W
o
r
l
d
s
o
f
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
i
s
m

Background

Supported by international organizations such as UNESCO and the International Federation of Journalists, WJS3 thematically focused on journalism, risk, and uncertainty. The third wave of the project draws on the responses of more than 32,350 journalists in 75 countries.

WJS3 continued the work from the previous two waves of the study (WJS1 and WJS2). The first wave of surveys (WJS1) was carried out in 2007–2011 and had covered 21 countries from around the world. The second wave (WJS2), fielded between 2012 and 2016, yielded interviews with more than 27,500 journalists in 67 countries.

Journalists and news organizations around the world are confronted with an unprecedented and multi-faceted crisis. In many contexts, this crisis – unparalleled in the history of modern news media – is seen as constituting a serious threat to journalism and its future existence as a social institution of vital importance to democracy and governance. The Worlds of Journalism Study, a collective endeavor of scholars from more than 110 countries, has documented these transformations since its inception in 2007.

The third wave of the Worlds of Journalism Study (WJS3) shifts the analytical focus to levels of risk and uncertainty journalists are facing around the globe, as well as the ways in which they cope with and adapt to risk and uncertainty in different political, socio-economic, and cultural contexts. A major goal of the study is to compare the situation of journalism in a wide range of societies, trace developments over time, and identify key factors that drive cross-national differences in the way journalists conceive of, and deal with, risk and uncertainty.

While shifting the focus to the study of risk and uncertainty in journalism, WJS3 continues previous efforts to track the state of journalism around the world. Adding a longitudinal perspective is even more important as the institution of journalism, being in a state of flux, may be at a critical juncture in a rapidly changing media environment. In line with the overall theoretical framework, the project assesses perceptions of risk in the following key areas critical to the practice of journalism: editorial autonomy, influences on journalism, journalistic roles, journalistic epistemologies, professional ethics, safety and resiliency of journalists, and conditions of labor. These aspects will be assessed based on representative surveys of journalists in all world regions.

Overall, the study has several distinctive and innovative features:

  • It uses a comprehensive conceptual and methodological approach to study journalists’ perceptions of risk and uncertainty in news production.
  • It traces developments in risk and uncertainty over time, thus examining ways in which journalism copes with and adapts to changing mediascapes.
  • It measures perceived risk, uncertainty and their possible consequences at different levels of impact, including the individual level of the journalist in professional and personal dimensions, the news organization, and the institution of journalism at national and international levels.
  • It also includes peripheral journalists working at the margins of journalism, which allows us to better represent areas of change and transformation.
  • Its global scope enables a comparative assessment of a wide range of contextual conditions (politics and governance, socio-economic development, and cultural values) and the way they configure to different environments for journalism.
  • Finally, the study will be carried out in a unique collaborative effort involving researchers from more than 110 countries.

Organized as a network of researchers from around the world, including scholars from a wide range of countries in the Global South, the Worlds of Journalism Study builds on more than 15 years of experience in comparative and collaborative research. For the study of risk and uncertainty in journalism, WJS3 has established collaborations with major international organizations concerned with the future of journalism, including UNESCO, Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists.

Political, Economic, Technology-related, and Cultural Risks to Journalism

Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, we argue that risks in journalism emanate from four interrelated sources: politics, the economy, technology, and culture.

Political risks: In many regions around the world, the political environment has turned increasingly hostile toward the work of journalists in recent years. This is true not only for authoritarian societies but also for a number of liberal democracies and even more so for countries whose political systems contain elements of both both liberal and illiberal systems. According to Freedom House, press freedom worldwide deteriorated to its lowest point in 13 years in 2016. Furthermore, the world is a dangerous place for journalists reporting on political corruption, crime, and human rights abuses, as well as on war and conflict. States’ failure to establish the rule of law and protection of rights across territories, with the corresponding rise or entrenchment of de facto power holders, has undermined the safety of journalists in many countries.

Economic risks: The digital era has radically altered the economics of news production whereby audiences still appreciate the news but are less willing to pay for it. The changes in journalism’s economic environment have brought about vastly increased choice and competition, the rise of platform companies that have won a large share of audiences’ attention and advertisers’ budgets, and an evolving transformation in how news organizations make money as advertising revenues dwindle. Increased economic pressures on news organizations have resulted in the closure of newspapers, reduction of editorial resources, higher workloads, increased profit-making and advertising demands, growing relevance of audience measures, layoffs of permanently employed editors and reporters and frequent use of (often underpaid) freelancers.

Technology-related risks: The changing digital environment has enabled new actors, including algorithms and social bots, to participate in public conversation, thus creating a networked news ecosystem that gives political, commercial and other entities the opportunity to bypass journalism and to address audiences directly. Participative modes of information-sharing through social media and easier access to information dissemination platforms have radically altered the relationship between journalists and their audiences. Not only do modern digital news ecosystems provide audiences with access to a wide range of information sources beyond the “mainstream” media, but it is now also easier to target and engage citizens directly for political, business or other purposes, thus effectively undermining the role of professional journalism as an intermediary institution. The ease of sharing information from a variety of sources on social media has contributed to the rise of disinformation and “fake news”.

Cultural risks: Another set of risks stems from the erosion of support for the press and the rise of hate groups that target journalists in many societies. Here, studies in a variety of countries point to a continued, and partly dramatic growth in levels of skepticism and distrust of the news media in significant proportions of the audience. Journalism’s inability to admit the inevitable selectiveness of its world representation has arguably contributed to such epistemic crisis. At the same time, radical and populist politicians and the rise of racist nationalist groups have legitimized hate speech and other targeting of journalists. As a result of this, as well as of the proximity and anonymity provided by social media, journalists, especially women and minorities, have increasingly been threatened and harassed through social media and while covering news events.

Altogether these risks and developments address nearly all themes of current journalism research and have been investigated in numerous studies based on a variety of methodological approaches. However, there is no study or approach that systematically, and comparatively, combines and investigates risks and uncertainty in journalism on the level of perception. Despite a recent up-surge in comparative research, none of these studies specifically addressed the areas of risk and uncertainty in journalism.

Aims & Scope

WJS3 aims to study levels of risk and uncertainty journalists are facing around the globe. In so doing, the study sets out to better understand the ways in which journalism copes with and adapts to risk and uncertainty in different political, socio-economic, and cultural contexts, and how journalism has developed over time. In line with our general theoretical framework (see below), we assess these perceptions in the following key areas critical to the exercise of journalism: editorial autonomy, influences on journalism, journalistic roles, journalistic epistemologies, professional ethics, safety and resiliency of journalists, as well as conditions of labor.

In a broader sense, the project’s principal purpose is to help journalism researchers, practitioners and policymakers better understand changes that are taking place in the professional orientations of journalists, the opportunity structures they work in, as well as the role(s) of journalism in a changing world. Specifically, WJS3 has the following broad objectives:

  • To study levels and sources of risk journalists and news organizations are facing around the world as well as their manifestations and consequences.
  • To understand ways of coping with and adaptation to risk and uncertainty among journalists and news organizations in different political, socio-economic, and cultural contexts.
  • To assess, more generally, the state of journalism around the world as it is perceived by the journalists at a time of dramatic change within the institution of news media.
  • To compare journalists’ perceptions of risk and uncertainty across societies and identify the key factors that drive cross-national differences in the way journalists conceive of, and deal with, risk and uncertainty.
  • To trace changes in journalists’ perceptions of risk and uncertainty over time by comparing recent evidence with previous surveys of journalists (e.g., from WJS1 and WJS2).
  • To create a strong and timely data infrastructure on journalists’ perceptions of risk and uncertainty, and on the state of journalism more generally, as well as to make it available for secondary analyses.
  • To foster international collaboration and knowledge exchange in the area of journalists’ perceptions of risk and uncertainty, and in the field of journalism studies more generally, through engaging in collaborative research. And within this structure, to create a network of support and mutual guidance to increase technical capacities and cross-cultural, cross-national theoretical understandings between researchers working on issues related to journalism and risk in different societies.
  • To engage practitioners, media policy makers and other groups concerned with the state of journalism and to feed results back into relevant professional and public discourses.

Considering these aims, WJS3 sets out to answer the following research questions: How do journalists around the world perceive levels and sources of risk and uncertainty (RQ1), and how do they cope with and adapt to risk and uncertainty in different political, socio-economic, and cultural contexts (RQ2)? Furthermore, how do journalists in different societies conceive of (and deal with) risk and uncertainty (RQ3), what are the key factors that drive cross-national differences (RQ4), and how have these perceptions changed over time (RQ5).

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of the study builds on two theoretical features: an understanding of journalism as a discursive institution (general perspective), and the modeling of key areas of risk and uncertainty in journalism (specific approach).

Journalism as a discursive institution: The study is based on a general theoretical understanding of journalism as a social institution that is discursively negotiated and (re)created. This perspective is not only compatible to other approaches (e.g., field theory, institutionalism, structuration, and social constructivism), it integrates many of their premises in a view that prioritizes journalists’ subjective experience and perceptions. According to a discursive institutionalist view, journalism, as a social institution, performs a key function in society. Journalists work according to – and are socialized into – unspoken and often taken-for-granted norms, rules, and procedures, which are seemingly self-evident and are understood to be the “natural” way to gather news.

Journalism as an institution is subject to continuous discursive negotiation and (re)creation. In this process, journalists retain definitional control over what they consider legitimate practice, lay claim to cultural authority, and reinforce a sense of professional identity. Rather than being neutral and objective, this discourse is an uneven space of contestation and struggle in which journalists and other social agents vie for discursive authority in conversations about the meaning and role of journalism in society. Hence, the institution of journalism as it exists today in the various local contexts represents the state of play in an ongoing struggle over discursive authority. Discursive work creates the institution of journalism, recreates it as new agents are socialized, and reshapes it during discursive contestation or reflection even as more powerful players try to establish their discourse as central or final.

Journalism responds to changing contexts through processes of coping and adaptation on both the material and discursive levels. While journalists might cope with or accept threats on a short-term basis, adaptation implies that journalism has some capacity to buttress or rework journalistic ethics, roles, epistemologies, and other features of the institution. It is exactly here where peripheral areas of journalism become increasingly relevant. Working at the margins of journalism, peripheral journalists can more easily adapt and respond to changes in journalism’s environment by experimenting with new practices and models of doing news. Ensuing transformation of journalism’s institutional framework, however, is subject to continued discursive negotiation in the professional community and the larger public. As a consequence, journalism is in a permanent state of “becoming”.

Risk and uncertainty in journalism: At the heart of this discourse are journalists’ perceptions of risk as well as the institutional uncertainty they produce. The concept of risk here refers here to an array of existential threats to the viability and sustainability of journalism as an institution making a meaningful and vital contribution to social life. Risks primarily emanate from four, partly interrelated sources: politics, economy, technology, and culture. The forms (or manifestations) of these risks (e.g., eroding media freedom, violence against journalists, and deteriorating labor conditions) and the perceived consequences associated with these risks (e.g., shrinking levels of editorial autonomy and journalists’ safety as well as growing precarity of journalistic labor) generate significant uncertainty among journalists, news organizations, and the institution itself; observable, for example, in professional meta-discourse. Figure 1 is an attempt to summarize the four key sources of risk (areas of threats), their forms (manifestations of threats), and perceptions (areas of uncertainty).

Figure 1: Sources, forms, and perceptions of risk to journalism

Notably, risks to journalism can be posed by external developments (e.g., a lack of economic sustainability), internal factors (e.g., declining levels of professionalism) and by the relational dynamics between external and internal forces. Risks can emanate from long-term, gradual developments (shrinking levels of trust in the media, or increasing political polarization) as well as from short-term ruptures and shocks (e.g., the dotcom crash in 2000). Furthermore, risks to journalism depend on the various national opportunity structures with regard to politics and governance, socio-economic development, and cultural value systems.

These risks, and how they are perceived, have consequences (for journalists, news organizations, and the institution of journalism as a whole) in the following key areas that will be the focus of WJS3: influences on journalism, editorial autonomy, journalistic roles, journalistic epistemologies, professional ethics, safety of journalists, and conditions of labor. Each of these areas will be addressed in a thematic work package.

Methodological Framework

Like its precursors, WJS3 is based on a common conceptual and methodological framework developed and adopted by researchers from more than 110 countries collaborating in the project. All participating country teams are required to adhere to this framework, which includes a shared questionnaire along with instructions for translating questions, defining populations, constructing samples, selecting respondents, conducting interviews as well as proper recording and handling of survey data. Field research is scheduled to take place between 2020 and 2022 for all countries. In adherence to these general guidelines, WJS3 will proceed in four steps, each of which forms a research module built around specific methodological aims. These include a Structural Module, a Survey Module, an Analysis Module, and a Dissemination Module.

(1) Structural Module: structure of media system, population and questionnaire

In this module, research teams in the participating countries gather information about (a) respective national media systems, (b) structural parameters of the population of journalists, and (c) the opportunity structures within which journalism operates. This allows drawing an informed picture of the national media landscapes as well as the number and distribution of journalists in the WJS countries.

The standard questionnaire modules will be provided by the WJS Center; all research teams are obliged to apply the questionnaire to their countries. No deviations from the standard questionnaire, which is constructed in English, are permitted. National teams outside the Anglo-Saxon world are required to obtain a native-language version of the standard questionnaire using a strict translation-back translation procedure or a multilingual-experts approach.

(2) Survey Module: sampling, survey, and data handling

The minimal required sample size will be calculated, according to statistical conventions, based on a confidence level of 95% and a level of sampling precision (“sampling error”) of not more than 5% (teams are encouraged to stay within a 3% maximum sampling error). All national samples should provide reasonable representations of the populations of journalists in the investigated countries.

Sampling will thus proceed in two steps. First, teams construct a national target sample based on the information obtained through the Structural Module. The target sample will specify quotas for each combination of the following criteria: media channel (newspapers, magazines, agencies etc.), content orientation (quality vs. tabloid, if applicable), distribution (local, regional, national, or transnational), and primary ownership (private, public, state-run, or community). For each target quota, teams will randomly (or systematically) select editorial organizations and then choose journalists randomly (or systematically) from within these organizations until they reach the target quota.

(3) Analysis Module: description, comparison, explanation and tracing adaptation

In the Analysis Module, research teams will proceed as follows:

  • Descriptive analysis: All national teams establish key findings on journalists’ perceptions of risk and uncertainty in their respective countries. Each team is expected to prepare a country report summarizing key findings for publication on the WJS website (a template will be provided by the WJS Center).
  • Comparative analysis: In this step, researchers collaborating in WJS3 will form multinational teams, each focusing on a specific research question. Teams are charged with the task of identifying comparative patterns (of similarity and difference) in the cross-national dataset.
  • Explanatory analysis: In the following step, multinational teams will continue their work and focus on the identification of key factors that drive journalists’ perceptions of risk and uncertainty across levels of analysis (individual, organizational, and societal). For this purpose, a range of contextual data (see Structural Module) will be included in the analysis.
  • Longitudinal analysis: Finally, the established multinational teams will track developments in journalists’ perceptions of risk and uncertainty over time. These developments will also point to ways in which journalism is coping with and adjusting to risk and uncertainty. Such a comparison is possible as WJS3 will replicate several measures used in earlier research (by WJS and beyond).

For this purpose, all research teams delivering a dataset deemed reliable by the WJS Center will get access to the consolidated dataset, which contains data from all participating countries.

(4) Dissemination Module: coordination, dissemination, and outreach

In order to reach out beyond the scientific community, the WJS network will organize national and international workshops to share key insights from the study with leading journalists, journalism educators, representatives of journalism unions, and media policy makers. Furthermore, members of the WJS network will contribute their expertise to national and international organizations concerned with the future of journalism (e.g., with the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and UNESCO). Overall, WJS aspires to become a global research hub for the comparative assessments of journalists’ perceptions of risk and uncertainty in a changing mediascape.

Principal Investigators

Africa

(Regional coordination: Terje Skjerdal, NLA University College)

Ethiopia: Terje Skjerdal (NLA University College); Tim Klein (Louisiana State University)

Seychelles: Tim Klein (Wenzhou-Kean University); Olga Klymenko (University of Seychelles), Tessa Henderson (Seychelles Media Commission)

Sierra Leone: Sarah Bomkapre Kamara (LMU Munich)

South Africa: Marenet Jordaan (Stellenbosch University)

Tanzania: Ammina Kothari (Simmons University)

Zambia: Parkie Mbozi (University of Zambia)

Asia

(Regional coordination: Jyotika Ramaprasad, University of Miami)

Bhutan: Bunty Avieson (University of Sydney)

China: Baohua Zhou (Fudan University)

Hong Kong: Francis Lee (Chinese University of Hong Kong)

India: Jyotika Ramaprasad, Manasvi Maheshwari (University of Miami); Ambrish Saxena (South Asian University)

Indonesia: Nurhaya Muchtar (Indiana University of Pennsylvania); Masduki (Indonesian Islamic University, Yogyakarta)

Kazakhstan: Gulmira Sultanbaeva (Al-Farabi Kazakh National University)

Nepal: Samiksha Koirala (Nepal Open University)

Pakistan: Azmat Rasul (Zayed University)

Philippines: Edson C. Tandoc, Jr. (Nanyang University of Technology)

Singapore: Andrew Duffy (Nanyang Technological University)

South Korea: Seungahn Nah (University of Florida)

Taiwan: Huei-Ling Liu (National Taipei University of the Arts), Shih-Chien Chang (National Chung Cheng University), Chiung-Wen Hsu (National Cheng Chi University), Hsiou-Feng Chen (Shih Hsin University)

Thailand: Warat Karuchit (National Institute of Development Administration); Chanapa Noonark (Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University); Kultida Saiprom (Rajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon)

Uzbekistan: Berdak Bayimbetov (Suleyman Demirel University); Beate Josephi (Sydney University)

Central & Eastern Europe

(Regional coordination: Alice Němcová Tejkalová, Charles University; Vera Slavtcheva-Petkova, University of Liverpool)

Albania: Jonila Godole (University of Tirana)

Bulgaria: Vera Slavtcheva-Petkova (University of Liverpool); Chris Karadjov (Unliversity of California, Long Beach)

Croatia: Antonija Čuvalo, Zrinjka Perusko (Zagreb University)

Czech Republic: Alice Tejkalová, Sandra Labova (Charles University)

Estonia: Halliki Harro-Loit (Tartu University); Epp Lauk (University of Jyväskylä)

Hungary: Jolan Roka (Metropolitan University)

Kosovo: Kenneth Andresen, Abit Hoxha (University of Agder)

Latvia: Anda Rozukalne (Riga Stradinš University)

Lithuania: Deimantas Jastramskis (Vilnius University)

Moldova: Natalia Vasilendiuc (University of Bucharest)

North Macedonia: Snezana Trpevska, Igor Micevski (Research Institute on Social Development RESIS)

Poland: Agnieszka Węglińska, Katarzyna Konarska (University of Wroclaw); Maria Anna Wąsicka-Sroczyńska (Adam Mickiewicz University)

Romania: Natalia Vasilendiuc, Alexandra Bardan, Antonia Matei, Rodica Melinda Șuțu, Andrada Fiscutean, Carmen Ionescu, Gheorghe Anghel, Bogdan Oprea (University of Bucharest)

Serbia: Verica Rupar (Auckland University of Technology); Sonja Seizova (University of Belgrade)

Slovakia: Ján Visnovský, Slavomír Gálik, Bianka Francistyová (University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava)

Slovenia: Igor Vobic (University of Ljubljana)

Ukraine: Dariya Orlova (Mohyla School of Journalism); Vera Slavtcheva-Petkova (University of Liverpool)

Latin America and Caribbean

(Regional coordination: Carlos Arcila, Universidad de Salamanca; Jesús Arroyave, Universidad del Norte)

Argentina: Adriana Amado (University Camilo José Cela)

Bolivia: Mireya Márquez Ramí­rez, Ví­ctor Quintanilla (Universidad Iberoamericana)

Brazil: Marcos Paulo Silva (Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul); Nélia Rodrigues Del Bianco (Universidade de Brasília); Laura Storch (Universidade Federal de Santa Maria); Sonia Virginia Moreira (Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro); Giovana Mesquita (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco); Netília Seixas (Universidade Federal do Pará); Iluska Coutinho (Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora); Janara Nicoletti (LMU Munich); Kérley Winques (Faculdade IELUSC)

Chile: William Porath, Daniela Grassau (Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile)

Costa Rica: Silvia Dalben Furtado (University of Texas at Austin); Celeste González de Bustamante (University of Texas, Austin); Jeannine Relly (University of Arizona); Vanessa Bravo (Elon University)

Cuba: Dasniel Olivera (Universidad de La Habana)

Colombia: Jesús Arroyave (Universidad del Norte)

Ecuador: Palmira Chavero (Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales)

El Salvador: Summer Harlow (University of Houston)

Mexico: Sallie Hughes (University of Miami); Julieta Brambila, Josefina Buxade (Universidad Las Americas Puebla); Celia del Palacio (Universidad Veracruzana); Martín Echeverría, Rubén Arnoldo González (Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla); Armando Gutiérrez (Universidad Autónoma de Baja California); Luis Lemini, Mireya Márquez, Grisel Salazar (Universidad Iberoamericana); Jessica Retis (University of Arizona); Frida Rodelo (Universidad de Guadalajara)

Paraguay: Mariana de Maio (Lehigh University)

Peru: Lilian Kanashiro (Universidad de Lima); Jéssica Retis (University of Arizona); Lourdes M. Cueva Chacón (San Diego State University); Karles Daniel Antonio Manzo (Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México)

Venezuela: Carlos Arcila, Maximiliano Frías (Universidad de Salamanca); David Blanco (University of Amsterdam)

Middle East and North Africa

(Regional coordination: Hanan Badr, University of Salzburg)

Egypt: Basyouni Hamada (Qatar University); Hanan Badr, Free University Berlin; Fatma Elzahraa Elsayed (Cairo University)

Israel: Keren Tenenboim-Weinblatt, Motti Neiger (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Turkey: Incilay Cangoz (Anadolu University)

UAE: Elsayed Bekhit (Zayed University), Ahmed Almansoori (United Arab Emirates University)

Yemen: Abdul Rahman Al Shami (Qatar University)

Western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand

(Regional coordination: Thomas Hanitzsch, LMU Munich; Folker Hanusch, University of Vienna)

Australia: Folker Hanusch (University of Vienna); Peter English (University of the Sunshine Coast)

Austria: Josef Seethaler (Austrian Academy of Sciences); Folker Hanusch (University of Vienna)

Belgium: Olivier Standaert (Université catholique de Louvain); Stefan Mertens (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

Canada: Lisa Taylor, Fred Vallance Jones, Terra Tailleur (University of King’s College); Heather Rollwagen, Nicole Blanchett (Toronto Metropolitan University); Colette Brin (Université Laval)

Denmark: Henrik Bødker, Morten Brænder, Nicholas Haas (Aarhus University); Kresten Roland Johansen (Danish School of Media and Journalism)

Finland: Mikko Villi (University of Jyväskylä); Reeta Pöyhtäri (University of Jyväskylä); Jari Väliverronen (University of Tampere)

Germany: Thomas Hanitzsch, Corinna Lauerer (LMU Munich); Wiebke Loosen, Anna von Garmissen (Hans Bredow Institute)

Iceland: Birgir Guðmundsson, Gudbjorg Hildur Kolbeins (University of Akureyri); Friðrik Þór Guðmundsson, Jón Gunnar Ólafsson, Valgerður Jóhannsdóttir (University of Iceland)

Ireland: Kevin Rafter, Dawn Wheatley, Kevin Doyle (Dublin City University)

Italy: Sergio Splendore, Diego Garusi (Università degli Studi di Milano)

Netherlands: Liesbeth Hermans (Windesheim University of Applied Sciences/Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen)

New Zealand: James Hollings, Bernie Whelan (Massey University)

North Cyprus: Sanem Sahin (University of Lincoln)

Norway: Jan Fredrik Hovden, Vilde Ellingsberg (University of Bergen); Steen Steensen (Oslo Metropolitan University)

Portugal: Rui Novais (Universidade Católica Portuguesa)

Spain: Rosa Berganza Conde, Beatriz Herrero (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos)

Sweden: Nina Springer (University of Münster), Gunnar Nygren (Södertörn University)

Switzerland: Vinzenz Wyss (ZHAW Zurich); Annik Dubied, Nathalie Pignard-Cheynel (Université de Neuchâtel)

UK: Neil Thurman, Sina Thäsler-Kordonouri (LMU Munich); Imke Henkel (University of Leeds)

USA: Tim Vos, Esther Thorson (Michigan State University); Rachel Mourao (University of Miami)