LSE GROUPS 2012 (GROUP 3)
“TO WHAT EXTENT DOES DIVERSITY OF STUDENT BODY AFFECT THE CONTENT
DIVERSITY OF STUDENT NEWSPAPER? A CASE STUDY OF THE LSE”
Shin Hye Wi
Jason Chan
Abubakr Karbhari
Imogen Young
ABSTRACT
Longstanding debates on diversity in higher education have been the focus of many studies. However,
few have contributed to the diversity of expression in student media, especially in the UK context.
Employing a mixed method strategy, despite conscious attempts on the part of the editors to cover
topics with diverse origins, our content analysis shows that greater student diversity on campus does
not correspond to greater content diversity of student newspapers. Factors such as broad discretion
of the editors, structural difficulties for non-British students to attain editorship, lack of interest on
the part of those who are underrepresented on the editorial board, and the availability of alternative
media outlets complicate the relationship between the demography of the student population and the
viewpoints expressed in student newspaper.
Keywords: student newspapers, content diversity, population diversity, demography, access to
opportunities
INTRODUCTION
Longstanding debates on diversity in the popular destinations of higher education like the UK and
the US have been the focus of study by many academics. However, few have contributed to the
diversity of expression in student media, especially in the UK context, which is important because of
its implications on public knowledge creation and the assimilation of different identity groups on
campus.
We hypothesise that an increase in the diversity of student population in terms of continent of origin,
age, and gender will lead to an increase in the diversity of student newspapers in terms of
geographical and topical coverage. We also hypothesise that there will be an increase in female
authors and the decrease in the masculinity of sports coverage. The reasoning behind these
hypotheses is that broader social trend between the 1960s and 1990s in the movements based on race,
gender, and identity groupings had increased the number of students of different backgrounds and
that their interests and concerns were increasingly more reflected on published media.
The LSE was used as the location for this pilot study and a mixed method strategy was adopted.
Articles of the student newspaper (“The Beaver”) from November issues of each year between 19641999 were categorised using content analysis, quantitative methods were then employed to find
possible trends in the diversity of newspaper content and its correlation with diversity of the student
population. Semi-structured interviews conducted with four past editors provided valuable insights
into the editorial decision-making process. Conclusions drawn from both strands of study are
integrated to provide a fuller understanding of the notion of diversity on campus and in student
media.
We find that there is no significant correlation between content diversity and population diversity.
Interviews with editors suggested various factors that inhibited the production of diverse news
coverage despite their best intentions and demonstrated the complex nature of the relationship
between population and content. Further avenues of research are suggested with a view to
developing the broad conclusions reached here.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Quantitative analysis of print journalism likely began at the end of the 19th century as the boom in
newspaper production led to demands for empirical methods by which to judge standards and content
(Krippendorff, cont. analysis intro p5) .It has several advantages for users including cost and yielding
quantifiable data (Berger 2011) but care must be taken to distinguish between content diversity and
source diversity (Voakes et al. 1996).
Numerous studies pursue research questions highlighting relationships between community and
content. Hindman et al. 1999 used qualitative analysis to determine that news editors in ethnically
pluralist communities are more likely to cite ethnic minorities as important news stories; furthermore,
editors who include minorities as news sources are also more likely to deem it important to cover
stories concerning that community; Jeffres et al 2000 use a similar approach. Armstrong finds that
“female mentions and ethnic pluralism were strongly correlated” (Armstrong 2002) and newspapers
with enterprise journalism as a goal were more likely to value producing content for women
(Armstrong 2006). Outside of the US, Haque found homogeneity in the news covered by Indian
dailies across the country despite the cultural and linguistic differences (Haque 1986).
Some studies choose to focus on the editorial community. Wu and Izard found that although a larger
Asian American population leads to more stories about that group, the presence of Asian Americans
on the staff has a more significant effect (Wu and Izard 2008). Johnston and Flamiano that strategies
were adopted to ensure reporters were more engaged with minority groups and the subsequent
reporting avoided biased or stereotypical framing (Johnston and Flamiano 2007)
Much of the literature centred on student newspapers looks at censorship rather than content. Bryks
1989, Felder 2000 and Abrams and Goodman 1988 all look at the consequences of Hazelwood V.
Kuhlmeier, a legal case in the United; a later case that relied on this precedent was Hosty V. Carter
which involved a university publication (Finnigan Jr. 2005).
One relevant study explores the links between portrayals of race and the type of university. Tasha
Hayton used a mixed method approach to analyse two student-produced newspapers, one from a
privately funded university and the other from a public university, and found similar, stereotypical
portrayals of ethnic minorities in both despite one being significantly more diverse than the other
(Hayton 2010). This methodology is the model on which we based our approach to analysis.
Hayton stresses further research into college newspapers because “journalism students learn how to
write and disseminate the news in college” and therefore student news papers are an important
pedagogical experience (Hayton 2010). In addition, Bressers and Bergen found that a far larger
proportion of the student population read their campus paper than any local or daily newspaper
(Bressers and Bergen 2002).
The influence of student produced media is therefore something academics have chosen to study.
Francesca Polleta suggests that the ambigous framing of student demonstrations in the 1960s as
“spontaneous” about created an engaging narrative that made their activities more attractive to others
and helped mobilise students (Polletta 1998). Wang found poor coverage of Chinese news in a
student newspaper and concluded that “such a low priority-ranking … can only lead student-readers
to a limited and poor understanding of China” (Wang 2001).
One common theme running throughout the cited literature is their narrow focus on American media.
Whilst informative and instructive, it is difficult to generalise their results across the. Content
analysis on British newspapers is relatively thin, with papers mostly looking at specific issues and
themes rather than overall diversity. Examples include national identity amongst the devolved
nations (Rosie et al. 2004) and framing of terrorism coverage (Papacharissi and Oliveira 2008). This
study therefore aims to contribute to the literature pertaining to British print journalism and to
occupy the relatively empty space where newspaper content, population diversity and student
experience intersect by taking a holistic approach to content analysis and investigating trends in the
LSE student population.
METHODOLOGY
In this pilot study, our broad research agenda “How does population diversity affect the content
diversity of student newspaper?” is broken down to three narrower research questions, each leading
to a separate hypothesis:
RQ1: Were there changes in diversity of the content of student newspapers?
RQ2: Is there a correlation between the demographic composition of the study body and the
content of the student newspaper?
RQ3: How can the correlation or the lack thereof be explained?
Rather than comparing across universities, LSE is chosen as the case study and samples of
population and newspaper content data are collected across time to control for other factors that may
affect the diversity of content coverage such as institutional size, institutional setting (urban/rural)
and geographical location of the university. The period 1964-1999 is chosen for this pilot study
because of earlier editions of The Beaver seemed to have adopted a vastly different aim and they
were published infrequently.
The following describes the methods involved in testing each of our hypotheses:
H1: “There were changes in the content diversity of student newspaper.”
With the unit of analysis being the year of publication, only the November issues from each year
were sampled to avoid seasonal variations on content diversity caused by annual festivals (e.g.
Christmas) or university administrative concerns (beginning or end of school term), where greater
homogeneity of articles within an issue is expected. Where a November issue is missing, the
February issues in the next calendar year is used as a replacement as both months are in the same
academic year, meaning same student demographics, and are in the middle of a term.
In order to assess the diversity of content covered by the student publication each November, two
issues were taken in the 1960s where it was published fortnightly and four issues were taken where it
became a weekly publication. The rationale behind this is that different aspects of the same topic
were at times covered in consecutive issues, sampling only one issue per year grossly misrepresents
the diversity of coverage that year.
To operationalize the concept of content diversity, a number of direct and indirect measurements of
content diversity were made:
i) Direct measurements of content diversity by content analysis
Techniques from content analysis are employed to classify news, opinions, and feature articles based
on pre-defined descriptive categories. A coding pilot was conducted to determine the best approach.
Articles in the news, opinions, and features sections were classified according to their geographical
and topical focuses. Articles in the sports section were classified on the gender bias. To ensure
objectivity, samples from each coder are tested for intercoder reliability using simple percentage
agreement, which was found to be more than 78.4%. The coding schedule and manual can be found
in Appendix I. The percentage of articles in each category is used as a proxy for the coverage of
certain geography, topic, or gender that month.
ii) Indirect measurements of content diversity
Data on more indirect measures of content diversity was also collected, such as the number of male
and female authors as a proportion to all attributed articles, and the proportion of each section in
comparison to the total number of articles. These measurements are based on the assumption that
interests and concerns are partly driven by one’s identity and will indirectly be reflected in the
content of each article.
H2: “There is a correlation between population diversity and content diversity.”
With the yearly data on content diversity collected, demographic data from the same period was
obtained (LSE Calendar, Statistics of Students). Information on gender, continent of origin, types of
degrees, and academic discipline was collected as these identity markers are believed to affect the
opinions held by individuals. Tables of this information showing variation over time are shown in
Appendix II. Religion and ethnic data is not available and thus cannot be used. The demographic
data is then tested quantitatively with the data based on different measures of content diversity to
find correlations, where the demographic data is taken as the explanatory variable and the content
diversity is taken as the dependent variable.
H3: Explanation for H1 and H2
Semi-structured interviews were conducted to enrich our analysis and capture aspects that the
quantitative method misses. Among the interviewees, three were editors from the same period in the
1990s, while one is from the 1970s. Broad thematic analysis (Bryman 2008, 554) by finding
commonalities and differences among the interviewees’ accounts was used to understand the
editorial process and how their conceptions of diversity influenced their editorial decisions. The
interview topic guide can be found in Appendix IV and key points taken from the interview
transcripts can be found in Appendix V.
RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS
I. Population diversity and content diversity
Interviews with past editors reveal that there was a common aim to cover areas of interests to LSE
students and staffs, and that conscious attempts on the part of the editors were made to cover topics
of diverse origins. However, our quantitative analysis shows that increasing the diversity of the
student body on campus had little effect on the diversity of the content of student newspapers. We
broke down the analysis into separate parts: geographical coverage, topical coverage, gender of
authors, and male portrayal of sports coverage.
a) Geographical coverage
Using simple linear regression and the percentage of articles with international coverage in The
Beaver as proxy, we found that there is no statistically significant relationship between geographical
coverage in newspaper content and the demographic makeup of the student population. (Appendix
III.a) However, by intuitive thinking, the international coverage of articles in the Beaver should
correlate with the percentage of overseas students at the LSE. Therefore, we ran another regression
between these to variables to test this. (Appendix III.b) Even though the p-value (significance) is
very close to 10%, adjusted R squared of this regression (0.047) is well below the acceptable cut-off
of 0.4 generally accept for social science research. Therefore, this tells us that although there might
be a positive correlation between these two variables, demographic diversity in terms of percentage
of oversea students is not the major factor contributing to international coverage in the Beaver.
b) Topical coverage
In this regression, the percentage of articles with LSE-related coverage is used as proxy, i.e. the
lower the LSE-related coverage, the more diverse the year is in terms of content. Again, there is no
statistically significant relationship between the diversity of topic coverage and the diversity of the
demographic makeup of the students. (Appendix III.c) Even though the statistical finding shows a
highly significant relationship between the percentage of North American students and the diversity
of topic covered in The Beaver at 10%, the adjusted R squared for this regression is 0.202 which is
also well-below that required for our research. Therefore, we conclude that the demographic
diversity of the student body does not have a noticeable impact on diversity of student newspaper
content in terms of topic coverage.
c) Gender of authors
Similarly, a regression is run to determine the relationship between percentage of gender distribution
of authors in The Beaver and the percentage of female students in the school. (Appendix III.d)
Likewise, the relationship was statistically insignificant but it should be noted that there has been an
increase in participation in student journalism from female students over the years.
d) Male portrayal of sports coverage
A common perception among the editors interviewed is that sports coverage tends to be maledominated. Therefore, as a side observation, we looked at the relationship between percentage of
male portrayal in sports coverage and the demographic trend of male population at LSE. (Appendix
III.e) Even though there was decreasing proportion of male students at LSE, sports coverage is still
dominated by that of male sports or makes overt references to masculinity, further reinforcing the
above observations that demographic diversity does not have a direct, strong influence on the content
diversity of student newspapers.
Therefore, there is no discernable direct correlation between population diversity and content
diversity.
II Other factors and content diversity
Having established that the direct correlation between population and content diversities is weak, we
turned to a thematic analysis of the interviews conducted to identify the causes for our findings in
part I. (Appendix V) We found four major themes that could potentially explain why changes in
population diversity are not reflected in changes of the diversity of newspaper coverage.
a) Broad discretion of the editors
Editors have a broad discretion even when the views may not be popular. One interviewer illustrated
it with the composition of his editorial board - a gay male student, Korean female student, and a
British Indian. That year, a special arts section was devoted to topics of interest to gay students, at a
time when the society was more conservative. The lack of a discernable pattern in the content
diversity that we got from the quantitative data supports this view. While the executive editor of The
Beaver is accountability to an audience in a weekly student union meeting, not very frequently had
editors been asked to retract their statements and apologise for their editorial decisions.
b) Structural difficulties for non-British students to attain editorship
While there were contributors and staff of different nationalities, a common feature seems to be that
The Beaver had more British students on the editorial board. Ethnicity seems not to be the deciding
factor as there were a number of British Asians on the editorial board. One interviewee suggested
that the hindrance for non-British students might be that of language such that even if the opportunity
is there, there is an unequal access to news contribution due to language barrier.
c) Lack of interest on the part of those who are underrepresented on the editorial board
All interviewees have separated mentioned that editors tend to be students interested in journalism.
Therefore, the views and coverage on the papers must necessarily be that particular group. Two
interviewers explicitly suggested that this is not the problem with the student press, as ‘The Beaver
was ahead of its time when it comes to diversity’ and ‘you can’t force students who were not
egregious to contribute.’ ‘You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.’
d) Availability of alternative media outlets based on their own identity groups
When asked whether they were aware of other publications, the interviewer from 1970s responded
negatively whereas the response of the other three from the 1990s is mixed. However, other evidence
on and outside of campus suggests that identity groups weaken the influence of and the interest in the
general student newspaper. Groups divided along nationality and ethnic lines ‘tend to be cliquey’ and
‘kept to themselves’. One interviewee recalled the language in which ‘rooms to let’ notices was
written shows that certain overseas students prefer living with someone who speaks their mother
tongue. Another interviewee from the same period sums it nicely, ‘there were many cultures here,
but it is not necessarily one happy family.’ Yet another editor who worked for the publication 20
years ago made a similar comment, “the Italians hang out with the Italians, and the Greeks tend to
hand out with the Greeks.”
CONCLUSION
The combination of quantitative analysis of demographic and newspaper content diversities and the
semi-structured interviews with past editors offer a comprehensive examination of the role of
diversity in editorial process. Despite conscious attempts on the part of the editors to cover topics
with diverse origins, our content analysis shows that greater student diversity on campus does not
correspond to greater content diversity of student newspapers. Factors such as broad discretion of the
editors, structural difficulties for non-British students to attain editorship, lack of interest on the part
of those who are underrepresented on the editorial board, and the availability of alternative media
outlets based on their own identity groups complicate the relationship between the demography of
the student population and the viewpoints expressed in student newspaper.
As a number of assumptions need to be made in the choice of methodology, there are inevitably
limitations to our pilot study. For an improved, full-scale study, more samples need to be collected
for statistically more conclusive evidence and more refined methods in the categorisation of news
articles by content analysis can be employed, for instance, by taking into account factors such as the
size of the articles, the pages on which they are located, writing styles, and the use of imagery.
Using LSE as a case study also presents a separate problem since the composition of the LSE student
body is vastly different to the national average. For instance, in 1999-2000, the national average of
international students as a proportion to total number of students is 12.1%, whereas that of the LSE is
62.7% (HESA data). Similarly, the percentage of postgraduate students to all students on national
average is 22.0% and that for LSE is 54.6%.
As LSE has traditionally had a relatively large proportion of international and postgraduate students
than many other universities, a more discernible trend regarding population and content diversity
might be found by studying universities with a more profound change in student population diversity
over a time period.
Our findings corroborate the existing literature in highlighting the role of minority members of staff.
Wu and Izard found that diversity in the staff room has a greater causal influence on increasing
content diversity than diversity in the community and similar results were suggested by the
experiences of the editors interviewed (Wu and Izard 2008). Furthermore, the notion of homogeneity
in news content across diverse populations discovered by Haque is reflected in our statistical findings
which show similar homogeneity in geographic coverage despite the significant shifts in population
over time; similarity between The Beaver and the elite dailies Haque covers is reinforced by Bodle’s
study which found little difference between the quality of student newspapers and private-sector
dailies (Bodle 1996).
Further research by comparing The Beaver with other publications on campus by ethnic groups may
provide further insights in the cohesion among the student body and explain patterns of assimilation
and exclusion of students from certain media outlets. Comparing studies of a number of similar
universities might also give us some useful generalisations. For example, similar studies on
universities with similar demographic composition such as the SOAS might confirm our results.
Studies on other universities based in London might lead to useful observations on the “London
effect”.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Press Rights in the Wake of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. Duke L.J. 706.
Armstrong, C. (2002). Papers Give Women More Attention In Ethnically Diverse Communities.
[Article]. Newspaper Research Journal, 23(4), 81.
Armstrong, C. L. (2006). Writing About Women: An Examination of How Content for Women Is
Determined in Newspapers. [Article]. Mass Communication & Society, 9(4), 447-460. doi:
10.1207/s15327825mcs0904_4
Berger, A. A. (2011). Media and communication research methods : an introduction to qualitative
and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Bodle, J. V. (1996). Assessing news quality: A comparison between community and student daily
newspapers. [Article]. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(3), 672-686.
Bressers, B., & Bergen, L. (2002). Few University Students Reading Newspapers Online. [Article].
Newspaper Research Journal, 23(2/3), 32.
Bryks, H. (1989). Lesson in School Censorship: Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. 55 Brook. L. Rev. 291
(1989-1990)
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Felder, S.A. (2000). Stop the Presses: Censorship and the High School Journalist. 29 J.L. & Educ.
433
Finnigan Jr., M.O. (2005). Extra - Extra - Read All about It - Censorship at State Universities: Hosty
v. Carter. 74 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1477
Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The Benefits of Diversity in Education for
Democratic Citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17-34. doi: 10.1111/j.00224537.2004.00097.x
Haque, S. M. M. (1986). News Content Homogeneity in Elite Indian Dailies. [Article]. Journalism
Quarterly, 63(4), 827-833.
Hayton, T. (2010). Portrayal of race by public and private university newspapers. M.J. 1492895,
University of North Texas, United States -- Texas. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/863483348?accountid=9630 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
(PQDT) database.
Hindman, D. B., & Littlefield, R. (1999). Structural Pluralism, Ethnic Pluralism, and Community
Newspapers. [Article]. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 250-263.
Jeffres, L. W., Cutietta, C., Sekerka, L., & Lee, J.-w. (2000). Newspapers, Pluralism, and Diversity
in an Urban Context. [Article]. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2/3), 157.
Johnston, A., & Flamiano, D. (2007). Diversity in Mainstream Newspapers from the Standpoint of
Journalists of Color. [Article]. Howard Journal of Communications, 18(2), 111-131. doi:
10.1080/10646170701309999
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Papacharissi, Z., & Oliveira, M. d. F. (2008). News Frames Terrorism: A Comparative Analysis of
Frames Employed in Terrorism Coverage in U.S. and U.K. Newspapers. [Article]. International
Journal of Press/Politics, 13(1), 52-74. doi: 10.1177/1940161207312676
Pike, G.R. and Kuh, G.D. (2006). Relationships among Structural Diversity, Informal Peer
Interactions and Perceptions of the Campus Environment. The Review of Higher Education 29.4
(2006) 425-450
Polletta, F. (1998). "It Was Like a Fever . . . " Narrative and Identity in Social Protest. [Article].
Social Problems, 45(2), 137-159.
Rosie, M., MacInnes, J., Petersoo, P., Condor, S., & Kennedy, J. (2004). Nation speaking unto nation?
Newspapers and national identity in the devolved UK. [Article]. Sociological Review, 52(4), 437458. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00490.x
Smith, D.G. and Schonfeld, N.B. (2000). The Benefits of Diversity: What the Research Tells Us.
About Campus, v5 n5 p16-23
Voakes, P. S., Kapfer, J., Kurpius, D., & Chern, D. S.-y. (1996). Diversity in the news: A conceptual
and methodological framework. [Article]. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(3), 582593.
Wang, X. (2008). How American student journalists at a college newspaper consume, perceive, and
disseminate news and information about China. M.A. 1471623, University of Central Florida, United
States -- Florida. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304387366?accountid=9630
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database.
Wu, H. D., & Izard, R. (2008). Representing the total community: Relationships between Asian
American staff and Asian American coverage in nine U.S. newspapers. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 85(1), 99-112.
APPENDIX I: NEWSPAPER CONTENT CODING
Coding schedule and manual:
APPENDIX II: TABLES
APPENDIX II.a. % of Male students & % of Undergraduate students (1964-1999)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
% Male
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
% Undergraduates
Year
APPENDIX II.b. # Departments & # Undergraduate Degrees (1964-1999)
60
50
40
30
# Dept
20
# UG degrees
10
1964
1967
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
1988
1991
0
APPENDIX II.c. % of LSE students from different continents
1990s
% Europe
% Asia
1980s
% Africa
% North America
1970s
% South American
% Oceania
% UK
1960s
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
APPENDIX II.d. % Female Students & % Female Authors in the Beaver
0.5
0.4
0.3
% Female
0.2
% F Authors
0.1
1998
1994
1988
1985
1982
1979
1976
1973
1970
1964
0
APPENDIX II.e. % of Male Sports Coverage & % of Female Sports Coverage in Sports
Section (the Beaver)
1.2
1
0.8
M Sports coverage
0.6
F Sports coverage
% Male
0.4
0.2
0
1964 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1994 1997 1999
APPENDIX III: REGRESSION TABLES
APPENDIX III.a. Dependent Variable: % International Coverage (the Beaver) 1
Model Summary
Adjusted R
Std. Error of the
DurbinModel
R
R Square
Square
Estimate
Watson
1
.656a
.430
.202
.093535573257
2.142
a. Predictors: (Constant), % UK , % Undergrad, % North America, # UG degrees, % Male, #
Dept., % Asia, % Europe
b. Dependent Variable: % International Coverage (the Beaver)
Coefficients
Unstandardized
Standardized
Collinearity
Coefficients
Coefficients
Statistics
Std.
Model
B
Error
Beta
t
Sig.
Tolerance
VIF
1
(Constant)
1.049
2.645
.397
.696
# Dept.
# UG
degrees
% Male
%
Undergrad
% Europe
% Asia
% North
America
% UK
-.012
.004
.011
.003
-.457
.486
-1.037
1.396
.312
.178
.147
.235
6.819
4.264
-1.042
.175
.762
.459
-.625
.082
-1.367
.380
.187
.708
.136
.612
7.332
1.635
-.921
-.400
1.626
2.282
4.351
2.777
-.584
-.122
.309
-.404
-.092
.585
.691
.928
.565
.014
.016
.102
73.536
61.510
9.795
-.433
2.438
-.406
-.178
.861
.005
183.083
a. Dependent Variable: % International Coverage (the Beaver)
APPENDIX III.b. Dependent Variable: % International Coverage (the Beaver) 2
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.285a
Adjusted
R
R
Std. Error of the
Square
Square
Estimate
.081
.047 .102222284238
DurbinWatson
1.383
a. Predictors: (Constant), % Overseas
b. Dependent Variable: % International Coverage (the Beaver)
Model
1
(Constant)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
B
Error
.037
.087
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
%
.304
.197
.285
Overseas
a. Dependent Variable: % International Coverage (the Beaver)
Collinearity
Statistics
t
.424
1.545
Sig.
Tolerance
.675
.134
1.000
VIF
1.000
APPENDIX III.c. Dependent Variable: % LSE-related coverage (the Beaver)
Model
1
R
.656a
R Square
.430
Model Summary
Adjusted R
Std. Error of the
Square
Estimate
.202
.12721061974
DurbinWatson
2.356
a. Predictors: (Constant), % UK , % Undergrad, % North America, # UG degrees, % Male, #
Dept., % Asia, % Europe
b. Dependent Variable: % LSE-related coverage (the Beaver)
Model
1
(Constant)
# Dept.
# UG
degrees
% Male
%
Undergrad
% Europe
% Asia
% North
America
% UK
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
B
Error
3.974
3.597
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
Collinearity
Statistics
t
1.105
Sig.
Tolerance
.282
VIF
-.016
.000
.015
.004
-.468
-.019
-1.061
-.053
.301
.958
.147
.235
6.819
4.264
-.173
-.077
1.036
.625
-.076
-.026
-.167
-.123
.869
.904
.136
.612
7.332
1.635
-.934
-4.892
-6.764
3.104
5.917
3.777
-.436
-1.095
-.946
-.301
-.827
-1.791
.767
.418
.088
.014
.016
.102
73.536
61.510
9.795
-2.688
3.315
-1.852
-.811
.427
.005
183.083
a. Dependent Variable: % LSE-related coverage (the Beaver)
APPENDIX III.d. Dependent Variable: % Female Authors
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1
(Constant)
Standardized
Coefficients
B
1.128
Std. Error
.433
# Dept.
-.002
.007
# UG
degrees
% Male
.000
%
Undergrad
% Overseas
Beta
t
2.608
Sig.
.016
-.128
-.272
.788
.002
.048
.160
.875
-.336
.444
-.329
-.757
.457
.083
.283
.063
.292
.773
-.240
.405
-.367
-.592
.559
a. Dependent Variable: % F. Authorship
APPENDIX III.e. % Coverage of Male Sports (Sports section of the Beaver)
Coefficients
Model
1
(Constant)
% Male
Unstandardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Std.
B
Error
Beta
1.247
.398
-1.226
.621
a. Dependent Variable: % M. Sports coverage
-.355
Collinearity
Statistics
t
3.138
-1.975
Sig.
Tolerance
.004
.059
1.000
VIF
1.000
APPENDIX IV: INTERVIEW TOPIC GUIDE
I. INSTRUCTIONS FOR INTERVIEWER:
The questions below are intended only as a guide for a semi-structured interview. Where the purpose
of the interview is served, questions should be open-ended and interviewees should be encouraged to
elaborate. The interview should not take longer than 30 minutes.
II. BACKGROUND:
We are a group of LSE undergraduate students working with LSE GROUPS on a two-week project.
The purpose of the interview is to understand the editorial decisions behind the content of The
Beaver and it should take no longer than 30 minutes. We assure you that all data we collect will be
kept confidential and anonymous. Identifiable information will be censored in our transcripts. If you
wish to know more about our research or if at any stage during our study you wish to withdraw your
consent, please contact us.
Ask for consent in the recording of the interview and the storage and use of data.
Thank you for taking your time to participate in our research.
III. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS:
Background information:
a. Which academic years have you been/were you the editor?
b. Which year of study are/were you in and what are/were you studying?
c. Are/were you the Executive/Managing Editor or the editor of a section? Which
section?
d. How were the editors chosen? Who chooses them?
e. Were there any criteria that potential editors need to meet?
2. Editorial board:
a. What is the rough % composition of the editorial board in terms of:
i. Nationality and ethnicity?
ii. Age (undergraduate or postgraduate)?
iii. Gender?
iv. Academic discipline?
b. Do you think the editorial board broadly reflect the student population at the time?
c. In the selection of editors,
i. Does demographic consideration play a role?
ii. Was there a conscious attempt by those who choose editors to reflect the
demographics of the student population?
iii. Was there some sort of “affirmative action” or “positive discriminations” for
minorities in editorial posts? In what ways?
3. Editorial process and decision-making:
a. Could you briefly describe to us the editorial decision-making process?
b. Had there been any disagreement or conflict in the editorial process? Can you recall a
specific example?
c. Are the editors of The Beaver accountable to anyone? If so, how?
1.
Has the notion of diversity influenced your thinking as an editor? How?
4. The diversity of the content of The Beaver:
a. Is there a mechanism put in place to ensure coverage of different opinions? How?
b. Does the demographic composition of the student body affect editorial decisions?
c. If yes, has it been achieved? Can you recall specific example?
d. If no, why do you think it has not?
5. The diversity of student population:
a. Were there diverse opinions on campus or in classes?
b. Are you aware of the demographic composition of the student population? What’s
your best guess?
i. Ethnicity and nationality?
ii. Age group/ undergrad/postgrad?
iii. Gender?
6. In our research we look at the changes in the demographics at LSE and see if and how
changes in the population diversity influence the diversity of the content of The Beaver. This
interview will help us understand the correlation or the lack thereof. Do you have anything
you would like to add?
d.
Thank you for taking part in our research. We assure you that the interview will remain anonymous
and confidential.
APPENDIX V: KEY POINTS FROM TRANSCRIPTS
Interviews were conducted with past editors of The Beaver in a semi-structured interview format.
Only key points from the interview transcripts are included in this appendix due to consideration of
length and relevance. Highest level of accuracy is attempted to capture the interviewee’s account and
views.
Interview 1
Date of Interview: 27th June 2012
Venue: Online interview via Skype
(Complete transcripts unavailable because of technical errors of the recorder.)
Interviewee 1 was a general editor for a short period and had held editorial posts in the early 1970s.
At the time of the interviewee’s editorship, there was little interest in The Beaver on campus and it
was ‘not at its best’. Editors were chosen from anyone who were interested enough to take the posts.
There was also a tuck of war between those who were serious about journalism and those who took it
for humour.
It was a particularly contentious period for the Student Union (“SU”, of which The Beaver is a
subsidiary) and the school. In 1968/69 and 1971/72 there were occupations of the school and the
school reacted badly in 1971/72, in which it froze the SU fund. The interviewee transferred the funds
for the publication to another bank account, and the school insisted it be given back. The funding of
The Beaver was mostly from grant by the school.
There were 6 general and section editors of the time, 4 British, 1 Greek, and 1 Korean. Students
taking up editorship were mostly those who were interested in journalism, i.e. ‘the intellectual type’.
Editorial debates were informal. In terms of article contribution to the paper, there was slightly more
female. This contrasts with the interviewee’s memory of the general student body, which the
percentage of male was higher. In terms of nationality within undergraduates, the British formed
once large group. There were few East and South Asians descent but even fewer were students of
black ethnicity. In postgraduate level, British and non-British students were roughly 50/50, and most
non-British outside of Europe was funded by the governments of their origin.
There were other forms of social groupings by interests, which tend to be more cohesive than the
nationality groups. The Italians tend to hang out with the Italians, the Greeks tend to hand out with
the Greeks, and so on. Others, like the Gambling Society and the Socialist Society, tend to see more
cohesiveness across race and ethnicity.
There were other publications on campus at the time. The Clare Market Review was the only other
publication funded by the SU. Other publications in circulation were published by outside bodies,
often for political purposes.
The readership of The Beaver was primarily LSE students and staff, and the aim as the interviewee
saw it was to cover political matters related to the school. News tended to be localised and The
Beaver did not intend to compete with national newspapers for world news.
“Diversity” was not a term of general usage at the time but LSE was certainly much less class-bound
than many other institutions of similar academic standards.
--End-Interview 2
Date of Interview: 26th June 2012
Venue: Phone interview
Interviewee 2 was the politics editor in the late 1990s.
Interviewee walked us through the selection process of the editorial board members. Generally,
people who got elected as the editors were the students who had a passion for journalism.
Interviewee himself had some experience as a journalist and this helped him to win the position quite
easily.
According to our interviewee, the principle aim of the editorial board was to produce a newspaper
that reflected what was going on in the university. The aim of the editorial board was to write
interesting articles that reflect the demographics of the LSE. During his time, the editorial team was
fairly representative of the ethnic makeup of the LSE – the majority being the British students but
they had Greeks, Koreans, Japanese, French and many British-Indians on their editorial board as well.
However, there were certain ethnic groups, for example, the Hong Kong/Chinese students and the
Indian students, who did not mix so much with people outside their student communities
There were also issues about sexism in the contents of The Beaver. For example, the Sports pages
were very laddish, and sexist and it was one of the principal complaints that was brought up; it
involved people within the university’s hierarchy at some stage.
--End-Interview 3
Date of Interview: 26th June 2012
Venue: The Garrick, LSE
Interviewee 3 was the de-facto general editor in the late 1990s.
The editorial board was not homogenous. There was a British Indian, a homosexual British male, and
a female Korean. Two general editors (executive and managing) were elected by a collective, which
was in turn formed by frequent (more than 2-3) contributions to past Beaver issues. Ethnic politics,
however, was not in play in the election process. The general editors appointed the rest of the
editorial team. A commonality that runs within the board was a commitment to journalism.
Editorship changes play a very significant role in the determination of the content. One example was
that the editors at the time included gay pages in the arts supplement; back then the society was more
conservative. The Korean editor at the time was particularly concerned about the problem with
diversity.
LSE was not the most cohesive student body; ‘there were many cultures here, but it is not necessarily
one happy family.’ But The Beaver was always open to entries from people of different background.
The largest ethnic groups at the time were probably South Asians (including British South Asians),
White, and East Asians/Chinese. The South Asians and Chinese from a non-British nationality were
not particularly involved, which was disappointing. Most Americans were on General Course (one-
year programme) and were therefore less involved in the papers. Ethnic-based groupings were
influential in student including Student Union elections. Postgraduate participation was not
significant.
The relationship between the Triads and the Chinese community at the LSE then and the Islamic
politics that happened on campus reinforced forms of identity groupings.
The Beaver was ahead of its time when it comes to diversity but you can’t force South or East Asian
students who were not egregious to contribute. ‘You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it
drink.’ Whereas the Athletics Union was comparatively ‘old-fashioned, chauvinistic, and British’,
and was ‘a home away from home for the laddish, British types.’ People would not feel comfortable
unless you drink a lot. The UGM also had this old British edge to it.
--End-Interview 4
Date of Interview: 27th June 2012
Venue: Phone interview
Interviewee 4 was the editor of a section and briefly worked on general editorial work in the late
1990s.
The composition of the editorial board was largely British of nationality, with one Welsh of Indian
descent and one Asian. This did not reflect the student demographics at the time but its cause was
according to the interviewee the language barrier. In terms of gender the board was 70% male. In
terms of academic discipline there was one economist, two historians, one lawyer, and one
international relations student.
The sections editors were very autonomous. News content was primarily driven by what happened
and the opinions sections were driven by whoever had them. There was no major disagreement
between the editors that the interviewee could recall. The only major issue was the cost of operation,
for instance in the use of coloured pages.
In terms of accountability, only the executive editor attended the Union General Meeting in which
he/she defended his/her decisions.
There was no major contentious issue with regard to identity-based groups on campus, but in general
the groups tend to be cliquey and kept to themselves. There was very little direct antagonism
between them. One example the interviewee recalled was that the language written in ‘rooms to let’,
showing that international students tend to prefer to live with someone who speaks their mother
tongue. The Athletics Union, on the other hand, had people from all background and they mixed
pretty well.
There was also a group of students who focused mostly on studying and had little participation in
student activities.
Student institutions like The Beaver and societies on campus provide the opportunity for students,
but it’s up to the students to take advantage of that.
--End--