Indigenous journalism, media innovation, and social change: A review of previous research and call for more critical approaches

During the past twenty years, researchers have explored what they claim to be “a burgeoning field” of Indigenous journalism (Hokowhitu & Devadas, 2013: xvi; see also Hanusch, 2013; Hartley & McKee, 2000). This burgeoning is attributed in part to the introduction, diffusion, and appropriation of paradigmatic innovations in media and communication technologies (Alia, 2010), including the Internet, mobile technology, and social media (Sweet et al., 2013; Alia, 2010). Alia (2010) argues that cell phones have fostered social change in Africa, and that blogs can be used as tools for highlighting injustice. Hanusch (2014a: 953) also maintains that media innovations have “allowed Indigenous societies to tell their own stories in culturally specific ways, enabling them to engage in (re)building their own identities”.

It has been argued that Indigenous journalism, as a reaction to mainstream journalism, can play a role in the promotion of social change by facilitating the inclusion of Indigenous voices in the public sphere (Hanusch, 2013; Skogerbø et al., 2019; Sweet et al., 2013). However, the practice of journalism can also reinforce existing power relations (Fussey & Roth, 2020; Golding, 2018; Herman & Chomsky, 2002; McChesney & Nichols, 2010; Waller et al., 2015). Research exploring the marginalisation of Indigenous voices in the public sphere also support this theory. In Scandinavia, for example, coverage of Indigenous affairs has been found to be conflict-oriented and racist, contributing to the exotification and marginalisation of Indigenous communities, cultures, languages, and ways of life (Ijäs, 2012; Sand, 2019; Skogerbø, 2000). Furthermore, research that analyses media innovations problematises the extent to which these innovations facilitate social change (see Ess, 2014; Krumsvik et al., 2019).

The use of the collective concept “Indigenous journalism” to describe the practice of journalism – both by and relating to Indigenous people – has increased significantly parallel to these developments. The phenomenon this concept refers to is, however, significantly older. Researchers have previously investigated the production of journalism by Indigenous people since at least 1840 (Day, 1990). These investigations usually referred to the practices of specific Indigenous people, for example, Sámi, Māori, or Cherokee journalism; or collective groups, such as Native, Aboriginal, or First Nations journalism. An increasing body of more recent research, however, refers to the concept of Indigenous journalism. A central claim of this research is that a “renaissance” of this practice is occurring, attributed in part to the diffusion and appropriation of paradigmatic media innovations (see Hanusch, 2013; Alia, 2010; Sweet et al., 2013). This growing body of research has not been the subject of a structured review to date; therefore, in this article, we report on a review of this research. Our review aims to identify the status of knowledge on this topic, critically assess the claims that are made, and point to directions for future research.

Based on our review, we argue that research exploring Indigenous journalism needs to take a more critical approach to the ways in which the diffusion and appropriation of media innovations facilitate or constrain Indigenous journalism in practice. We find, for example, that analyses of the process of Indigenous journalism, beyond the potential for increased access to media and for amplification of Indigenous voice, are lacking. Furthermore, little research investigates how new technological affordances might influence the production of Indigenous journalism or related variations in journalistic norms. Research exploring how Indigenous political participation can be facilitated by media innovation also indicates that these innovations can serve to reinforce existing power relations.

We submit that more critical analytical approaches are required to investigate how media innovations might facilitate the potential of Indigenous journalism for social change.

Indigenous journalism as a field of study is characterised by conceptual disagreement. Krøvel (2017) claims that Gema Tabares Merino introduced the concept of “Indigenous journalism”. Grounded in empirical observations of journalism connected to Indigenous organisations and communities on radio stations and online, Gema Tabares Merino was referring to what she considered to be a relatively new form of journalism developing in Latin America (Krøvel, 2017).

Gema Tabares Merino conceptualises Indigenous journalism as a form of “collective work”, involving “thinking and action” for Indigenous communication (as cited in Krøvel, 2017: 192). It includes three central dimensions:

First, indigenous journalism must respond to the needs of indigenous peoples. Second, the communication must highlight the crisis of the ‘Occident’ and re-value the knowledge and life forms of indigenous peoples as a viable alternative. [Third], the technologies underpinning [Indigenous journalism] must be placed at the service of indigenous life and culture.

The “collective work” concept is particularly appropriate, as Indigenous journalism is understood to have developed through local communitarian action that has been further mediated by national and continental meetings, discussions, and networks (Krøvel, 2017).

Related to this, Meadows (2009) has investigated the importance of journalism in representing Indigenous peoples and their affairs for non-Indigenous people. He argues that incorrect, biased, or missing representations of Indigenous peoples reinforce the construction of worldviews based on (mis)information. It is through worldviews that opinions are formed, and these opinions lead to actions. Meadows argues that because of this, many Indigenous peoples have turned their backs on mainstream media and started engaging in their own forms of cultural production (Meadows, 2009).

From a more theoretical perspective, Hanusch (2013) develops five main dimensions to conceptualise and analyse Indigenous journalism: a role in the empowerment of Indigenous people; the ability to offer a counter-narrative to mainstream media reporting; a role in language revitalisation; a role in culturally appropriate reporting; and a watchdog function. Hanusch's (2013) dimensions of Indigenous journalism have, however, been criticised because they imply an artificial contrasting of Indigenous journalism with other forms of journalism (Todorova, 2016). There is, in fact, significant overlap between the dimensions outlined by Hanusch and what is often referred to as journalism's ideal types of values (Deuze, 2005), namely public service, objectivity, autonomy, immediacy, and ethics. The dimension of language revitalisation, however, appears to be unique.

Further complicating matters, research on Indigenous journalism also operationalises the “Indigenous” concept in different ways. The term “Indigenous” is usually used as a political and strategic reference to people who have experienced histories of oppression and marginalisation. According to the World Bank (2021), between 370 and 500 million – or around 5 per cent of the world's total population – are Indigenous. However, this collective concept masks many differences among and between Indigenous people. For example, groups have distinct names to self-identify, such as “Aboriginal”, “Torres Strait Islanders”, “Māori”, “First Nations”, “Inuit”, or “Sámi”.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) declines to adopt an official definition, but proposes “a modern understanding”, based on self-identification and acceptance as a community member. At the core of this concept is a requirement to recognise difference, in terms of historical continuity; links to territories and natural resources; social, economic, and political systems; languages; cultures; and power relations (United Nations, 2004). According to Walter and Andersen (2013), it is precisely because of this diversity that the concept does not have an official definition.

Some Indigenous communities have also been conceptualised by Walter and Andersen (2013: 9) as “colonized first world Indigenous Peoples”. These people share colonial histories but are also socially, economically, and politically positioned in colonised first world nations. This builds on Dyck's (1985) definition of fourth world peoples, who,

are Indigenous to the lands that form the nation state;

These characteristics do not apply to all Indigenous people; for example, in the Pacific, Samoans, Fijians, and Tongans are Indigenous and dominant groups in their island-states – however, they also identify as Indigenous and are recognised as such.

In spite of these conceptual disagreements, research about Indigenous journalism converges on the principle that it plays a role in social change, whether by promoting collective work and Indigenous forms of life and language, or by facilitating Indigenous participation in the public sphere through empowerment, culturally sensitive reporting, the potential to generate counter-narratives, or a watchdog function. From this starting point, we investigate research-based claims about how the practice that is increasingly conceptualised as “Indigenous journalism” is facilitated or constrained by media innovation.

Research about media innovations investigates change, including what is changing and how novel the change might be. It also investigates the key influences that support or hinder change (Krumsvik et al., 2019). Because media are part of the social ecology, media innovations are understood to both reflect and bring about social change (Bruns, 2014; see also Castells, 2012; Jenkins, 2006). However, media innovation must have some kind of economic or social impact to be considered an innovation (Dogruel, 2013).

Studies of the interrelationship between media innovation and social change emphasise the importance of analysing the socioeconomic and cultural contexts in which innovations occur (Kannengießer, 2020; Krumsvik et al., 2019; Ní Bhroin, 2015b; Ní Bhroin & Milan, 2020). Earlier research has found, for example, that access to new media does not guarantee participation, as further obstacles for engagement with technology may exist (van Deursen & Helsper, 2015).

Research on media innovations focuses primarily on innovations in journalism and news production, as well as on new opportunities for civic participation. It may therefore provide a useful lens to synthesise our understanding of factors influencing the development of Indigenous journalism.

When investigating innovations in journalism, Belair-Gagnon and Steinke (2020) argue that journalism is a process, where elements of production and consumption – including audience engagement, structure, system, and network – play a role. Related to this, da Silva and Sanseverino (2020) find that digitally native news services establish more meaningful connections with their audiences, which can in turn support business.

At the same time, new technological affordances introduce challenges for the production of journalism. Muindi (2018), for example, explores how Kenyan journalists need to juggle requirements for clarity, balance, and truth with the immediacy and spontaneity of communication on Twitter. Koivula, Villi, and Sivunen (2020) find that although media innovations present new opportunities for sharing ideas in dispersed journalism, they also introduce uncertainty in the creative production process.

With regard to civic engagement, Rendueles and Sádaba, (2019) argue that digitalisation has transformed political participation and citizen mobilisation in diverse and unexpected ways, and that the greatest innovations have taken place in what they call “unconventional political participation”. At the same time, researchers argue that explorations of the relationship between media innovation and social change should not overemphasise the importance of technological transformation, but rather pay attention to sustained power relations and patterns of inequality that prevail (see Fussey & Roth, 2020; Golding, 2018).

We therefore set out to investigate the extent to which research about Indigenous journalism investigates or explains 1) how media innovations introduce change to Indigenous journalism as a process, including its production and consumption, aspects of audience engagement, structure, system, and networks; 2) whether new technological affordances are understood to influence journalistic norms in Indigenous journalism, including requirements for clarity, balance and truth, and collaboration; and 3) how research about Indigenous journalism analyses the role of media innovation in introducing new opportunities for political participation.

Our literature review was conducted in two iterations (October–December 2017 and November 2020). In both instances, we searched for the term “Indigenous journalism”. As previously discussed, the use of this collective concept masks a complex range of differences between and among Indigenous people. However, the rate at which research referring to the concept is published has increased. One indication of this is the number of results generated by our search protocol at each iteration. In October 2017, our search resulted in 137 items; by November 2020, the total number of items had increased to 233 (see Figure 1 for a graphical representation of our search protocol).

Figure 1

We initially searched for the term “Indigenous journalism” in Google Scholar on 3 October 2017 and found 137 search results. Once we removed duplicates, we had 125 items. Between October and December 2017, we cross-referenced our search results with searches for the same term in the Web of Science, Nordicom, and Sociological Abstracts databases. No new items were found.

We excluded all unpublished theses and publications that were not peer reviewed, not research-based, and not in the English language. We then analysed the remaining 55 items to determine whether they were relevant for our study. We reviewed the title and abstract of each item, and those that did not include a discussion of “Indigenous journalism” were discarded. We also excluded articles that referred primarily to Indigenous media (rather than Indigenous journalism or news media), environmental issues, minority languages, or politics. Following this stage, 29 items were retained for review.

We divided these 29 items between our three co-authors, who each conducted a close reading of one-third of the sample and developed analytical memos. At a meeting in Alta, Norway (25–26 January 2018), we discussed the material and our memos and developed a series of analytical categories with which to further analyse the entire sample. From that point, we met at regular intervals to refine our categories and discuss our developing analysis.

By the time our analysis was finalised for submission, our original search was somewhat outdated. We therefore decided to re-run our protocol to ensure that we had not excluded newer publications. On 17 November 2020, we found 96 additional results; removing duplicates left 92 items for review. Following our protocol, we again checked the results against the Web of Science, Nordicom, and Sociological Abstracts databases and did not find any new results. We then categorised our newer findings according to publication type.

We again excluded all unpublished theses and publications that were not peer reviewed, not research-based, and not in the English language. We then analysed the remaining 46 articles to determine whether they were relevant to the topic of our study. Following our original protocol, we reviewed the title and abstract of each item and discarded items that did not include a discussion of “Indigenous journalism”; 18 additional articles were retained for review. Our material therefore consisted of a total of 47 articles. All articles were reviewed according to the analytical categories we had previously developed. The analysis presented in this article is therefore a result of the synthesis of both iterations of our search protocol.

Table 1 provides a breakdown of our search results by publication category according to both iterations of our search.

Our material (see Appendices 1 & 2 for overviews) includes 47 studies about Indigenous journalism in Australia and Oceania (n = 19), Africa (n = 13), North America (n = 5), South America (n = 2), Asia (n = 2), and Northern Europe (n = 3); the remaining articles have a global focus (n = 3). 35 articles focus on journalism and news media, and the remaining 12 focus on Indigenous media, including a specific discussion of Indigenous journalism. Only nine studies were published before 2010.

A range of methodological approaches were applied. Twelve articles are based on interviews with journalists (n = 7); media producers (n = 2); and educators and students (n = 1). Two focus group studies involve community and audience members. Three additional mixed methods studies rely on interviews along with observation and survey (Adeduntan, 2018); observation and archival research (M’Balla-Ndi, 2017); and analysis of primary documents (Plaut, 2017).

Eight studies use content analysis: five to review journalistic content, one teaching programmes, one a radio programme, and one a participatory media platform. Three additional mixed methods studies rely on content analysis along with historical analysis (Hanusch, 2014b), survey methods (Nwagbara, 2013), and production analysis (Su, 2019).

Furthermore, nine case studies focus on different aspects of the production of Indigenous journalism. Examples include the development of an app to support representation, the co-creation of stories with communities, and two journalism teaching programmes.

The remaining ten studies are predominantly theoretical and explore the evolution of Indigenous journalism as this relates to African journalism (Berger, 2000; Shaw, 2009; Skjerdal, 2011; Tomaselli, 2003); Australian journalism (Hess & Waller, 2015; McCallum & Posetti, 2008; Waller, 2010); as well as global Indigenous journalism (Hanusch, 2013).

We also consider it important to note that in spite of ongoing calls for reflexive approaches to Indigenous research and methodologies, only eight of the contributions in our sample explicitly addressed the relationship of the researcher to the Indigenous community studied.

In this section we summarise and discuss our findings. We 1) focus on how media innovations are understood to influence the process of Indigenous journalism, including its production and consumption; 2) indicate whether new technological affordances are considered to influence journalistic norms of clarity, balance, truth, or collaboration; and 3) identify how research about Indigenous journalism analyses the role of media innovations in introducing new opportunities for political participation.

Most of the studies in our sample (n = 40) claim that media innovations provide new opportunities for the production and consumption of Indigenous journalism (see Burrows, 2018; Gift et al., 2019; Hanusch, 2013, 2014b; Latimore et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2010). Three studies investigate journalism in Indigenous languages (Chibuwe & Salawu, 2020; Cohen & McIntyre, 2019; Skogerbø et al., 2019); four explore how legacy media, including both radio and television, can facilitate the distribution of Indigenous journalism (Adeduntan, 2018; Meadows, 2009; Nwagbara, 2013; Waller et al., 2020); and the remaining articles focus on how Indigenous journalism relates to particular cultural values (Hanusch, 2014b, 2015; M’Balla-Ndi, 2017) or the rhetoric of this kind of journalism (Lang, 2015).

We set out to investigate how media and technological innovations are understood to facilitate Indigenous journalism, in particular with regard to the role of Indigenous journalism in bringing about social change. Based on a literature review, we find that research on this topic conceptualises Indigenous journalism as something that exists in contrast or opposition to Western journalism. This normative and critical starting point arises because of the extent to which many Indigenous communities have been excluded, marginalised, or subject to racist portrayals in mainstream media. Indigenous journalism is therefore understood as an opportunity to “talk back” and address these historical problems, thereby promoting social change. However, as discussed, not all Indigenous people share the experience of colonisation and marginalisation, and as such, the implications of using this collective concept in this field of research are often not sufficiently addressed.

The recent “burgeoning” (Hokowhitu & Devadas, 2013) of Indigenous journalism is furthermore quite often unproblematically attributed to innovations in media and communication technologies, in particular the Internet, mobile technology, and social media. However, we find that the extent to which these innovations are diffused in specific social and economic contexts, and how this in turn influences the process of Indigenous journalism, remains underexplored. We acknowledge that while media innovations present opportunities for self-expression and participatory culture, these opportunities alone will not lead to social change (see also Gift et al., 2019). Forms of engagement that allow Indigenous communities to raise and frame issues of relevance to them, while maintaining professional standards and respecting individual privacy and autonomy, are equally important (see also Plaut, 2014, 2017; Vargas et al., 2020).

Furthermore, research within the field of media innovations points to the fact that legacy media companies are often wary of innovation, because they want to retain control over their share of the market and do not want to change existing power relations. Global media corporations, which function according to commercial mandates, are increasingly providing the infrastructure according to which Indigenous journalism is being produced and consumed. The potential for the amplification of Indigenous voices – which is understood to contribute to empowerment and social change – is thereby increasingly influenced by global commercial actors rather than political institutions. Our analysis also indicates that this situation is not sufficiently problematised or explored in research on Indigenous journalism.

A further significant knowledge gap relates to the fact that community participation and engagement is considered central to Indigenous journalism. At the same time, only three of the studies in our material explore how audiences engage with, perceive, and use this kind of journalism. We therefore know very little about the extent to which the audiences or users of Indigenous journalism experience or appreciate it, or about how it impacts their everyday lives.

Overall, we find significant knowledge gaps in this field of research. We submit that more critical analytical approaches are required to investigate how media innovations might facilitate the potential of Indigenous journalism for social change.