The vast majority of case studies are sought to back up stories that have already been commissioned, and are part of the journalistic due diligence process, ie is The Thing I am writing about really happening? What do real people say about this issue or product or trends?

Now, I could stop random people on street corners until I find someone who happens to have a strong experience relating to raising teenage daughters, or implementing a business software package, or filing their tax return online - but professional journalists working for actual editors don’t have the time or resources to do this.

I suggest Dave’s idealised waiting for people to appear process may only work in the hallowed halls of student journalism.

As a professional hack with editors to placate and deadlines to meet, I’m going to do whatever I can to expedite the process of finding great (and they do have to be good, however I happen to find them) case studies. I post on public Internet forums, I post to PRs on my personal mailing list, I post on magazine websites, I might use clips at the end of relevant TV shows and - also - I use Getting Ink Requests.

Perhaps Dave does think hacks using hacks as case studies is poor practice. I agree. But it’s not what Getting Ink Requests is all about.

Getting Ink Requests already has an audience that includes PR and marketing professionals, students from the UK, US and Europe, charities, small businesses, professional networking groups, journalists and researchers and several universities in the UK and US. And that’s after three days.

Sally

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I wrote about bullying in journalism because there was evidence it existed.

Well, yeah. Think of it in terms of bad science. If you were to hypothesise scientifically that there is bullying in journalism, your role as a scientist would be to test the hypothesis by finding evidence. If you don’t find any evidence, you ditch or modify the hypothesis and try something else. That would be good science. What you’re apparently advocating is bad science - you’re committed to the conclusion before you begin (because you have a commission) and therefore compelled to find evidence to fit. Otherwise you have no story.

Clearly if you already have some evidence that bullying in journalism exists, you have grounds for the hypothesis. You’d then be smart to pitch the idea, get a commission and investigate the subject thoroughly. But it’s not obvious that this is what you’re saying.

Years back I used to get pissed off with journalists who would come to me in my voluntary role of helping the multiple birth charity Tamba and say: “We are writing about psychic twins” or “we are writing about twins who slept with their sister’s husband” can you help us with a “case study” and I found that really frustrating - like they were making a case study ‘fit’ some ridiculous scenario or other.

But that is not what this blog is about - I have two call-outs on there - one is for people to speak to for a book and the other for a parenting article.

I am always wary of posting requests on forums or services for PR people as I think it can be perceived as lazy - but I have come to do it more and more - the point is that these are not the only places the requests are going - I do also hit the phones and *shock horror* talk to people - I even wrote for Press Gazette about how a local lollipop lady or hairdresser can bring some great stories.

If a journalist is writing about a specific industry and needs peope to speak to then every way of communicating can help. You can gather possible case studies from a variety of sources and then find the best - some may come from hitting the phones while others may come from online.

I had someone contact me through Facebook for a story - who’d have thought it?

To be honest I find the idea that anyone should be criticised for ‘thinking of a story’ then ‘finding a case study’ per se hilarious.

I bet even someone reporting on the media may think, “I’ll write about bullying in journalism’ - ‘ooh I need to speak to some journalists who have been bullied’ (Hang on I did that!) - can anyone seriously tell me anything’s wrong with that?

If I get the right story - thats what matters, not where it comes from.

Anyway the site is already doing what is was set up for - nothing wrong with debating it all I’m sure.

Declaration of interest - I’m a 101 trainer!

Another declaration of interest: I don’t want an editor calling me a c*** cos I can’t find three people in the UK to talk to me for a 1,000 words - that’s why I welcome the blog and the Facebook case studies group too.

So an editor gives you an assignment to find case studies for a story and you say “sorry, I only write about stories that find me? It’s unethical to find case studies after the story idea?”

How does that work, exactly?

We’re saying – as hacks, we’ve always used our contacts to find stories. The internet, and social media in particular, lets you have a bigger circle of contacts.

Yes, many of our readers work in media, communications or marketing, but not all do – and they all know lots of people who don’t. If 1200 people read the site and they all know 10 people, that’s 12,000 people who could potentially work as contacts for your request.

We hope that with smart SEO and tagging, we’ll grow our sphere of influence and broaden it over time, certainly. Like it says, it’s an experiment and we’re seeing how this stuff works.

My issue with this blog post – which I note has been substantially edited since posting – is that:

1. You didn’t check your facts before posting, saying we were read solely by hacks when this isn’t in fact true.
2. You referred to what we do as unethical without proposing a single alternative method of finding case studies that does pass your integrity test.

Thanks for your comment, and, also, for the private message on Journobiz about the matter.

****

“I’d also love to see you tell an editor demanding three case studies in 24 hours that you’re just going to kick back and wait for some extraordinary people to “find you when you’re least expecting it”.”

****

That’s the basis of my argument right there. Is it right to approach stories this way? The impression I get here is one of journalists tailoring people into the stories they want to write.

I’m not questioning the integrity of the site — rather the integrity of the journalistic process involved. That’s not something yourself or your colleagues have created — it’s the popular press as a whole, especially the women’s market. My worry with ideas such as yours is that rather than sharing stories from people of from all walks of life, case studies found in this manner serve only to heighten the sense that the mainstream media serves only a microcosm of society.

****

“Incidentally, analysis of the 1200 people who visited the site yesterday showed a mixture of hacks and PRs (who have clients and non media friends, lets not forget) plus charities, broadcasters, bloggers and various other sorts of people. Not especially insular, I don’t think.”

****

Would I be out of line to suggest that the charities visiting would be part of the PR audience? Broadcasters… bloggers = journalists?

Our site is simply a way for journalists to extend the “word of mouth” process they’ve traditionally used to find case studies. Surely, this is better than either

a - asking round the office and relying purely on the perspectives of other journalists

or

b- using a commercial site and broadcasting requests only to those organisations fortunate enough to be able to afford a PR agency with a subscription.

Just a thought..

Anything that reaches out beyond one hack asking another has to be a good thing. I get fed up of features that feature 2 or 3 case studies who all just happen to be freelance journalists because the writer didn’t look further afield. We all have friends and family outside the trade, who in turn have friends and family in a range of jobs and across the social spectrum. GI’s blog is just another creative route to finding those people. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it.

Nick Davies makes a similar point in Flat Earth News.