In April, Fredrik Bjerknes successfully defended his doctoral dissertation at the University of Bergen, and earned a PhD in Investigative Journalism. His research represents a pioneering effort in Norway, examining the distinction between investigative journalism and other forms of journalism. We sat down with Fredrik to discuss his dissertation and academic journey.
Malgorzata Anna Pacholczyk (MP): In journalistic circles, investigative reporting is heralded as vital for upholding democracy, with its practitioners often viewed as more skilled than their peers. This respect for investigative journalism is occasionally echoed in scholarship. Your doctoral thesis diverges from this reverence, taking a critical lens to investigate the essence of investigative journalism. What particular questions does your dissertation address? What served as the inspiration behind your PhD project?
Fredrik Bjerknes (FB): My thesis aims to tackle a twofold overarching research question: How is investigative journalism distinguishable from other forms of journalism, and how is visual evidence used to make knowledge claims in investigative journalism? So basically, I have conducted three different empirical studies that, through three different qualitative textual analyses, examine how visuals are used in news text as important sources for knowledge construction in the context of investigative journalism while simultaneously interrogating the discursive boundaries and epistemological principles of this very context.
The idea for the PhD project came to me in the summer of 2018 when The New York Times, together with the interdisciplinary organisations Bellingcat and Forensic Architecture, published a groundbreaking visual investigation into an alleged chemical attack perpetrated by the Syrian state on its own people. I have a background as a photojournalist, and I saw immediately that this was a new way to mobilise the visual as evidence. So, it started very simply, I wanted to find out what this new emerging form of journalism was.
In addition, the PhD position I applied for was located at the newly founded Norwegian Center for Investigative Journalism (SUJO) which is partly funded by the University of Bergen. A key question for the journalists working at the Center, but also for me, was to find out how investigative journalism is different from other forms of journalism.
A key question for the journalists working at the SUJO Center, but also for me, was to find out how investigative journalism is different from other forms of journalism.
Fredrik Bjerkens together with Per Christian Magnus, the director of the Center for Investigative Journalism (SUJO) at the University of Bergen.
MP: In your dissertation, you point out the lack of scientific consensus on how to define and conceptualise investigative journalism, and your research concludes on a provocative note, arguing that there is no such thing as pure investigative journalism. How, then, should we think of investigative reporting?
FB: That’s a difficult question, since any scientific inquiry requires a clearly defined object of study. I am also aware that it is always easier to deconstruct an object than to piece it back together in a generative way. However, the point I am trying to make is that investigative journalism has no transcendental qualities or essentialist properties. This argument is very much inspired by Thomas F. Gieryn, a historian of science, who argues that science has many conflicting attributes that scientists may or may not invoke when they are arguing for their epistemic authority. Similarly, investigative journalism is whatever journalists need it to be. Sometimes investigative journalism uses open sources and externally sourced visual evidence, other times it uses covert sources and professionally produced visual evidence. Sometimes it is data-driven, other times it is based on a few human sources. From a research perspective, I think that we need to add this contextual layer when we study investigative journalism. However, the attribute that seems the least contextual relates to epistemology, that is, how investigative reporters know what they know and how they discursively display this knowledge. If truth claims are put forward with any explicit type of justification, then I would hesitate about calling it investigative journalism. However, there are degrees here. There are no clear-cut boundaries.
The point I am trying to make is that investigative journalism has no transcendental qualities or essentialist properties.
MP: Your research focuses on visual evidence and explores how journalists utilise images to construct knowledge, signal authority, and veil uncertainty in investigative journalism. To this end, you conducted analyses on how The New York Times verifies images and forms assertions based on visual material. What were the conclusions drawn from this analysis?
FB: In this study, I find that many of the discursive practices for mobilising the visual as evidence are remediations of institutionalised performative evidentiary tropes found in more verbal-based forms of investigative journalism. The other finding I wish to highlight pertains to how visual truth claims from witness media are verified on-screen. To unpack this, I use the concept of inscription device from Bruno Latour, which in this context discursively constructs a new optical device and consequently a new phenomenon to look at. Using advanced video editing, The New York Times displays different footage simultaneously in grids or split screens, showing the same transgression from two, three, or even four different angles at the same time. What is interesting about this particular form of visuality is that it builds upon the logic of data journalism in which videos and images are externalised and interlinked in evidentiary networks, which transforms them into data evidence that combined creates a form of networked visual truth.
FB: Whether I am the first person or not depends, again, on how you define the object of study. Of course, some Norwegian scholars have written about investigative journalism before, but they have perhaps just called it “journalism”. So, it is probably more accurate to say that I am the first Norwegian scholar who has specifically interrogated the distinction between investigative journalism and other forms of journalism.
I know that being first is a scientific virtue, and I notice that people around me, also outside of academia, are very interested in this fact. But for me, the most important accomplishment was finishing the thesis more or less on time and getting interesting and insightful feedback from the committee. It feels great when people I look up to and have read extensively for over four years engage so seriously with my work.
It feels great when people I look up to and have read extensively for over four years engage so seriously with my work.
MP: What are your goals moving forward now that you have finished your doctoral studies?
FB: My ambition for the future is to hopefully stay in academia and continue teaching, learning new things, and doing research. There are so many interesting books to read and so much happening in the journalistic field that deserves scientific attention. I used the time as a doctoral student to learn how to do basic research and to orient myself in a vast body of various strands of literature. After gaining a very broad understanding of research and journalism studies, I think the next logical step for me is to become more knowledgeable in the theories, conceptualisations, and methods that I think make sense. Recognising that there are limits to what you can know and that you must choose your specialties is probably the most important thing I learned during my PhD process.
The latest special issue of Nordicom Review examines the changing nature of extremism in the Nordic countries, with particular attention to social media, hybrid modes of engagement, and the challenges of defining extremism in digital environments.
The Association of Media and Communication Researchers in Denmark, SMiD, celebrated its 50th anniversary during its biennial conference held earlier this month. The jubilee gathering brought researchers under the theme “From Print to Prompt: Media and Communication Research and Education in the Era of AI”.
A new edited volume explores how platformisation, social media, and digital infrastructures are reshaping democratic societies, raising questions about power, responsibility, and what it means to be an informed citizen.
