Wednesday, 24 May 2017

Media Studies workshop for students on coding research conference abstracts and exploring academic impact

This post describes a short workshop with UCT Honors and MA in Media Studies students. They are taught to code a local communication conference's programmes according to their team's research keywords. The academic impact of select conference papers are also coded and explored.


Today’s workshop focuses on exploring what presenters at the South African Communication Association (SACOMM) annual conference have shared there since 2011. In the first half (phase 1), you are going to review at least two program in teams with a similar research interest (or theme) to yours. I trust that your team will find local presenters whose focus resonates with yours. In the second half, you will explore whether there was any dialogue between the papers you coded or other forms of academic impact. The workshop is intended to help you to develop a better understanding of SACOMM's papers, which could be added to the literature reviews you need to do for research. At best, you’ll identify some important gaps at SACOMM and be inspired to think how your end of year project(s) could address these and what types of academic impact that could make.

> phase 1
2pm Introduction, split into teams and linked research coding scheme discussion
2.20 Teams code two SACOMM programmes (or more!) and explore links related to their focus
2.45 Teams describe what they found across time
> phase 2
3pm Coding research impact discussion
3.15 Teams explore research impact of shortlisted papers
3.40 Teams describe the impacts they found


SACOMM is an interdisciplinary conference that offers an opportunity to learn about the philosophies of communication science, critical communication studies, or cultural and media studies and how these engage with each other (Tomaselli, 2005). It is the sole functioning local disciplinary association for these studies and can offer a valuable forum for the disciplines and paradigms represented by its epistemologically diverse membership.

SACOMM’s program typically represents four areas of interest: Media Studies and Journalism (1), Film (2),  Corporate Communication (3) and Communication in General (4). The four interests may be elaborated or expressed differently at each conference. For example, this year’s conference ( includes streams for: Screen Studies (5), Communication education and curriculum development (6) and Communications advocacy and activism (7).

N.B. For more on SACOMM’s history and development, please read Professor Keyan Tomaselli’s Internationalising Media Studies: The South/ern African Communication Association (2007) and Ideological contestation and disciplinary associations: An autoethnographic analysis (2016) 

> Split into teams
Let’s split into research teams that match the interest group areas of the class. Just checking that these are..: Media Studies and Journalism (1), Film (2), Screen Studies (5) and Communications advocacy and activism (7)?

Please would the “ones” raise their hands and move to the far left. “Twos” move next to them and so on, so that we can have a good idea of how big teams 1, 2, 5 and 7 are, ta (and if there are "teams of one")! Being an inter-disciplinary researcher, I appreciate that some of your work may bridge categories, so please bulk up a team on your second choice if you can. Each team can collect a SACOMM annual conference program from this desk, now.

> SACOMM (& IAMCR 2012) schedule and programs (2011 - 2016)
For those keen to reference the digital files, please note that there is no central archive of SACOMM’s programmes before 2014. Here are links to what is available on SACOMM’s site from 2014. Plus, I’ve uploaded 2013 and 2011 to my Google Docs, which are public:

2016 schedule/programme

2013 schedule/programme with abstracts

 SACOMM absorbed into International Association for Media and Communication Research conference at UKZN- schedule/programme with abstracts

2013 schedule/programme with abstracts

Those using CAQDAS may want to classify the source data by (year), conference (type) and type of document (programme or schedule).

> Define your interests
Your team’s researchers may have very different research interests. To create a shared list, each of you should write up to three keywords that are essential to your end-of-year project and number each by priority. For example, my Google Scholar profile lists five: creative producers (1), digital identity (2), habitus (3), infrastructure (4) and e-portfolio (5). These concisely describe my research focus and are ordered by priority. Each team should shortlist its most commonly chosen keywords. It must then formulate the coding index for your team’s foremost shared interests and share that with us.

> Coding the programs/schedules and abstracts and linking them to your research focus
Our next step is for each team to apply its coding index to a schedule. As you’ll notice when comparing the conference documents, most are extensive in providing a schedule and the abstracts. However, 2015’s only shows you the schedule. Here, you’d need to base your judgement of a link solely on the paper’s title. Given time constraints, your group might choose to focus only on titles and go through all 5 programs if you struggle to find research that resonates. Those teams that find strong resonance for several keywords may rather choose to do a detailed review of two conferences’ abstracts when searching for links.

It is easiest to code manually on hardcopies with highlighters. Alternatively, if you have experience with computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (whether it be NVivo, one listed under or another) you can import the relevant document (see links below) for coding. There’s always Excel, too!

Once you have completed the section(s) that match your interest, move onto the next program and code it. Since the programmes have been printed single-sided and are not stapled together, I trust you will be able to share different sections of the same programme between teams with contrasting foci. 

> Nothing to code?
Should you find no matching ‘keywords’ in your section; you could change your keyword coding index as a “Plan B”. Or Plan C would see your team rather focus on papers whose methods or research tools link to those you plan to use in future research.

The Media Studies field in South Africa is small and there is limited resourcing to cover what potentially is a huge, rapidly evolving field. You may find that speakers seldom address topics outside traditional institutional ones (such as online gaming) or bleeding-edge methodologies (such as large-scale quantitative analysis of social media via big data). Such developments may be perceived to be outside the scope of the local field, but would be covered in those countries’ conferences where Media Studies is far better resourced. Plan D is to describe what themes/topics/methods were absent from the programme and identify which communication conference(s) do cover them (i.e. IAMCR working groups, National Communication Association, World Communication Association, Association of Internet Researchers, International Communication Association and International Conference on Information & Communication Technologies and Development).

> Each team member describes an aspect of what the team found
Although part of a shared interest team, its members may be interested in very different research topics. Please reflect this in each team member’s (sentence-long) feedback.


> Coding research impact discussion
Like many Humanities conferences, the quality of its papers can vary greatly. SACOMM does not result in an accredited publication. Rather, its conference papers may translate into: 
  • Academic dialogue at the conference {and between them}; 
  • Growth in personal academic visibility (Google Scholar,, ResearchGate and other profiles); 
  • Networking that supports conference papers being developed into research papers for journal publication or chapters in books; 
  • Other academic publications. 
Your team should discuss which academic impact(s) you want to focus on for developing the next coding index. This should include the <source> and <type of impact output> plus a classificatory schema for the <output>. You may also want to track the sources you used in searching and the types of searches you did (i.e. keyword combinations and Google Advanced search syntax <download guide at>).

> Teams present on research impacts related to their keywords
Each team member should describe at least one research impact and how it relates it to his or her research focus.

N.B. Your research may point to limitations shaping local Media Studies research and SACOMM
Culture and media studies do not have a long history in South Africa. Historically, SACOMM has been driven by the communications departments of Afrikaans universities focused on good business communication and PR. Such an agenda’s focus conflicts with the strengths of other Universities (for example, Rhodes journalists would be expected to find out the “bad” PR side!) English and historically Black universities kept their distance from the conference before 2005. There may still not be great compatibility between University departments with dissimilar interests/philosophical backgrounds (i.e. Marxist studies) versus SACOMM’s orientation towards business communication. Let's close by discussing the enablers your exploration revealed as well as any other constraints it suggested?

Thank you
I greatly appreciate the assistance of Dr Julie Reid, Associate Professor Tanja Bosch, Professors Herman Wasserman, Keyan Tomaselli and Marion Walton. All helped with sourcing the SACOMM and IAMCR schedules and/or providing additional background regarding local conferences.

Friday, 30 December 2016

Advice for #UCT Media Studies students on sharing draft #research papers online

Written for UCT postgraduate Media Studies students interested in sharing their research projects online.

Three of my 17 postgrad students shared their Mobile Media and Communication projects online. One student had a highly compelling reason not to; her draft paper's topic focused on a rival to her new employer's magazine title! As a result of this low ratio, it seems that several exemplary projects will at best be shared via UCT's intranet for just future FAM5038S students to access. The small ratio of students sharing drafts seems a missed opportunity for them to gain recognition. More importantly postgrad students' projects miss adding to Media Studies literature: several of my year's projects were pathfinders that successfully explored under-examined topics. Such foci also provided interesting insights regarding research participants' unusual Capetonian contexts.

To help those Media Studies students keen to share their final research projects online, but who may be uncertain how, Nicola Pallitt and I recommend four options. For aspiring, emergent researchers, these are ideally considered after creating one's Academia researcher profile:

Creating a research profile on

Postgrads keen to progress to a PhD or working in research should create a UCT profile (ideally using their university work email address). Creating an profile and sharing their draft papers there first, enables one to basically say ‘this is mine’. While some journals won’t publish papers shared elsewhere {including!}, it is also helpful platform to link one's drafts from and join related communities. For example, a selfie researcher can search for the 'selfie' keyword and follow it. Ditto for the keywords, 'open access', 'special issue' – when you join such a network you might also connect with researchers who can advise on upcoming publications.

Joining communities on can also give you insights into who is reading your paper. Plus readers of your article might describe what sparked their interest in it. Just remember to add your email address in your draft paper to ease communication – super-interested readers may want to email you. For background on the benefits and limitations of academics using (with its marginal relationship to open access), read Kristen Bell's reflections at

You should also consider searching for and joining closed Facebook research groups. Their members can be asked for publication advice, such as where to publish. Here, you can easily introduce yourself in a post to the group, share your draft paper and pose your questions.

P.S. There are other sites that you can create a research profile on (such as Google Scholar or ResearchGate), however these are most relevant for academics with a publication history. You should also consider sharing your draft paper via OpenUCT and reading its four-step guide for academics on taking control of their visibility.

Recommended options to submit one's draft paper for publication include:

1. To an Online Community or Conference.

The easiest option is to share one's paper to a community related to its focus (such as 'Identity and media'). The drawback is that such a publication (and many under point 3 below) will be unrecognized for academic publication points, et al (see You can also consider presenting at a local conference. Just be forewarned that you may have difficulty finding one focused on popular postgrad themes, such as 'identity and self presentation' or 'mobile gaming'.

2. To an Open Access Journal.

Use your research keywords to search in and identify the most suitable journal(s). Open Access journals may not be as prestigious as the next two options, but you are more likely to have a positive response from them.

3. To a Special Issue of a Journal.

Student contributions may have a real advantage in Special Issues focusing on emergent media services (such as Snapchat and the 'ephemeral selfie' phenomenon), which few (if any) established academics could be doing research in. You can search for any upcoming special issues calling for contributions (for example, ephemeral selfies would suit special issues covering 'Gender' and 'Self-Presentation').

4. To a Journal.

It is preferable to start off in local publishing before attempting to publish in international journals. Local journals often offer a forum for debate in the field and are an entry point to it. A list of the IBSS (International Bibliography of Social Sciences) accredited local journals is on UCT Library’s website at  An important consideration for journals in choosing to publish your article is whether it contributes to the dialogue taking place between a journal's authors. So, in choosing a journal to submit to, you should look through your references to check those journal(s) you mention the most. Alternately, you need to find several new references in the journal you want to publish in, then include these in your argument. It is also important to consider your purpose for publishing – choosing a journal can be about networking with a particular group of people. It’s like saying ‘I’m with these folks’... or want to be!

Future Media Studies students may benefit form you sharing research online; publishing it moves it from being just a 'textbook exercise' (that "fridge magnet" which only your educator gets to view) towards being a contribution to the Media Studies community. The latter may help ensure that your project is not redone by other students, but they might build on it. For example, by following the future directions for research your paper suggests.

N.B. Consider the RISKS before sharing.

While there can be personal benefits to sharing your research online; such as recognition, receiving constructive feedback and protecting your authorial rights, be prepared for negative outcomes, too. In particular, you must be sure that the privacy of your research participants remains protected, especially for controversial projects (such as Tindr and sexual relationships). You may receive negative feedback, experience rejection of your submission or have it plagiarized. Worse, you may be trolled by undesirable audiences, such as chauvinists and/or racist trolls! If such risks deeply concern you, rather pursue an offline approach, asking your lecturer or supervisor for guidance.

Share and comment

Nicci and I hope that the benefits described above will outweigh any such risks and that reading our post has given you a sound appreciation for the 'how and why' to share draft papers online. Add a comment below to let us know if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions that could improve this post, ta.

Total pageviews since 2008's launch.


> Translate posts into your preferred language


+ or search it with these labels


> Connect with me on social networks

diigo education pioneer Social bookmarker @ .

About Me

My Photo

Visit my blog or @travisnoakes to learn more about what I do.


+ or simply follow this blog by email