egory (B. McKeown & Thomas, 1988).
Quasi-naturalistic Q-samples: Samples that are similar to those
obtained from interviews, but are developed from sources external
to the study, for instance, taking statements from an interview with
(continued)

Appendix A. (continued)
an expert on a topic without the expert being included in the study
(B. McKeown & Thomas, 1988).
P-sample or p-Set: Intentionally chosen individuals selected to par-
ticipate in a Q-study to provide a holistic understanding of possible
views toward a phenomenon or context (Brown, 1980).
Condition of instruction: Question that is answered or the context that
is used when sorting Q-statements into levels of high agreement,
low agreement, and no agreement (B. McKeown & Thomas, 1988).
Q-sample or Q-set: Stimulus statements derived from a concourse
given to participants for rank ordering in a Q-study (B. McKeown &
Thomas, 1988).
Q-sort: A technique used in a Q-study to represent an individual’s per-
ception through the rank ordering of self-referential responses on a
factor array that can be factor analyzed (Brown, 1980).
Q-sort diagram: An enlarged diagram (or board) on which the state-
ments are arranged in the participant’s preferred order. The result
is an inverted bell-shaped curve, which represents a symmetrical
quasi-normal distribution (Webler et al., 2009).
Q-sort cards: Cards resembling playing cards on which statements
that need to be arranged by participants are printed. Similar to well-
written survey items, there should only be one individual statement
per Q-sort card written in a language familiar to the participants
(Webler et al., 2009).
Q-factor analysis: Factor analytic treatment that involves interpret-
ing factors that illuminate common views from a sample of people
(Webler et al., 2009).
Appendix B
Statements’ Rankings
Statements Factor A Factor B Factor C
1 The bottom line for me is that when a -3 -3 -1

reporter takes sides in a political dispute,
the reporting, its credibility, and its impact
all suffer
2 The only side I take is the side of science -1 -4 -4
(continued)

Appendix B. (continued)
3 I believe in facts; it’s our only real value-add as 2 0 4

journalists. Anyone can provide spin
4 I don’t think the corrective is for reporters 2 1 3
to become activists. It is simply to apply
the standards of journalism—fairly and
rigorously
5 My role as an environmental reporter is to 3 0 0
convey what science has revealed about
a question, what is not understood, what
aspects of an issue can be clarified through
future research, and what amount of
unavoidable uncertainty society is saddled
with at the end
6 There is something of a false dichotomy in 0 3 1
the notion that being an objective reporter
is at odds with being a “concerned citizen.”
7 My passion is conveying how science works, 0 0 1
something that society seems to have
forgotten. There is always debate. There are
always loud voices at the edges of an idea
(on climate that would be the apocalyptic
and the contrarians). But that should not
distract from the great durable body of
understanding in the middle
8 For journalists, I think it’s necessary only to 0 -1 1
report on what the major scientists are
saying and if there are counter-expressions
within the legitimate scientific community,
to reflect their relative weight within the
community
9 While any good reporter can provide the 0 0 -2
facts, it is the environmental reporter’s job
to provide the context and background that
readers and viewers need to understand
the issues
10 Competition for shrinking news space -2 1 2
increases pressure on environmental
journalists to dramatize issues to ensure
that a story gets out
(continued)

11 You don’t have to have training in science -1 0 0

or knowledge of complex environmental
problems to report on them
12 Environmental and health journalism would -3 -3 -3
be improved if reporters thought like
scientists
13 Reporters generally apply the same standards -4 -3 -1
to environmental issues reporting that they
do to Hollywood or sports reporting
14 Traditional news values depreciate journalism -3 -1 -1
on the environment
15 Environmental journalism is often belittled 0 1 -3
because of tendencies to be event-
oriented and the failure to explain larger
issues
16 Journalists make science more certain than it -1 2 0
is by loss of caveats, single-source stories,
and lack of context, as well as being
more interested in the product over the
process and assuming science will bring a
triumphant quest
17 Environmental journalists must wear many 2 -2 2
different hats. The environmental news
writer is as much a business news writer as
a science writer or political reporter since
the decisions of private business materially
affect the quality of the environment
18 The lack of black and white issues makes -2 -4 -2
environmental reporting frustrating:
Everything is in shades of gray. There
aren’t good guys and bad guys. The good
guys are a little bad and the bad guys
aren’t all bad
19 I think a lot of environmental coverage should 1 2 -1
be along the lines of “we accept the idea of
wildlife and nature and the environment as
a good thing”
20 Most of the journalists are in the field because 3 1 -2
they care about the environment
(continued)

21 Your primary goal is to report the truth . . . If 1 -1 1

you go into this kind of job with a fixed view
of particular issues and try and bend people
to your view, you are not being a journalist;
you ought to be a campaigner with Friends
of the Earth or someone like that
22 Although I very much sympathize with 4 2 4
the environmental movement, it’s still
critically important to me not to say or
write anything of substance that I haven’t
documented or verified
23 Half of environmental journalism is having the 0 -2 -1
story, half is having credibility
24 Any environmental story is a combination of 1 -1 2
a business–medical–scientific–economic–
political–social–pollution story
25 Environmental news is “manufactured” by a -4 0 -4
journalist through interpreting and selecting
events to fit the predetermined scope of his
or her environmental newspaper
26 An environmental journalist’s job should be 1 -1 -2
partially about raising the environmental
awareness of my colleagues
27 An environmental writer on a major 2 3 3
metropolitan newspaper today, being at
the cutting edge of the fight for a clean
and healthy environment, should lead his
readers to assume responsibility for their
clean skies, waters, forest, open spaces, and
wildlife
28 Newspaper editors are too caught up in -1 2 0
the day-to-day short-term stuff to handle
environmental news properly
29 I think the more knowledge you have of 3 0 0
science in general, the better prepared you
are not only to balance both sides but also
to put some perspective in it
30 You can get bamboozled by scientists as easily -2 0 3
as you can get bamboozled by politicians
(continued)

31 The journalist’s duty is to heighten public 0 4 1

awareness about environmental issues
32 In environmental journalism, you are -2 4 -3
influenced by a number of vested interests,
such as political parties, scientists, and
governmental or nongovernmental
organizations
33 If an environmental journalist wants to keep -1 -2 0
up the readers’ interest, he or she should
report on what interests the reader and
simultaneously preserve the diversity of
issues
34 A study by an environmental 0 1 2
nongovernmental organization (ENGO) is
not more objective than a ministry study
35 The environmental journalist–reader 4 3 0
relationship should be based on the
grounds of environmental sensitization and
not on sterile information
36 Community misunderstanding regarding 1 -2 0
environmental science issues represents
the greatest challenge journalists face with
regard to covering environmental issues
Note. Entries in boldface are statements distinguishing factors at the .99 level.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their appreciation to all Greek journalists who par-
ticipated in this research study, sharing their valuable time in lengthy interviews.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.

Notes
1. According to the latest Eurobarometer data, newspapers are considered to be the

second most trustworthy source of information in Europe (European Commission,
2007, p. 27).
2. The reader should note that not all individuals have to load on the resulting factors.
As a matter of fact, for our research, Individuals 1, 12, and 13 did not load “purely”
on any of the proposed three factors. This means that for these three individuals
none of the emerged discourses (as represented by each factor) is representative of
their (i.e., respondents’) particular views on the issue under discussion.
3. Readers interested in the statistics involved should refer to Brown (1980). Although
Brown used the rankings from the hypothetical Q-sort representing each perspec-
tive, it would also be possible to use the statements’ Z-scores for that perspective
instead. Using the statements’ Z-scores rather than their rankings produces nearly
identical results, as the rankings are produced by taking the statements as ranked
by Z-score and collapsing them into “bins” whose number and size are determined
by the distribution of cards in a Q-sort.
4. Prasad (2001) argued that use of the forced-choice method (forced matrix) means
that the respondents have to consider their attitudes more carefully, which can
bring out true feelings in response. Although artificially selected, the forced-
distribution tends to reveal stable preferences and prevents individuals from resort-
ing to the tendency to rate more items positively than negatively (Brown, 1985).
References
Anderson, A. (2009). Media, politics and climate change: Towards a new research
agenda. Sociology Compass, 3, 166-182.
Anderson, A. G. (2002). The media politics of oil spills. Spill Science & Technology
Bulletin, 7, 7-15.
Archibald, E. (1999). Problems with environmental reporting: Perspectives of daily
newspaper reporters. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 27-32.
Bohner, G., & Wänke, M. (2002). Attitudes and attitude change. New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Borden, S. L., & Tew, C. (2007). The role of journalist and the performance of journal-
ism: Ethical lessons from “fake” news (seriously). Journal of Mass Media Ethics:
Exploring Questions of Media Morality, 22, 300-314.
Boroş, S. (2006). Q-methodology: Applications and implications. Invited lecture at
the Research Colloquium of the Department of Organizational Studies, Tilburg
University, the Netherlands.
Boykoff, M. T. (2009). We speak for the trees: Media reporting on the environment.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 431-457.

Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms:
A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38, 1190-1204.
Boykoff, M. T., & Mansfield, M. (2008). “Ye Olde Hot Aire”: Reporting on human
contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press. Environmental Research
Letters, 3(2), 024002.
Brainard, C. (2009). Science journalism’s hope and despair. Columbia Journalism
Review. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/
science_journalisms_hope_and_d.php?page=all
Brenner, D. J., Aucoin, J., & Xiaoming, H. (1998). Quantum stuff in communi-
cation: Some implications of Stephenson’s concept. Operant Subjectivity, 21,
139-150.
Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., & McComas, K. (2004). Are issue-cycles culturally
constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate
change. Mass Communication and Society, 7, 359-377.
Brown, S. R. (1971). The forced-free distinction in Q technique. Journal of Educa-
tional Measurement, 8, 283-287.
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political
science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brown, S. R. (1985). Comments on the search for structure. Political Methodology,
11, 109-117.
Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health
Research, 6, 561-567.
Brown, S. R. (2006). Variance explained by each factor. Retrieved from http://listserv.
kent.edu/archives/q-method.html
Brown, S. R. (2008). Q methodology. In L. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods (pp. 699-702). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, S. R., Durning, D. W., & Selden, S. C. (2007) Q-methodology. In K. Yang &
G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in public administration
(pp. 721-764). Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach.
Carvalho, A. (2007). Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge:
Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 223-243.
Christidou, V., Dimopoulos, K., & Koulaidis, V. (2004). Constructing social repre-
sentations of science and technology: The role of metaphors in the press and the
popular scientific magazines. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 347-362.
Clarke, A. (1999). Changing attitudes through persuasive communication. Nursing
Standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain): 1987), 13(30), 45-47.
Corbett, J. B. (2006). Communicating nature: How we create and understand envi-
ronmental messages. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Cottle, C. E., & McKeown, B. F. (1980). The forced-free distinction in Q technique: A
note on unused categories in the Q sort continuum. Operant Subjectivity, 3, 58-63.

Cox, R. (2009). Environmental communication and the public sphere (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, R. M. (2005). Exploring attitudes: The case for Q methodology. Health Edu-
cation Research, 20, 206-213.
Cunningham, B. (2003). Re-thinking objectivity. Columbia Journalism Review,
42(2), 24-32.
de Burgh, H. W. (2003). Skills are not enough: The case for journalism as an academic
discipline. Journalism, 4, 95-112.
Demertzis, N. (2002). Political communication in Greece. Athens, Greece: Papazisis.
Dimopoulos, K., & Koulaidis, V. (2002). The socio-epistemic constitution of science
and technology in the Greek press: An analysis of its presentation. Public Under-
standing of Science, 11, 225-241.
Dimopoulos, K., & Koulaidis, V. (2003). Science and technology education for
citizenship: The potential role of the press. Science Education, 87, 241-256.
Dispensa, J. M., & Brulle, R. J. (2003). Media’s social construction of environmental
issues: focus on global warming- a comparative study. International Journal of
Sociology and Social Policy, 23(10), 74-105.
Dryzek, J. S., & Berejikian, J. (1993). Reconstructive democratic theory. American
Political Science Review, 87, 48-60.
Durning, D. (1999). The transition from traditional to postpositivist policy analysis:
A role for Q-methodology. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3),
389-410.
Eden, S., Donaldson, A., & Walker, G. (2005). Structuring subjectivities? Using Q
methodology in human geography. Area, 37, 413-422.
Entman, R. (1989). Democracy without citizens: Media and the decay of American
politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Esrock, S. L. (2005). Review and criticism: Research pioneer tribute—William
Stephenson: Traveling an unorthodox path to mass communication discovery.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 244-250.
European Commission. (2007). Scientific research in the media (Eurobarometer 282/
Wave 67.2). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/
ebs_282_en.pdf
Fenton, N. (2009). New media, old news: Journalism and democracy in the digital
age. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fjæstad, B. (2007). Why journalists report science as they do. In M. W. Bauer &
M. Bucchi (Eds.), Journalism, science and society: Science communication
between news and public relations (pp. 123-131). London, England: Routledge.
Gans, H. J. (2004). Deciding what’s news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly
news, Newsweek, and Time. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Hansen, A. (2009, April). Communicating the environment: Journalists, media,
sources and the production of environmental news. Presented at The Media and

The Environment: Between Complexity and Urgency, Calouste Gulbenkian Foun-

dation, Lisbon, Portugal. Retrieved from http://gulbenkian.mrnet.pt/media/files/
FTP_files/pdfs/ambiente09/AMBIENTE_02-03Abril09-AndersHansen.pdf
Harbinson, R., Mugara, R., & Chawla, A. (2006). Whatever the weather: Media
attitudes to reporting on climate change. London, England: Panos Institute.
Harrabin, R. (2000). Reporting sustainable development: A broadcast journalist’s
view. In J. Smith (Ed.), The Daily Globe: Environmental change, the public and
the media (pp. 49-63). London, England: Earthscan.
Hashim, N. H., & Meloche, J. A. (2007). Australian online newspaper: An explor-
atory study on Internet savvy users using Q-methodology (Faculty of Com-
merce Papers 410). University of Wollongong, Wollongogng, New South
Wales, Australia.
Hovardas, T., & Korfiatis, K. J. (2008). Framing environmental policy by the local
press: Case study from the Dadia Forest Reserve, Greece. Forest Policy and
Economics, 10, 316-325.
Hutchinson, I., & Wolf, A. (2004). Hunches and insights in social science research.
Paper presented at the Social Policy Research & Evaluation Conference, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Johnson, B. B., & Chess, C. (2006). From the inside out: Environmental agency views
about communications with the public. Risk Analysis, 26, 1395-1407.
Maillé, M., Saint-Charles, J., & Lucotte, M. (2010). The gap between scientists and
journalists: The case of mercury science in Quebec’s press. Public Understanding
of Science, 19, 70-79.
McKeown, B. (1990). Q methodology, communication, and the behavioral text
[Electronic version]. Electronic Journal of Communication, 1(1).
McKeown, B. (1998). Circles: Q methodology and hermeneutical science. Operant
Subjectivity, 21, 112-138.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McKeown, M., Hinks, M., Stowell-Smith, M., Mercer, D., & Forster, J. (1999).
Q methodology, risk training and quality management. International Journal of
Health Care Quality Assurance, 12, 254-266.
Mormont, M., & Dasnoy, C. (1995). Source strategies and the mediatization of
climate change. Media, Culture & Society, 17, 49-64.
O’Donnell, C., & Rice, R. E. (2008). Coverage of environmental events in US and
UK newspapers: Frequency, hazard, specificity, and placement. International
Journal of Environmental Studies, 65, 637-654.
Oppenheim, A. N. (2001). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measure-
ment. London, England. Continuum International.
Popovich, M. N., & Massé, M. H. (2005). Individual assessment of media writing stu-
dent attitudes: Recasting the mass communication writing apprehension measure.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 339-355.

Prasad, R. S. (2001). Development of the HIV/AIDS Q-sort instrument to measure

physician attitudes. Clinical research methods. Family Medicine, 33, 772-778.
Rademakers, L. (2004). Examining the handbooks on environmental journalism:
A qualitative document analysis and response to the literature (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida, Tampa.
Robbins, P., & Krueger, R. (2000). Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method
in human geography. The Professional Geographer, 52, 636-648.
Rupar, V. (2007). Investigating the journalistic field: The influence of objectivity as
a journalistic norm on the public debate on genetic engineering in New Zealand
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Sachsman, D. B., Simon, J., & Valenti, J. A. M. (2002). The environment reporters of
New England. Science Communication, 23, 410-441.
Sachsman, D. B., Simon, J., & Valenti, J. M. (2004). Risk and the environment reporters:
A four-region analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 399-416.
Sachsman, D. B., Simon, J., & Valenti, J. M. (2005). Wrestling with objectivity and
fairness: U.S. environment reporters and the business community. Applied Envi-
ronmental Education & Communication, 4, 363-373.
Sachsman, D. B., Simon, J., & Valenti, J. M. (2006). Regional issues, national norms:
A four-region analysis of U.S. environment reporters. Science Communication,
28, 93-121.
Sachsman, D. B., Simon, J., & Valenti, J. M. (2008). Environment reporters and
U.S. journalists: A comparative analysis. Applied Environmental Education &
Communication, 7, 1-19.
Schmolck, P., & Atkinson, J. (2002). PQMethod 2.11. Retrieved from http://
www.rz.unibwmuenchen.de/p41bsmk/qmethod
Schneider, J. (in press). Making space for the “nuances of truth”: Communication and
uncertainty at an environmental journalists’ workshop. Science Communication.
doi:10.1177/1075547009340344.
Schoenfeld, A. C. (1980). Newspersons and the environment today. Journalism
Quarterly, 57(3), 456-62.
Schooler, J. W., & Wilson, T. D. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can
reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 181-192.
Schwartz, D. (2006) Writing green: Advocacy and investigative reporting about the
environment. Baltimore, MD: Apprentice House.
Shemmings, D. (2006). Quantifying qualitative data: An illustrative example of the use
of Q methodology in psychosocial research. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
3, 147-165.
Simon, J. (2009). Unnatural disaster: The crisis of environmental journalism. World
Policy Journal, 26, 87-94.

Singer, J. B. (1997). Changes and consistencies: Newspaper journalists contemplate

online future. Newspaper Research Journal, 18, 2-18.
Skanavis, C., & Sakellari, M. (2007). Assessment of environmental intention of
journalists. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 6, 233-240.
Smith, J. (2000). The Daily Globe: Environmental change, the public and the media.
London, England: Earthscan/James & James.
Steelman, T. A., & Maguire, L. A. (1999). Understanding participant perspectives:
Q-methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 18, 361-388.
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Stephenson, W. (1982). Q-methodology, interbehavioral psychology, and quantum
theory. Psychological Record, 32, 235-248.
Stephenson, W. (1983). Quantum theory and Q-methodology: Fictionalistic and
probabilistic theories conjoined. Psychological Record, 33, 213-230.
Stocking, S. H., & Holstein, L. W. (2009). Manufacturing doubt: Journalists’ roles and
the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of
Science, 18, 23-42.
Stricklin, M. (1996). PCQ: Factor analysis program for Q-technique (Version 3.8)
[Computer software]. Lincoln, NE: Author.
Taylor, P., Delprato, D. J., & Knapp, J. R. (1994). Q-methodology in the study of
child phenomenology. Psychological Record, 44, 171-183.
Top environment reporters talk about journalism vs. activism. (2006, August 24)
Retrieved from http://www.grist.org/article/reporters/
Tsekos, C. A., & Matthopoulos, D. P. (2008). Environmental news in Greece: Evalu-
ation of the way newspapers deal with environmental issues. International Journal
of Environmental Studies, 65, 209-218.
Toulmin, S. (1964). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Valenti, J. M. (1998). Ethical decision making in environmental communication.
Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 13, 219-231.
van Exel, J., & de Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview. Retrieved from
http://www.qmethodology.net/PDF/Q-methodology%20-%20A%20sneak%20
preview.pdf
Wallsten, K. (2007). Agenda setting and the blogosphere: An analysis of the relation-
ship between mainstream media and political blogs. Review of Policy Research,
24, 567-587.
Weaver, D. H., Beam, R. A., & Brownlee, B. J. (2006). The American journalist in
the 21st century: U.S. news people at the dawn of a new millennium. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Webler, T., Tuler, S., & Danielson, S. (2009). Using Q method to reveal social per-
spectives in environmental research (SERI Rep. No. 09-001). Greenfield, MA:
Social and Environmental Research Institute.
Wilkins, L., & Patterson, P. (1987). Risk analysis and the construction of news.
Journal of Communication, 37, 80-92.
Wilkins, L., & Patterson, P. (1991). Risky business: Communicating issues of science,
risk, and public Policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Wilson, K. M. (2000). Drought, debate, and uncertainty: Measuring reporters’ knowl-
edge and ignorance about climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 1-13.
Wyss, B. (2008). Covering the environment: How journalists work the green beat.
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Yang, J. H. (2004). Constraints on environmental news production in the U.S.: Inter-
view with American journalists. Journal of International and Area Studies, 11,
89-105.
Bios
Christos Giannoulis received his BSc in environmental management of natural
resources at the University of Ioannina and his MSc in environmental policy and
management at the University of the Aegean. He is presently a PhD candidate in
environmental communication and interpretation at the University of Ioannina and a
research member of the Research Centre of Environmental Education and Communi-
cation at the Department of Environment at the University of Aegean.
Iosif Botetzagias is a lecturer in environmental politics and policy at the Department

of Environment at the University of the Aegean (Mytilene, Greece). His latest research
project focuses on the politics and policies concerning climate change in Greece, with
a particular emphasis on the relevant discourses in the Greek media.
Constantina Skanavis is a professor in environmental education, didactics, and com-

munication and director of the Research Centre of Environmental Education and
Communication at the Department of Environment at the University of the Aegean
(Mytilene, Greece). She joined the University of the Aegean 8 years ago. Before that
she was a professor at California State University, Los Angeles and she had developed
couple courses on issues of environmental health and education. She currently teaches
environmental education, environmental health and environmental communication in
undergraduate and postgraduate level at the University of the Aegean.

View publication stats

Env Journ

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Env Journ

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Newspaper Reporters' Priorities and Beliefs About

Article in Science Communication · January 2010

Christos Giannoulis Iosif Botetzagias

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Certified as a Neusrel Analyst View project

CLIMATE CHANGE VIDEO VOTE! View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Newspaper Reporters' Priorities and Beliefs About Environmental

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://scx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Christos Giannoulis,1,2 Iosif Botetzagias,1

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

this research study in other countries as an effective method of obtaining

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

information from the literature on risk communication studies and science

Sometimes a fourth C is added, for communication, or the transfer of social

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

stories), newsworthiness (i.e., the ability of a news story to attract readers or

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

the production of news, with a special emphasis on the relationship between

•• Disseminator: The disseminator journalist sees his or her primary

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

•• Interpreter/investigator: The interpretive/investigative journalist

According to Borden and Tew (2007) such journalists’ role expectations

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

If three journalists attended a protest rally, it is very likely they would

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

(2010) showed that environmental journalists do not challenge the media’s

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

of the participants had a particular degree or postgraduate specialization in

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Q-Methodology: Epistemological Foundations

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

A Comparison of Two-Factor Analysis Techniques

•• Q-methodology seeks to understand how individuals think (i.e., the

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

•• Q-methodology is an intensive method that seeks an in-depth

Although some researchers are attracted to Q-methodology because of

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Figure 1. The steps of Q-methodology

For the present research, we used both ready-made Q-samples (question-

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Table 1. Selection of Statements in Terms of the Concourse Matrix

Types of Claim 1. Ontology 2. Agency 3. Motivation 4.Natural/Unnatural

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Table 2. Factor Loadings of Greek Journalists After Varimax Rotation

QSORT Factor A Factor B Factor C

Journalist 1 0.2894 0.4112 0.3297

interpretation is on the factor scores of each statement and not of individuals

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Table 3. Correlations Between Factor Scores

A three-factor solution containing factors with 7, 6, and 7 “pure” loadings

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Factor A: “Scientifically Led, Environmentally

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Table 4. Scientifically Led, Environmentally Responsible Journalists

Factor A Factor B Factor C

5. My role as an 3 1.338 0 -0.093 0 0.066

Downloaded from scx.sagepub.com at University of Aegean on January 21, 2011

Rank Z-Score Statements

5. My role as an 3 1.338 0 -0.093 0 0.066

(+4) 2.076 22. Although I very much sympathize with the environmental

(-4) -2.195 13. Reporters generally apply the same standards to

32. In environmental -2 -0.967 4 2.017 1 -1.572

(+4) 2.017 31. The journalist’s duty is to heighten public awareness about