https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2013-229X
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper is a systematic literature review on slow journalism, whose aim is to analyse and understand all previously done research on the subject. The review focused on four databases—Web of Science Core Collection, SCOPUS, B-ON and Communication Abstracts—and, after applying the protocol and the analysis model, a corpus of 37 papers was obtained. Data collection ended on 31 January 2022 and no starting date was defined. This analysis shows that, although the concept designation is somewhat recent it is deeply rooted in journalism, it places itself between tradition and innovation. Among other considerations, one should stress the strengthening of the connection with the audience and the idea of being an alternative way of doing, recognising, still, the need for other processes and temporalities.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 As the maximum possible transparency is sought, it should be noted that the 393 excluded added to the 37 included, plus the 129 which could not be accessed, equal 559 considered results. There is, thus, a discrepancy of three regarding the 562 results presented by the databases. This difference could be explained by the fact that when results were automatically eliminated by B-ON platform the total was no longer 535 but 538 (06/08/2020) – value that still considered duplicate results – being that we could not figure out where the three extra entries were – that is, it is possible that the latter were added to the 400 we had already accessed and not to the results deleted by the database.
2 It should be noted that, in many cases, exclusion was based on more than one criterion, and that the first one that helped eliminate the text was counted here.
3 Here, it would be worth mentioning that this text is not a scientific paper, rather a periodic publication, hence the reason why it is not included in the sample considered for this SLR.
4 It seemed important to present a cross-checking of these data specifically in this journal since it was the one that included the highest number of papers on slow journalism.
5 It seems pertinent to recall here that not all languages were considered, only Portuguese (PT and BR), Spanish, English and French.
6 It should be noted here that every word in a different language than English were translated to avoid redundancy and so that the cloud would present the real relevance of each word.
7 Note that when it comes to this indicator, as in the others, topics, as well as categories, are not mutually exclusive, that is, different topics/categories can be found in the same text.
8 This indicator presents some categories and topics equal to those of the “approach angle” indicator. This could be explained by the fact that both indicators refer to themes and issues related to the concept under analysis here. However, whereas the “approach angle” refers to the main focus of the paper—from which slow journalism is discussed—“related topics” refer to topics related to the concept, which contextualise, justify and clarify it (not being the main focus of the paper).
9 We should, however, clarify that two of these address slow journalism's commercial viability considering the reinvented business model and the different funding approaches; and that the other one does it having as context the emergence of new media start-ups connected to slow journalism (in Spain) given the economic and media crisis.
10 That is, in 13 texts there is no clear explanation about how the study was designed—whether there is an empirical aspect or just a theoretical one. From these 13, one is the introduction for the journal edition, so it would not make sense to apply a methodology.
11 This does not mean that they are mutually exclusive—which also applies to collecting and analysis techniques (sometimes, a paper uses more than one in the empirical process).
12 It should be noted that, as a rule, the authors mention quality, but do not elaborate on it, ending up by not defining what they mean by quality journalism exactly.