IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v117y2017icp184-195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Newspaper companies' determinants in adopting robot journalism

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Daewon
  • Kim, Seongcheol

Abstract

This study sought to identify the determinants of chief officers of newspapers in introducing robot journalism into newsrooms. Analytic hierarchy process was employed as a methodology, and data to be analysed were obtained from 42 surveys on chief officers from 24 different newspaper companies. According to the results, a prospected business performance brought about by the introduction of robot journalism and news consumers' willingness to read robot-written news stories are top concerns among the criteria for the consideration of whether newspaper companies plan to introduce robot journalism or not. On the other hand, journalists' attitude towards robot journalism is behind considerations for business performance and changes of external market environment. Decision-makers in newspaper companies seemed to be insensitive to sunken costs with regard to the introduction of robot journalism. In terms of alternatives, a decrease in the number of human journalists after the adoption of robot-writers is most likely to be selected as an employment strategy by newspaper companies. The fall in the number of human journalists after adopting robots is most likely to be selected as an employment strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Daewon & Kim, Seongcheol, 2017. "Newspaper companies' determinants in adopting robot journalism," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 184-195.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:117:y:2017:i:c:p:184-195
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516308150
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S Ghazinoory & M Daneshmand-Mehr & A Azadegan, 2013. "Technology selection: application of the PROMETHEE in determining preferences—a real case of nanotechnology in Iran," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 64(6), pages 884-897, June.
    2. Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, 2005. "The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 618-636, December.
    3. Lee, Seong Kon & Mogi, Gento & Kim, Jong Wook, 2008. "The competitiveness of Korea as a developer of hydrogen energy technology: The AHP approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1284-1291, April.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    5. Mary Anne Atkinson & Ozden Bayazit & Birsen Karpak, 2015. "A Case Study Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for IT Outsourcing Decision Making," International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management (IJISSCM), IGI Global, vol. 8(1), pages 60-84, January.
    6. Kim, Suwon & Kim, Seongcheol, 2016. "A multi-criteria approach toward discovering killer IoT application in Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 143-155.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hwang, ShinYoung, 2021. "The impact of Google's in-app commission fee changes on the local app ecosystem: A case study of Korea," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238030, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    2. Arvind Ashta, 2017. "Work-sharing from Different Angles: A literature review," Working Papers CEB 17-033, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Kim, Daewon & Kim, Suwon, 2021. "A model for user acceptance of robot journalism: Influence of positive disconfirmation and uncertainty avoidance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    4. Yunju Kim & Heejun Lee, 2021. "Towards a Sustainable News Business: Understanding Readers’ Perceptions of Algorithm-Generated News Based on Cultural Conditioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lee, Seong Kon & Mogi, Gento & Hui, K.S., 2013. "A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP)/data envelopment analysis (DEA) hybrid model for efficiently allocating energy R&D resources: In the case of energy technologies against high oil prices," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 347-355.
    2. Ly, Pham Thi Minh & Lai, Wen-Hsiang & Hsu, Chiung-Wen & Shih, Fang-Yin, 2018. "Fuzzy AHP analysis of Internet of Things (IoT) in enterprises," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-13.
    3. Ahadi, Pedram & Fakhrabadi, Farbod & Pourshaghaghy, Alireza & Kowsary, Farshad, 2023. "Optimal site selection for a solar power plant in Iran via the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    4. Neofytou, H. & Nikas, A. & Doukas, H., 2020. "Sustainable energy transition readiness: A multicriteria assessment index," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Chung, Yanghon & Hong, Sungjun & Kim, Jongwook, 2014. "Which of the technologies for producing hydrogen is the most prospective in Korea?: Evaluating the competitive priority of those in near-, mid-, and long-term," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 115-125.
    6. Lee, So-Eun & Choi, Mideum & Kim, Seongcheol, 2017. "How and what to study about IoT: Research trends and future directions from the perspective of social science," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1056-1067.
    7. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    8. Fatih Yiğit & Şakir Esnaf, 2021. "A new Fuzzy C-Means and AHP-based three-phased approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1517-1528, August.
    9. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    10. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    11. Gilstrap, J. Bruce & Hart, Timothy A., 2020. "How employee behaviors effect organizational change and stability," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 120-131.
    12. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    13. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    14. Niki A. den Nieuwenboer & João Vieira da Cunha & Linda Klebe Treviño, 2017. "Middle Managers and Corruptive Routine Translation: The Social Production of Deceptive Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 781-803, October.
    15. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    16. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    17. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    18. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    19. Wang, Zhiwei & Lei, Tingzhou & Chang, Xia & Shi, Xinguang & Xiao, Ju & Li, Zaifeng & He, Xiaofeng & Zhu, Jinling & Yang, Shuhua, 2015. "Optimization of a biomass briquette fuel system based on grey relational analysis and analytic hierarchy process: A study using cornstalks in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 523-532.
    20. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:117:y:2017:i:c:p:184-195. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.