Illusio and disillusionment: expectations met or disappointed among young journalists

Job motivations and expectations as the field’s illusio

Over the past few decades, and even during the crisis of journalism, the number of university journalism programs globally has increased exponentially (Mellado and Scherman, 2017; Terzis, 2009), even though not all journalism students actually aspire to work in journalism (Hanna and Sanders, 2007; Hanusch et al., 2015). Those who study journalism are commonly motivated by three key reasons: Students perceive journalism as an interesting profession, consider themselves talented in writing, and strive to contribute to society (Hanusch et al., 2015). These motivations are closely linked to aspiring journalists’ expectations, which can be divided into practical, idealistic, and personal anticipations (Hovden et al., 2009). For instance, British journalism students appear to be motivated predominantly by personal and practical motives such as the job’s fit to their personality and talents, as well as their perception of journalism as interesting and diversified work. For them, idealistic motives like public service traditionally play a minor role (Boyd-Barrett, 1970; Hanna and Sanders, 2007). In contrast, journalism students in Nordic countries support the public service ideal more strongly (Hovden et al., 2009). Comparative evidence suggests considerable differences in journalism students’ professional views across different countries: Whereas students in Ibero-American countries have a strong devotion to addressing audiences as citizens, students in Western developed countries give great importance to consumer orientation, while still valuing their countries’ tradition of watchdog journalism (Mellado et al., 2013).

Regarding job expectations, journalism students across the globe focus mostly on personal achievements such as career advancement, public prestige, and the level of autonomy, while also expressing altruistic desires to serve society (Hanusch et al., 2015). Notably, previous research suggests that aspiring journalists have internalized the narrative of journalisms’ economic crisis and are thus aware of financial uncertainty and assess future working conditions realistically. Still, they are more optimistic than pessimistic about their future (Williams et al., 2018). Journalists are aware of the profession’s downsides such as low wages, stress, and incompatibility with family life, however, they still call journalism a ‘dream job’ for its varied work and public respect (Hummel et al., 2012: 725). Studies also suggest that journalists exhibit strong commitment despite experiencing the work as stressful and with insecure career prospects (Cohen et al., 2019). Apparently, journalists believe in the higher purpose of their profession despite the drawbacks in their everyday work.

From a field-theoretical perspective, these pre-existing ideas of what the field entails and the beliefs about why it is worth pursuing can be conceptualized as illusio (Bourdieu, 1996). Broadly, the term refers to why members of a field invest themselves in it and what is at stake for them. Using the analogy of a game to describe a field, Bourdieu (1996: 228) conceptualizes illusio as an ‘interested participation in the game’. Illusio is frequently used to understand aspirations, especially of young people, and how class, gender, ethnicity, and more, can provoke reflexivity and affect the intensity of and commitment to this belief in the game (Threadgold, 2018). Interested participation is established in a relationship between a habitus and a field (Bourdieu, 1996). In that sense, it suggests that individual desires, needs, and interests to join the game are shaped by knowledge from within the field. In other words, the motivation to invest oneself in it is based on the knowledge about the game and is, hence, a product of the field (Bourdieu, 1998a). Moreover, pre-existing dispositions make it easier to establish a specific interest in the game, that is beliefs about the value of a field can already be formed before entry and inform expectations about the field (Bourdieu, 1998b). Although theoretically located between individuals and the field, illusio can also be analytically assessed on the level of individual actors and by relating (job) motivations, (job) expectations, and the understanding of the field. Bourdieu’s metaphor of the game refers to the struggle for the most advantageous positions within the field which includes being able to impose and legitimize definitions of what constitutes the field and who belongs to it (nomos), as well as which truths and rules are taken for granted (doxa). Doxa refers to intuitive knowledge about the rules of the game shaped by experience. It denotes the unquestioned shared beliefs constitutive of a field (Bourdieu, 1977).

The ‘game’ is facilitated by means of different resources, in Bourdieusian terms called forms of capital, namely economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1986). To participate in a professional field, agents therefore need to possess some form of material assets, knowledge both in cultivation and educational credentials, connections with other members of the field, and social recognition. Depending on which of these resources are more valued in the field, agents are able to occupy more powerful positions and thus contribute to the hegemonic power over what constitutes nomos and doxa (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). Moreover, the overall access to resources also influences to what degree individuals persist in realizing their aspirations and, thus, how much time and resources (commitment to illusio) they invest, as well as how much they reflect on and change their strategies (awareness toward illusio (Threadgold, 2018)).

Bourdieu’s concepts have in recent years attracted considerable attention in journalism scholarship (for example, Benson and Neveu, 2005; Hovden, 2012; Schultz, 2007; Willig, 2013). At the same time, most studies have focused particularly on the concepts of field, the various forms of capital, and habitus, while a small number of studies have employed the concept of doxa. Much more rarely have journalism scholars focused on illusio as embodying the reasons for why journalists commit to the journalistic field and the struggles within it in the first place (Maares and Hanusch, 2018).

In one of the few studies exploring journalistic illusio, the concept has been described as ‘the unquestionable conviction that the journalistic game is worth playing’ (Willig, 2013: 374). In some cases, this resembles a ‘strong feeling’ for the journalistic mission (Hovden, 2012: 67) or playing an important societal role as watchdog (Hummel et al., 2012), but, as past research has pointed out, the reasons can also be less idealistic and more closely connected to personal expectations and preferences, such as simply wanting to pursue a varied career or working in a prestigious field (Hummel et al., 2012). Hence, the concept of illusio could explain the relatively high level of commitment to journalistic work despite precarious circumstances (Cohen et al., 2019; Hummel et al., 2012; O’Donnell, 2017; Reinardy, 2011). Applying Bourdieu’s terminology, Hummel et al. (2012) conclude that journalism’s illusio is strong enough to keep journalists in the field despite its drawbacks. As such, illusio also acts as a force of preservation of power relations and inequalities (Vos et al., 2012). Apparently, aspiring and active journalists expect and experience gratifications that can explain why they involve themselves in the field’s struggles in the first place. However, this is only one side of the coin and does not hold true for every journalist. In fact, for many, disillusionment, or an ‘ironic disposition’ toward illusio (Threadgold, 2018, 46) – that is, a reflexive awareness of the game and its absurdities – has become a common experience.

Disillusionment

Power relations in the journalistic field are structured both by internal and external hierarchization (Bourdieu, 1996). The first refers to the dominance of those who achieve what is internally valued (i.e. investigative reporting, contributing to the social mission of journalism), while the latter describes the influence from other fields, for instance the economic field (such as profit expectations of media companies and needs of advertisers), which has always affected individuals and organizations in journalism. When external hierarchization is experienced too strongly by aspiring individuals such as journalists entering the field, it can modify their illusio in a way that it is more in line with external, for instance economic, logics (Bourdieu, 1993, 1996). Indeed, journalism scholarship indicates that recent developments in journalism put limits on journalists’ job commitment and they experience disillusionment and disenchantment when their ideals clash with day-to-day work (Goyanes and Rodríguez-Gómez, 2018; Johnstone et al., 1976). Recognizing such discrepancies leads to disappointment and makes journalists question their dedication to the industry.

First and foremost, the feeling of permanent job insecurity contributes to these doubts (Gollmitzer, 2014). To stay competitive in a changing business environment, news organizations have adjusted their structures and staffing levels (Goyanes and Rodríguez-Gómez, 2018), increasing the uncertainty of journalists’ career prospects (Deuze, 2007). Reinardy (2011) found that such an environment of job insecurity negatively affects job satisfaction and, hence, journalistic performance. Journalists who believe their careers are at risk are unlikely to alter their practices (Ekdale et al., 2015). Moreover, disillusion is also triggered by disappointment with day-to-day working conditions and lacking appreciation. For instance, Nikunen (2014) found that especially older journalists struggle to maintain their professional self-perception when they experience difficulties keeping up with the demands of a technology-centered newsroom structure.

However, studies indicate lower levels of job satisfaction among younger rather than older journalists (Johnstone et al., 1976; Reinardy, 2011). Young journalists feel ‘exasperated’ (Reinardy, 2011: 47) by intense pressures in digitized work environments and are more likely to suffer from burnout. Nikunen (2014) detects frustration among younger journalists as current restrictions make it impossible for them to focus on news gathering. Journalists interviewed by Goyanes and Rodríguez-Gómez (2018) were concerned that present circumstances make it increasingly difficult to reach high quality standards. Even journalism students seem to already be aware of these constraints: While they aspire to fulfil a watchdog role in society, they fear that achieving this ideal will be hampered by the constraints of ethical standards and the objectivity norm (Williams et al., 2018).

In summary, young journalists experience limits to their professional autonomy in their everyday work practice, which – given that autonomy is closely linked to job satisfaction (Von Rimscha, 2015; Willnat et al., 2013) – leads to dissatisfaction. Their expectations and motivations to involve themselves in the field’s struggles – their illusio of journalism – are disappointed. Recognizing such discrepancies between expectations and experiences puts their commitment at stake and, ultimately, calls their future in journalism into question. For them, the game may no longer be worth playing. Indeed, studies reveal that young journalists are more likely to consider leaving the field than to stay and work under precarious conditions (Gollmitzer, 2014). Journalism research and education have both recognized this risk, and aimed to identify skills that could better prepare them for the current requirements of the profession. Besides classic journalistic skills, scholars have explored aspects outside such core practices (Drok, 2013).

Hence, studying young journalists promises rich insights into the current challenges of the profession (O’Donnell, 2017). Only by relating specific expectations to experiences can we identify whether the illusio (and, perhaps more importantly, what kind of illusio) is confirmed after successful entry to the field, or what aspects have contributed to experiencing disillusionment, and thus a more ironic awareness of illusio. Moreover, we can assess whether young journalists as new entrants to the field challenge the illusio of the societal mission of journalism, as well as the ‘natural’ rules (doxa) that protect this illusio, or whether they reproduce it and thus reinforce existing power relations. Hence, we can explore whether young journalists’ illusio changes with experience and to what extent high amounts of journalistic capital benefit reproducing the dominant illusio.

Moreover, as we argued earlier, the current crisis of journalism is likely to foster the disenchantment of young journalists and leads them to question their remaining in the profession. However, we have little understanding about whether young journalists perceive journalism to be in a crisis and, if so, whether they relate their experiences to this perceived crisis.

From these assumptions, we derive our research question:

Job motivations and expectations

When asked why they originally pursued a journalistic career, our respondents’ narratives widely resonate with previous studies on job motivations and expectations (Hanusch et al., 2015; Hanna and Sanders, 2007; Hovden et al., 2009). Most importantly, they wanted to put their talent and interest to write into practice. Some remembered that teachers and relatives noticed their talents early on and urged them to start a journalistic career. One interviewee remembered: ‘My German teacher always told me that I should somehow try journalism because I can write’ (2016, m_4). Apart from the talent to write, which nearly every respondent mentioned, some referred to a further communicative competence, namely their ability to deal with strangers: ‘Well, I’ve always been very communicative. Whenever anyone had to be approached on the street, they always sent me’ (2013, f_3). Besides such practical motives, they also highlighted idealistic ones. Most mentioned aspects that relate to the watchdog function of journalism: Respondents originally strived to control the powerful, to uncover and draw attention to social grievances, to give a voice to the underprivileged, to change society, and to explain complex relationships.

These prevailing practical and idealistic motives of contributing talent and serving society relate to what Hovden (2012) calls the strong illusio of the field. Apart from communicative competences, respondents mentioned further practical reasons that motivated them to pursue a journalistic career. Similar to findings by Hanusch et al. (2015), they simply perceived journalism as an interesting job. When asked to elaborate, interviewees referred to their initial perception of journalism as a diverse profession. Moreover, many described themselves as ‘naturally’ curious and, hence, stated that they were motivated by the expectation to look behind the scenes. Said one respondent: ‘As a teenager I already had this image of journalists who attend each and every Formula 1 grand prix, important football matches, big tennis matches’ (2011, m_3). Some of the young journalists referred to their interest in politics that motivated them to strive for a journalistic career.

When further asked about their personal motives, very few journalists conceded personal objectives such as longing for public prestige. As an exception, one journalist stated: ‘I’d be lying if I said that you do the job out of pure idealism, that you’re not vain at all and you don’t do it for prestige. That’s not true, of course’ (2017, m_3). While previous studies found future journalists’ expectation to accumulate public prestige a major job motivation (Hanusch et al., 2015), our respondents rarely refer to prestige. This finding might be an indicator for young journalists’ awareness of public skepticism about legacy news media. Less surprisingly – and in line with previous studies – not a single respondent referred to financial aspects as a motivation to follow a journalistic career.

As we were not only interested in job motivations but also in further job expectations, we addressed such possible downsides of journalistic work through supplementary questions and asked respondents about their expectations regarding salary, job security, reconcilability of family and work, and public trust. Most respondents admitted they had not thought properly about such downsides or suggested these issues were not important to them when they made the decision. For example, when prompted to elaborate on prior expectations about the possibility to reconcile family and work, respondents showed awareness for the topic but pointed out that, for them, starting a family was not a primary goal when they pursued journalism, and in some cases still was not. This applies to both women and men. With regard to the potential downsides, our respondents had only developed clear expectations about the financial aspects of being a journalist over time. Many of them said they were aware of the difficult job entry, job insecurity, and low and irregular income, especially as a freelance journalist. Interestingly, most had learned about these insecure and precarious job prospects during their studies. Some said they were explicitly urged to reconsider starting a journalistic career: ‘During our studies we were always told that we wouldn’t find a job and that everything would be terrible’ (2017, f_1). ‘I used to hear it all the time when I was studying journalism: “You’re too many, you’re just a number. You can forget journalism anyway; you’ll never make it”’ (2016, f_1). Apparently, our respondents were advised against pursuing the career confirming the finding that journalism students are intensely warned of the death of the industry (Williams et al., 2018). This might explain why Hanna and Sanders (2007) found that students’ interest in starting a journalistic career decreases in the course of their studies. Yet, our respondents ignored this advice. For them, their interests were stronger than concerns about insecurity and precarity. Still, in retrospect, many respondents admitted that, at the start of their career, they worried about their future prospects. Some developed alternative plans in case they failed in journalism, which might hint at some level of pragmatism engaging in the field’s struggle.

By examining young journalists’ original job motivations and expectations an understanding of journalistic practice emerges which can be considered as benchmark for their assessment of actual work experiences. We can conclude that interviewees assign journalism a crucial role in democratic societies. Many were motivated by providing public service. As this outweighs the expected financial downsides and explains why our respondents involve themselves in the field’s struggles (which they were partly aware of), the contribution to society forms an essential part of our respondents’ illusio of journalism. Their focus on the normative function of journalism was especially evident when they talked about the perceived significance of journalism in modern times. In this regard, all respondents stressed the profession’s crucial role for democratic societies.

But strikingly, the reputable young journalists were initially not only motivated by contributing to democratic societies but also by their expectation to follow personal interests and skills, such as their talent to write, communicative competences, curiosity, and political interests. Yet what all of these motives have in common, is that they actually refer to a much bigger concept – which is autonomy (Sjøvaag, 2020). Respondents expected autonomy from external interferences by political and economic interests (endangering the contribution to democratic societies) as well as from internal constraints in the newsroom (endangering the realization of individual interests and talents). Hence, autonomy appears to be the major underlying motivation for our respondents’ decision to start a journalistic career. Consequently, it constitutes a key facet of the field’s illusio, as it is the superior reason to become a journalist despite the awareness of job insecurity and financial downsides.

Fulfilment and disappointment of expectations

But are these expectations fulfilled in day-to-day practices? As we argued above, this appears doubtful as we witness a time of journalism crisis which does not only lead to increasing job insecurity but also fosters economic constraints in the newsroom, increases workloads, and is characterized by a decline of public trust in journalism. Thus, we assume discrepancies between prior expectations and actual experiences. Of course, this is only true for the disappointment of positive expectations – which we have conceptualized as the respondents’ illusio of journalism. It is not very likely that respondents will experience disillusionment when they realize that their concerns regarding salary and uncertainty are in fact not met.

Indeed, our respondents clearly pointed out that not all of their prior expectations were fulfilled once they worked in journalism. However, their explicit references toward suffering disillusionment remained rare exceptions. One journalist stated: ‘When one deals with [journalistic practices] for the first time, initially disillusionment arises’ (2017, f_3). A second journalist reported: ‘When you get a little older you notice that very often you don’t have time to complete a story. Then you get a bit disillusioned’ (2013, f_4). A third journalist stressed that – contrary to her expectations – journalism was ‘not romantic at all’ (2016, f_2). Crucially, disillusionment refers to the level of autonomy which is lower than young journalists initially expected and hoped for. This corresponds with survey results that point to decreasing autonomy in journalism (Willnat et al., 2013). This lack of autonomy relates to several facets of prior expectations: Most importantly, respondents quickly realized that their potential to affect society positively was limited. As one journalist puts it: ‘You’re a young journalist and you think you can change the world. And then you realize, well, you don’t actually change the world at all’ (2016, m_3). Similarly, another journalist said: ‘You can report about everything, but it doesn’t change much or anything. You don’t feel the effect directly’ (2015, m_1).

Moreover, young journalists find that journalistic practice is far less autonomous than they originally expected. In that regard, they refer to editorial guidelines, time pressure, and economic constraints that put limits on realizing individual desires. Our respondents reported that – contrary to their expectations – it was not possible for them to regularly implement their own ideas. For some, disappointment of expectations also refers to the assumption of journalism as a varied job. For example, journalists originally expected to work not only at their desks. As one respondent put it: ‘And I would have imagined that you would be on the road more, too. And not spending 90 percent of your time in the office’ (2015, m_2). Our respondents indeed recognized discrepancies between their prior expectations and actual experiences. However, this did not lead them to question their decision to work in journalism. On the contrary, they highlighted that they would make the same decision again, as it is an honorable occupation and the work worthwhile. As an exception, one journalist stated: ‘So, what now? Am I going to keep this up for 20 years now? And then, I started to think: “Hm, why am I doing this?” and “Okay, it’s cool, but somehow I can’t achieve what I initially wanted to”’ (2016, m_2). Others blamed themselves for their naïve and unrealistic expectations when they started out.

In summary, our respondents experienced certain discrepancies between expectations and day-to-day practice which mostly relate to the difference of expected and experienced autonomy. They regret a low degree of autonomy but still accept it as an important facet to make journalistic work manageable. Crucially, they do not question their decision, although most of them admit some degree of disenchantment. As an exception, only one journalist explicitly stated that he now had a ‘much more romantic idea of journalism’ (2016, m_4). Still, other journalists were also pleased with their work even when acknowledging drawbacks with regard to autonomy. Whereas Goyanes and Rodríguez-Gómez (2018) found that realizing discrepancies between expectations and experiences puts job satisfaction at stake and, hence, challenges job commitment and journalists’ dedication to stay in the field, our respondents demonstrated high degrees of job commitment. This may be due to the fact that the majority of our respondents were in permanent employment at the time of the interview, contrary to their own initial expectations. They called themselves ‘privileged’ as they did not (or at least no longer) have to worry about salary and job insecurity. Regardless of gender, most also stated that employment contracts allowed them to reconcile family and work, which challenges previous research that suggests that female journalists perceive the journalistic profession as largely incompatible with motherhood (see, for example, North, 2016).

Hence, our findings suggest that high status in the field (journalistic capital) as well as material security facilitate mechanisms to cope with the disappointment of individual expectations. Even though our respondents experienced disenchantment with regard to autonomy, they did not doubt they would remain in the job. While we assumed that symptoms of the crisis of journalism would compromise a satisfying work environment and foster disillusionment, our respondents did not currently express a decrease in the appeal of journalistic work. This suggests that disillusionment can be perceived as an awareness of the game at play rather than as indifference to the game and reiterates Threadgold’s (2018) argument that material security supports higher commitment to illusio.

Whereas young journalists recognized challenges with regard to business models and public trust, they also predominantly assessed the profession’s future optimistically. Rather than a crisis of journalism, our respondents perceived a ‘crisis of old media’ (2016, m_1) and stressed that ‘each crisis holds out certain opportunities’ (2016, f_3). Young journalists agree that journalism has to change in digital times and they feel blessed that they can accompany this change. As one journalist put it: ‘I think a lot is changing right now. But I also think it’s a super exciting time to do journalism’ (2017, f_1). Moreover, when examining only respondents who completed a program at a university of applied sciences, we could neither detect different motivations, nor varying degrees of disillusion or differing evaluations of the crisis. This indicates that even though the journalistic socialization of participants in these journalism programs usually starts earlier and is more streamlined, in the end they share similar beliefs with other members of the field that are just like them: young and reputable.