Purpose Journalism is cited as a profession that has under-represented people of colour in management, necessitating enquiry into other areas of (mis)representation. This study relies on Bourdieu's field theory to ascertain who is (in)visible and which “bodies” are defining the field. It proposes a “conference power” framework for exploring these professional events as platforms where capital accumulates and influence proliferates. Design/methodology/approach The data were publicly available speaker lists from the Global Investigative Journalism Conference: the world's largest gathering of investigative reporters. The in-person 2019 event, the online 2021 event and the post-COVID 2023 event were analysed for race, gender, session duration and session type trends. The US Census Bureau's categories were used as codes. Hand-coding prioritised self-reported ethnicity and gender, preventing errors from algorithmic inability to assess names beginning with initials and binary labelling. Findings Women were dominant as moderators but had lower visibility in major field-shaping categories: academic and data journalism sessions. White speakers accounted for the majority of all appearances. These trends persisted across online and in-person conferences and may constitute “symbolic violence” whilst contributing to socio-communicative precarity. To improve, a periodic audit of conference speaker data and rotation of under-represented groups across organising committees should be undertaken. Originality/value Conceptualising “conference power” using organisational and field theory contributes to scholarly understanding of conferences as arenas for the production, appropriation and barter of prestige goods that accumulate into power at work. Bracketing case studies from one conference and detailed speaker identification methods also provide pathways for assessing field control using speaker lists and session types.
Ruona Meyer (Sun,) studied this question.