When Worlds Collide: Journalistic, Market, and Tech Logics in the Adoption of News Recommender Systems

ABSTRACT An increasing number of media organisations are adopting news recommender systems (NRS). Such algorithmic technologies, which prioritise content based on, for example, previous user behaviour or popularity metrics, may have far-reaching repercussions for news work. Despite this, the implications of NRS implementation for intra-organisational practices as well as dynamics and tensions between involved actors remain understudied. Against this background, this study examines decision-making processes and relationships between actors participating in NRS projects from an institutional logics perspective and places a particular emphasis on resulting tensions between journalistic, market, and tech logics. Drawing on 32 in-depth qualitative interviews with news media professionals across ten news organisations in the Netherlands and Switzerland, we discover a wide range of strategies which aim to reconcile logic multiplicity in the specific case of NRS development. Such negotiation efforts can ultimately promote new work practices and forms of collaboration but may also have broader implications for the distribution of power and voice within news organisations.

News organisations are increasingly implementing news recommender systems (NRS): algorithmic solutions that make content recommendations based on previous or other users' behaviour, explicit user preferences, popularity metrics, and content-related features like news items' topic (Karimi, Jannach, and Jugovac 2018).Personalised news recommendations can help news organisations better cater to user demand, engage and retain audiences, and counteract revenue losses (Kunert and Thurman 2019).Internally, the use of NRS can streamline processes of manual curation, allowing journalists and editors to concentrate on other core tasks (Bastian, Helberger, and Makhortykh 2021).
However, the integration of such algorithmic solutions may also have more far-reaching repercussions.Although recommender systems have been successfully implemented on social media platforms, NRS still pose challenges that are unique to news media (Raza and Ding 2021).Firstly, NRS can alter distribution practices by favouring certain content over other (Bastian, Helberger, and Makhortykh 2021).This can have implications for the democratic ideal of an informed public, particularly if recommendations rely too heavily on preference matching based on previous behaviour (Raza and Ding 2021).
Additionally, NRS rely on audience analytics, which quantify user behaviour through oftentimes short-term metrics like time spent and clicks (Bodó 2019;Zamith 2018).The implementation of such data-driven features can alter internal dynamics by shifting the focus from journalistic considerations to profit-oriented and tech-driven ones.
Journalistic and market operations have long co-existed in news organisations (Coddington 2015).Yet, as a result of the digitalisation, beyond editorial and business considerations, technological ones have become central (Lischka 2020).Specifically, NRS adoption requires a translation of previously editorially determined values like timeliness and relevance into technologically implementable and measurable metrics (Bodó 2019;Schjøtt Hansen and Hartley 2021).This shows the heightened importance of tech considerations which can shift the focus from the journalistic to the tech side of the newsroom.Accordingly, NRS embody a prototypical example of how journalism is influenced by the intersection of digitalisation and market pressures to increase revenues by better catering to user demand.
The interplay of journalistic, business, and tech actors, their specific goals, vocabularies, and priorities within news organisations can have important ramifications for internal work processes, and possibly lead to tension.Although this interplay has been investigated more broadly related to the digitalisation of journalism, the implications of NRS adoption for intraorganisational practices, power dynamics, and divides remain largely understudied.Such an examination is especially crucial, considering the increasing adoption rate of such systems by news organisations internationally (Bodó 2019;Kunert and Thurman 2019).
Therefore, this study contributes to existing scholarship on NRS and the digitalisation of newsrooms more broadly by analysing the interplay of journalistic, tech, and managerial actors and their logics in NRS development and focuses on resulting divides and tensions.We further investigate how such friction is addressed, and how negotiation can make way for new dynamics and work practices.Our study draws on the institutional logics framework (Thornton and Ocasio 2008) as a broad conceptual basis to better understand intra-organisational tensions and possibly assist involved actors in their resolution.Methodologically, we rely on 32 in-depth qualitative interviews with news media professionals across 10 news organisations in the Netherlands and Switzerland.

Logic Multiplicity in News Organisations
Journalism is an institution that follows its own rules and norms regarding news production and distribution, that is, news logic or media logic (Klinger and Svensson 2018).However, this does not mean that the media logic is one monolithic entity.News organisations constitute a special multi-domain setting as they are at the intersection of three institutional domains-democracy, capitalism, and digital technology (Lischka 2020).Each of these institutions comes with its own imperatives.These "logics" are "socially constructed, normative guides for the interpretation, identity, and behaviour of actors" and vary "depending on the dominant institutional domain an actor is situated in and are reflected in [their] practices and vocabularies" (Lischka 2020, 114).Put differently, logics may be reproduced in motives and intentions, day-to-day-behaviour, technologies, and tools (Greenwood et al. 2011).Thus, this investigation focuses on how different logics manifest and interact within media organisations.
Prior to the digitalisation, news organisations most often had to negotiate between market and professional journalistic logics.Typically, market or commercial logics dictate an orientation towards advertisers and audiences, and aim for profit maximation, while professional journalistic logics focus on the fulfilment of democratically relevant normative professional missions (Lischka 2020).Following the digitalisation, digital technology has become another central institutional domain whose logic centres around "the belief […] that every problem can be solved with digital technology" (Lischka 2020, 117).Consequently, news organisations must increasingly consider tech logics.
The related proliferation of data-enabled insight into audience preferences has sparked much discussion about the implications of technological innovations for news work and news media's ability to withstand growing market pressures (Meijer and Kormelink 2019;Napoli 2014).Our study centres upon one such data-driven application in which news organisations have particularly invested over the past few years (Bodó 2019)-news recommender systems.NRS heavily rely on audience metrics to deliver automated and often personalised content recommendations (Karimi, Jannach, and Jugovac 2018).Thus, the rising adoption of NRS serves as a prime example of how market and audience-centred imperatives, technological advancements, and journalistic considerations and thus different logics increasingly intersect within news organisations.

Logic Multiplicity in NRS Development
Several studies show that many "stakeholders" (Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon 2022) take part in the implementation, configuration, and maintenance of NRS and thus allude to the potential coexistence of multiple logics in NRS projects.On the technological side, involved actors include UX designers (Bastian, Helberger, and Makhortykh 2021;Svensson 2021), engineers (Bodó 2019;Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon 2022), data scientists or analysts (Bastian, Helberger, and Makhortykh 2021;Svensson 2021), programmers and developers (Bodó 2019).On the business side, marketing departments (Schjøtt Hansen and Hartley 2021), product managers or owners (Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon 2022), or members of senior management (Svensson 2021) are frequently involved.In some organisations, everyday journalists actively participate in such initiatives (Møller 2022), while in others they are rarely involved (Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon 2022).In such instances, senior members of the editorial team may represent journalistic interests (Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon 2022).Additionally, the audience could be regarded as a silent stakeholder, as NRS projects are often pursued with audience-centred goals in mind such as better catering to users and increasing their engagement and satisfaction (Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon 2022).Although anticipated user reactions constitute an important guiding light in NRS development, audiences are mostly indirectly involved through user studies (Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon 2022).
Tying these actor constellations to institutional logics, Svensson (2021)'s case study of a Swedish daily newspaper shows how practitioners involved in the development of an algorithmic ranking system represent and advocate distinct logics.The author tracks the interplay of a democratic logic of journalism, a market logic, a programming or tech logic, and a related personalisation logic.The first three logics largely correspond to journalistic, market and tech logics identified by other scholars (e.g., Lischka 2020).The personalisation logic borrows aspects from market and tech logics as it embraces values of user experience, the principle of popularity, and better catering to audiences through personalisation (Svensson 2021, 9).
Yet, how can this interplay be grasped in practice?Institutionalists have argued that participation in decision-making is an important determinant of the influence of a logic within an organisation (e.g., Greenwood et al. 2011).Actors who are involved in decision-making can more effectively bring problems to the "table" and propose their solutions (Pratt and Foreman 2000).Examining decision-making processes related to NRS development is therefore a crucial starting point for drawing more comprehensive conclusions about distributions of power and voice within the newsroom and its long-term effects on journalistic work.Following Lischka (2020), we focus on the interplay of journalistic, tech, and market logics because these constitute the most established logics within news organisations.As advocates of journalistic, market, and tech logics can exert power through their participation in decision-making, we begin our investigation by asking: RQ1: How does the interplay of journalistic, market, and tech logics surface in decisionmaking processes regarding the development of NRS?

Responses to Logic Multiplicity
Logics may embrace distinct demands, mindsets, and "rules of the game" (Thornton and Ocasio 2008, 112).Consequently, the existence of multiple logics within an organisation can generate ambiguity and challenges that necessitate negotiation and, in turn, impact organisational dynamics and power structures (Greenwood et al. 2011).Journalistic, market, and tech logics may be incompatible or provide inconsistent expectations regarding the design and implementation of algorithmic solutions like NRS.
The institutional logics perspective identifies several ways how organisations can respond to logic multiplicity (Pratt and Foreman 2000;Thornton and Ocasio 2008).These responses depend on various factors, such as the degree of incompatibility between logics, that is, the extent to which each logic's goals and mindsets differ (Greenwood et al. 2011).
First, logics can be aggregated, meaning that logics are "seen separately but of equal value […] and linkages are forged to generate positive synergies" (Fitzgerald and Shepherd 2018, 485).For example, Svensson (2021) discovers that journalists are involved in the parametrisation of news-ranking algorithms as a strategy to alleviate their concerns about being replaced by machines.This shows how tech considerations and journalistic demands can successfully be considered side by side and "feed of each other" (Svensson 2021, 12).Aggregation is most likely to occur when support by powerful stakeholders for existing logics and compatibility between them is high (Pratt and Foreman 2000).
Second, logics can be combined and integrated to new hybrid logics that blend and bridge practices from each other (Greenwood et al. 2011).For instance, Lischka (2020) argues that professional and market logics have "fused" as audience orientation has become an important journalistic value.Similarly, Svensson's (2021) personalisation logic could be conceptualised as integrating aspects from market and tech logics, although he does not discuss the emergence of this novel logic.Conditions that facilitate integration of logics include low support by powerful stakeholders for existing logics as well as high compatibility between the latter (Pratt and Foreman 2000).
The extent to which a logic has a voice within an organisation also depends on the status of those who "carry", that is, support and promote, the respective logic (Greenwood et al. 2011).Therefore, micro-level advocates of logics can contribute to the management of (seemingly) incompatible logics.Advancing a more micro-level-focused view on integrating logics, studies have examined the role of so-called ambidextrous actors who work within and enact multiple logics (Jarzabkowski et al. 2013).Thereby, unique configurations of symbolic and material properties can arise-a mechanism referred to as bricolage (Christiansen and Lounsbury 2013).Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon (2022) allude to the important function of ambidextrous actors in NRS projects.Their study shows that product owners are responsible for identifying and aligning different demands posed to these systems.They are also charged with creating a strategic roadmap which might constitute an example for bricolage as it considers technological feasibility, economic return, and editorial fit.
Third, logics can be compartmentalised, meaning that distinct logics co-exist with little to no synergies or communication between them (Lischka 2020).In news organisations, compartmentalisation of the newsroom and marketing departments is particularly widespread (Lischka 2020).Falling between compartmentalisation and the complete elimination of a logic is subordination, whereby an organisation chooses a dominant logic while the subordinated one(s) are maintained but not fully embraced (Pratt and Foreman 2000).Most research on NRS alludes to a continued dominance of journalistic logics: Tensions between tech, market, and journalistic actors are often resolved by prioritising journalistic demands, for example, by advancing a subscription-based rather than an advertisement-centred approach and by pursuing a "personalisation light" strategy (Svensson 2021, 14).Similarly, Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon (2022)'s findings indicate a predominance of editorial oversight over NRS, suggesting that journalistic interests and demands remain dominant (see also Bastian, Helberger, and Makhortykh 2021;Møller 2023).Such a response is appropriate when logics are incompatible but considered too valuable to eliminate or too difficult to integrate (Pratt and Foreman 2000).
Compartmentalisation can also entail an organisation symbolically or ceremonially endorsing certain logics without actually considering it into their daily practice, a process referred to as decoupling or loose coupling (Greenwood et al. 2011).Though not explicitly examined in the context of NRS, limited journalistic involvement in NRS projects despite tech and managerial actors' assurances of the continued dominance of journalistic imperatives as indicated by Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon (2022) might point to decoupling in the realm of NRS development.
Previous research has alluded that the multiplicity of involved actors and their logics may lead to friction and necessitate negotiation.Yet, these tensions and negotiations have not been fully examined in the context of NRS, interpreted through an institutional logics lens, and applied to a wider set of news organisations.Therefore, we ask: RQ2: What tensions result from the interplay of journalistic, market, and tech logics in the development of NRS? RQ3: How are tensions between journalistic, market, and tech logics in the development of NRS resolved?

Sample
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 in-house news media professionals working in ten leading media organisations and one publishing house in Switzerland and the Netherlands.The consideration of two countries allows us to examine, in the sense of a robustness check, whether we encounter the same patterns of results in both settings.To this end, we chose two small-scale Western European media systems with democratic-corporatist characteristics (Humprecht et al. 2022).
We only included news organisations which are either experimenting with or have already successfully implemented NRS on their websites.We selected interviewees based on variance in organisational types (public service, upmarket, mass market, and digital native) and functional roles (journalism, managerial, tech).Cross-functionally, we interviewed 16 journalists, of which ten have more senior, managerial roles, nine managerial/strategic actors like product managers or heads of strategy, and seven tech specialists.We expected that these three functional groups are most likely to advocate journalistic, market, and tech logics respectively.Though participants' involvement in NRS projects varied, by interviewing at least two professionals per organisation, we had a multiperspectival view of decision-making, tensions, and their resolution.
Members of the research team contacted participants via email, outlining the project goals.While this yielded an initial set of participants, we also relied on references by media professionals for further recruitment.A detailed summary of our sample with anonymised interview participant abbreviations (IP) is available in Appendix A.

Data Collection
The interviews took place between September 2021 and March 2022, largely via Zoom, as part of a larger study on NRS.The interviews were semi-structured with key questions mirroring the overarching RQs, and supplementary prompts which encouraged participants to further elaborate on answers. 1 Several questions tapped into the role of journalistic, tech, and managerial actors in decision-making about NRS, followed by in-depth inquiries about what a conversation between the various stakeholders typically entailed.We then asked about incidents of misunderstanding, and how these were resolved.On average, interviews lasted 60 min and were held in German or English.The interviews were carried out by the first three authors.The interviews were recorded and transcribed in their original language, but coded in English, allowing for a uniform coding process.

Data Analysis
The analysis was based on inductive and deductive approaches, structuring the data into codes, categories, and overarching themes (Braun and Clarke 2013) that serve to answer the proposed research questions.Thus, while some findings emerged inductively from the interview data, we derived others deductively in view of the overarching theoretical framework of institutional logics.We coded the data in the software MAXQDA and analysed it in a three-step process.
First, we read the transcripts and identified preliminary codes in the data.We assigned initial codes to interview segments representing trends in interviewees' answers.This organised the data across interviews into codes that were present across transcripts.For example, we coded exchange between divisions involved in NRS as a strategy to mitigate potential misunderstandings under the same code of "interdisciplinary exchange".This first step of the analysis resulted in 819 interview segments that represented a total of 223 codes.
Second, we reviewed and divided codes into overarching categories.To use the example above, we grouped the code "interdisciplinary exchange" under the category of "strategies to tackle conflict", which also included codes like "editorial decisions take priority", "educational work for editorial staff" and "someone who speaks all relevant 'languages'".The resulting data structure presented the initially identified codes and segments in a more workable structure.
Third and lastly, we organised these core categories into larger themes, guided by the research questions.The final data structure with representative data is depicted in Appendix C.
To illustrate our results, we will follow this data structure and address each research question by expounding upon the larger themes and tying them analytically to the institutional logics framework.

Findings
At the time of the interviews, more than a half of the sampled media outlets had NRS in place on their websites.However, even the outlets that did not have active NRS were developing such solutions and planning to launch them in the upcoming years.Organisations also recounted past projects that they had decided not to pursue further.In all sampled organisations, the NRS solutions were developed in-house.Overall, ten main themes emerged, of which three related to RQ1, three to RQ2, and four to RQ3. Figure 1 presents an overview of the findings.

RQ1: Logic Interplay in Decision-making Processes Surrounding NRS Development
The interplay of journalistic, market, and tech logics was evident in decision-making processes regarding NRS development.We observe a heightened importance of tech actors and their logics, for instance in a focus on ongoing and iterative optimisation which can better accommodate work processes from the technological domain.Despite the presence of collaborative elements, we see that journalistic involvement may be limited to senior editorial staff.Lastly, ambidextrous actors who understand each logic's demands to NRS play a pivotal role in decision-making and strategy development.

Increased Importance of Tech Actors and Logics
Our findings suggest that tech actors and their corresponding logics, that is, practices, demands, workflows, and vocabularies, have gained in importance.This was particularly noticeable in four interconnected ways: first, the increased relevance of tech know-how and data skills in news work; second, the initiators of NRS projects; third, the integration of work processes from the domain of IT and software development for managing NRS projects; and fourth, the stronger need to consider the technological viability of envisioned NRS.
Interviewees noted the increased importance of data and data literacy for news gathering, production, and dissemination.Respondents ascribed the adoption of technologies like audience analytics to a general shift towards "data-driven" (IP13) or "datainformed" (IP15) news work and a part of an ongoing "cultural change" (IP4, IP14, IP27).News professionals across the board explained that journalists would need to gain knowledge about algorithmic and data-driven solutions to "survive" (IP10).Following the integration of NRS, journalists would also have to pay more attention to the "performance" of their articles (IP12) as manual "placement becomes less of a success guarantee" (IP7, IP8, IP12).
The more central role of technological logics was also evident in the initiation of and responsibility for NRS projects.Actors with technological know-how or background were mentioned as prime initiators of NRS ventures.Interviewees recounted one specific person "pushing" (IP6) and "selling the vision" (IP6) for NRS such as a chief technology officer (CTO) or a senior engineer.Relatedly, due to the technical nature of NRS, we heard that tech divisions were responsible for the execution of NRS projects and their integration into the website.The technological know-how, which managerial and journalistic actors did not always possess, enabled tech staff to advocate for the most viable solutions.Consequently, as one data scientist stated, they influenced the course of NRS development on a more "conceptual" level (IP10).
Third, the importance of tech logics was observable in how NRS development took place.NRS projects regularly underwent ongoing and iterative optimisation.Interviewees described their NRS projects as a cautious process, consisting of "small steps" (IP10, IP12) and "iterative optimisation" (IP6, IP9, IP10).Such a step-by-step approach enabled organisations to test the technological viability of different configurations, thereby better accommodating developers' mode of working (as mentioned by e.g., IP9, IP14, IP6, IP29).We observed this across public broadcasters, mass-market, upmarket, and digital native media in both Switzerland and the Netherlands.
News outlets which currently had NRS running on their websites had a similar workflow despite being past the first experimental stages.While the direction of NRS projects was more clearly defined, for example in multi-year strategic plans, some organisations in our sample employed so-called agile project management or SCRUM techniques, which originally come from the IT sector and allow for a continuous and iterative, yet speedy, optimisation of NRS solutions in so-called "loops" (IP9).This permitted organisations to "learn as quickly as possible and move on" (IP9) to the next NRS feature that needed to be tested.
Lastly, interviewees noted that the technological viability of NRS solutions must be considered.A product manager explained that technological "challenges" (IP3) are especially salient when it comes to the consideration of features like topic diversity or longer-term metrics beyond clicks and time spent.Subsequently, a close consideration of technological feasibility becomes crucial and can possibly supplant editorial and managerial requests if they are not implementable.

Despite Collaborative Elements, Limited Journalistic Involvement
Across organisations, different representatives from tech, management, and journalism were involved in the planning and (further) development of NRS: On the tech side, this included UX designers, data scientists, engineers, or developers.On the business side, it was product owners and managers, as well as representatives from middle or upper management and strategy.On the journalism side, journalists and senior editorial staff like head editors or the editor-in-chiefs took part.
These actors, referred to as "stakeholders" (IP3, IP9, IP14, IP15, IP26), were described by respondents to be on equal footing, "neither more powerful than the other" (IP1).Thus, both in Switzerland and the Netherlands, decision-making surrounding NRS did not necessarily follow a "top-down approach" (IP11) but was, according to the interviewees, conducted in a collaborative manner, in which representatives from business, tech, and journalism divisions jointly discussed priorities and next steps.
Recounting specific meetings, interviewees used expressions like coming together at a "table" (IP10), alluding to the non-hierarchical and discussion-oriented nature of NRSrelated projects (see also Findings to RQ3).This might indicate that all logics are represented in decision-making.The following statement by a Swiss interviewee (IP13) from management illustrates such efforts well: It's not a tech and data-driven process where [tech] says: "We've discovered something fancy and then we'll do it", and the editorial teams or the people responsible for the media brand won't hear about it.It's a process that takes place in close coordination and weighs up the pros and cons before going into implementation.Such a collaborative approach, however, can also be ascribed to the limited role and prominence of NRS in some of the interviewed organisations.In this regard, interviewees noted that "real strategic decisions" (IP20) or initiatives with a "bigger impact" (IP2) would have to be made by upper management or the editor-in-chief.Similarly, even if actors involved in NRS projects could to some extent decide on priorities and future directions, decisions still needed to be made "in agreement or in transparency to management" (IP9).
Additionally, journalistic involvement was not omnipresent.Some interviewees noted that regular journalists were hardly involved or consulted.Limited journalistic involvement did not seem to be tied to a certain media type or country, as it was mentioned by interviewees in public broadcasters, mass-market, upmarket, and digital native outlets in Switzerland and the Netherlands.Respondents further commented that journalists "do not really have time to worry about such things" (IP6) and instead need to focus on "delivering the content for the product" (IP29).Tech and managerial representatives also alluded to the inefficiency of "eternally" (IP8) discussing every development with journalists and editors.
Thus, although interviewees highlighted how journalists and editors needed to be "on board" (IP15, IP17), upon closer inspection, journalistic involvement may be limited to the editor-in-chief or senior editorial members who were "closely consulted" (IP9) and "sometimes […] even the ones giving requirements" (IP10) or "articulating [editorial] demands" (IP11).Managerial actors who oversaw NRS projects had, in some instances, a journalistic background and could advocate for the consideration of "journalistic interests" (IP6).A senior tech executive explained that "in most cases, it is enough to ally with [these representatives]" (IP14).
Interestingly, journalistic actors stated that strategic decisions had to be made or approved by management, whereas representatives from management and tech repeatedly stressed the absence of top-down decision-making.This discrepancy alludes to power imbalances as journalistic logics might be bypassed in favour of tech and market ones.
Another exception to this trend of collaboration were the news outlets owned by a Dutch publishing house.Here, decision-making about NRS and "pressure [to innovate] comes from above" (IP24), that is, the publishing company, which sets an overarching digital strategy.For example, a tech specialist noted that although "designers and journalists and marketing people give their feedback […] and help shape the product" (IP29), they do not make the final decision.Instead, senior members from the individual news brand, like the editor-in-chief, were charged with communicating the news outlet's hopes and reservations regarding NRS to the publisher.An editorial representative (IP22) explained that the news outlet could "hit the identity button" if NRS did not align with the individual news brand's values.

The Mediator Role of Ambidextrous Actors
In line with Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon (2022), we found that product or managers were central "stakeholders" (IP13) as they were primarily responsible for defining the strategic "roadmap" (IP14) and "vision" (IP2) for NRS development and carrying them out.They were described as actors who were mindful of journalistic, business, and tech considerations.This ability gave them a special position "in-between" (IP27) or "between worlds" (IP28).Some had started as journalists or technologists before migrating to more managerial roles.For example, one interviewee underlined that their head of product "understands journalistic ethical stuff" (IP31).A senior tech executive (IP14) explained: "There are always misunderstandings if there is not someone like me who does this mediation and explains to the people in business what they mean in technology and vice versa."Similarly, senior editorial representatives could put forward journalistic considerations in decision-making and strategy development.
In line with the institutional logics framework, product managers and senior editorial members can therefore be considered an example for ambidextrous actors who can enact multiple logics in NRS projects.These ambidextrous actors understand market imperatives as they are higher in rank, that is, had managerial responsibilities that may also allow them to more effectively assert their interests.

RQ2: Tensions Between Journalistic, Market, and Tech Logics in NRS Development
The findings to RQ1 already allude to a possibly unequal distribution of voice in NRS development in favour of market and tech logics.Thus, the specifics of decisionmaking and the interplay of different logics may pave the way for friction.Corroborating this, we found three interrelated sources of tensions reflecting the incompatibility of logics: divergence in priorities, a lack of a common language and communication, and journalistic hesitation.

Divergence in Priorities and Expectations
Across interviews, respondents noted that journalists, technologists, and managerial actors have different priorities and expectations regarding NRS that might clash when deciding on the direction of NRS development.
As proponents of journalistic logics, journalists highlighted their democratic responsibility to fully inform the public, the importance of "quality journalism" (IP22), and the related need for clear demarcation from other platforms which rely on personalisation.Tech actors who carried tech logics believed in algorithms' capacity to "reduce journalistic workload" (IP10) and ultimately better serve audiences.Managerial and strategic actors aligned most closely with a market logic.They stated the importance of being responsive to user demand, as audiences "expect" (IP11) and "demand" (IP13) personalisation.Hence, they believed revenues could be increased through the further development of NRS.Additionally, advocates of market logics were mindful of issues pertaining to news organisations' productivity, "survivability" (IP11), and "competitiveness" (IP14), which they sometimes found lagging other industries.
While interviewees mentioned tensions, the severity of friction varied.Some news professionals negated the existence of any "collision" (IP11) regarding NRS when explicitly asked about conflicts, explaining that actors "pursue the same goal" (IP19).However, even respondents who denied the existence of active conflict still alluded to a perceived incompatibility between the different logics.
First, journalistic and tech logics were considered opposing, when, for example, a NRS solution "is perceived to be a really nice algorithm that actually produce[s] good results [by computer scientists], but it [is] not exactly what the editors want" (IP4).
Second, market and journalistic considerations might not always align.Especially, addressing user demand through personalisation versus fulfilling traditional journalistic "values" (IP22) might be an area of tension.Interviewees stated that journalists felt that business divisions "are just seeing articles as a whole pile of cookies" (IP27), only care about "money" (IP32) or "selling more" (IP22) and could be "tone deaf" to journalistic demands (IP27).One journalist commented that his colleagues sometimes called tech and business divisions in their "corners" "the dark side" (IP32), alluding to a spatial separation of journalism from technology and management.
Lastly, while less salient, there might also be friction between market and tech logics regarding technological possibilities, for example, with managerial staff sometimes overestimating algorithmic prowess or underestimating the resources needed to develop NRS.As one data scientist explained, "management wants to try many, many things or […] be fast" (IP10).A senior tech executive at a Swiss mass-market outlet commented that "[business] has no idea what [IT] is doing back there or talking about" (IP14).He and other tech staff (IP12, IP14) noted that when something "goes wrong" both management and editorial staff would blame tech, expecting the recommenders to "magically" (IP14) increase the popularity of certain articles that might not be heavily consumed regardless of whether they were recommended by an algorithm or manually curated.

Lack of Common Language and Communication
Additionally, there was a perceived lack of "common language" (IP15, IP19) and communication amongst advocates of journalistic, tech, and managerial logics.Participants across countries and organisation types used a variation of this metaphor, well captured by one interviewee (IP22): They don't understand each other at all.The journalists really mistrust-and slightly hate IT people, they always speak about "them" and "they", they're colleagues, but it's like they're a different species.
Alluding to the lack of communication and exchange, a journalist explained that "there's a lot going on behind the scenes of data-driven projects […], which most journalists are not aware of and […] is being kept from them" (IP24).Another interviewee commented that "individual journalists don't talk to individual IT [staff]" (IP31).A Swiss respondent in a technology management role also confirmed that tech actors "do not speak a lot with journalists" (IP14).While interviewees listed different reasons for this lack of communication, journalistic hesitation and mistrust of algorithms was repeatedly mentioned.

Journalistic Hesitation
Interviewees explained that journalists may be somewhat hesitant about "change" (IP14) and digital innovations more generally.This was accompanied by general journalistic mistrust of and "scepticism" (IP27) about the added value of digital technologies, which was described as a "classic" journalistic reaction (IP2) that had to be "fought" (IP14).
Respondents also suspected a generational gap, where older journalists in particular "don't want to be bothered" (IP22) with digital tools or "are too morally attached" (IP25) to traditional newspapers to let algorithms determine the makeup of a news website.A managerial actor with a journalistic background likened this to a "club feeling" (IP27).A senior editorial representative also stated that journalists "will go ballistic when [news organisations] allow this kind of content [algorithmic recommendations] in a corner of [the] website, even a little corner" (IP22).Such mistrust of algorithmic and datadriven solutions co-existed with "fears" of being replaced by machines (IP14), of a "Big Brother system where the editor sees who is doing well and who is not" (IP21), or of not being "needed" anymore (IP27).
Interviewees also commented that journalists' awareness of algorithms and how they function was low and that "as it becomes a little bit technical, many […] bail out" (IP29).Corroborating this assumption, a journalist admitted to not knowing much about their outlet's use of algorithmic recommendations below articles, noting that "somehow that's an algorithm, but I'm not sure what it's based on" (IP32).

RQ3: Navigating Tensions
Organisations had different approaches to navigate logic multiplicity and resolve the above-described tensions.Such strategies included formal and informal efforts for stronger interdivisional communication and collaboration in NRS projects.We also see attempts to ensure (or assure) journalistic control over NRS.Another strategy pertained to the inclusion of ambidextrous actors who speak all relevant languages and understand tech, market, and journalistic considerations.Organisations also accounted for notions of responsible NRS design which can result in unique configurations of NRS.

Communication and Collaboration
Interviewees across organisations, countries, and functional groups accentuated the importance of communication and collaboration in NRS projects, even though our findings for RQ1 indicated that not all actors were equally involved in decision-making.
Despite this potential discrepancy, "communication" (IP18), "interdisciplinary" (IP10) exchange, and "close collaboration" (IP5) between journalism, business, and tech actors was considered a central strategy to "actively try to address misunderstandings and get people on the same page" (IP4) and "understand where everyone's coming from" (IP10).For example, such exchange could take place in institutionalised or routinised "roundtable" (IP3) meetings.Interviewees also described meetings in which people from "multiple disciplines" (IP28) jointly discussed general "developments and challenges" (IP16).
Particularly business and tech actors believed that journalists needed additional information about algorithms and data-driven digital projects to address their reservations.One tech specialist (IP12) at a mass-market outlet detailed: "As much as we can explain, we should.Because if they lose confidence in something like that internally, then it becomes difficult." This information was communicated in workshops, presentations, and demonstrations.Actors actively involved in NRS development also made regular "visits" or "tours" (IP27) to the newsroom to answer "critical questions" (IP27) or "dive into" (IP30) how algorithms work.A tech specialist recounted spending a day to "meet with [journalists] and understand their interests" (IP18).Respondents also recalled informal "coffee meetings" (IP32) in which NRS-related developments were discussed amongst members of different departments.
Interviewees acknowledged that these sessions promoted "understanding" (IP31) and "acceptance" (IP30) amongst journalists about NRS.Such visits also helped spread awareness of how NRS could benefit journalists but simultaneously address "commercial" (IP27) imperatives by better serving audiences, ultimately "help[ing] journalists find more interested people for [their] message but without defining it" (IP27).
Efforts to collaborate and realise synergies between the different logics and their imperatives and mindsets in NRS development can be analytically connected to logic aggregation, as no logic dominates over the other; instead advocates of different logics increasingly work together.
Ensuring (or Assuring) Journalistic Control Another strategy to navigate tensions between the different logics was ensuring or assuring journalistic control over NRS.Respondents outlined different mechanisms to incorporate journalistic considerations into NRS design.One approach involved integrating editorially specified metrics like articles' manually determined placement on the frontpage as filtering criteria.NRS were designed not only to consider users' past behaviour or articles' topic similarity but also integrated "editorial weighing" (IP9).Put simply, articles that journalists had placed higher on the outlet's homepage had a higher chance of being recommended than articles placed lower.Thus, news professionals believed that "a combination of journalistic and algorithmic selection" (IP5) may constitute a viable constellation to guarantee acceptance of NRS, not only by users but also by internal stakeholders.Such efforts once again highlight how logics may be aggregated in NRS development as actors adhering to distinct logics cooperate to ensure mutually desirable outcomes.Some organisations enabled human oversight over recommendations to ensure that the journalist remained "in the loop" (IP4) and "front and centre" (IP13).Interviewees predicted that some parts of the website, most prominently the homepage, would always be largely curated by journalists with content that "readers need to know" (IP30).News professionals across the board remained certain that "good stories remain the core of journalistic work" (IP15).This might suggest a subordination approach, that is, a continued dominance of journalistic logics, while tech and market logics get subjugated to accommodate journalistic demands.
However, our findings for RQ1 also indicated that despite verbal assurances of collaboration, journalistic actors, particularly regular journalists, are not always involved in NRS development.Instead, their interests may be represented by senior editorial staff or ambidextrous actors with technological or managerial know-how.This could point to a decoupling trend, where tech and managerial actors assure journalists of their continued dominance, but do not necessarily consider their demands in NRS projects.

Ambidextrous Actors Who Speak All Relevant Languages
Actors across organisations highlighted the important role of ambidextrous actors who speak all relevant "languages".Product managers repeatedly self-described as this necessary "bridge" (IP3) and "mediator" (IP14) between different departments, most prominently business and tech, or tech and journalism.Yet, not only product managers fulfilled this "translation" role (IP1).For example, members of one newsroom were formally assigned as "ambassadors" (IP15) for different data-and NRS-related projects to present them to news workers.Senior editorial members could also act as ambidextrous actors, as aptly summarised by one such representative (IP27): "I'm now more of a bridge because I delve into IT products and marketing […].But I still understand how editorial stuff works as I'm a journalist myself." These ambidextrous actors who mediated between different interests in NRS endeavours not only made up a central part of the decision-making process as indicated in our findings for RQ1, but also contributed to alleviating the misunderstandings and tensions between tech, business, and journalistic actors identified in RQ2.
Responsible NRS News professionals also stressed the relevance of integrating notions of responsible NRS like transparency, user control, and diversity as a strategy to resolve internal conflict.The terms "responsible" as well as "democratic" personalisation were used unprompted by interviewees across functional groups (e.g., IP3, IP11, IP15).Although such endeavours were brought up in connection to tackling user-related concerns like filter bubbles or privacy protection, they were also seen as a strategy to ensure that internal stakeholders, particularly journalists, were "on board" (IP15).
In this vein, news professionals mentioned diversity in terms of topics as a central feature that NRS needed to be optimised for.We heard about the presence of "antibubble algorithms" (IP10, IP15) which ensured that users would also receive recommendations that did not match their previous consumption history.Recounting the introduction of this anti-bubble algorithm, an interviewee in a managerial role with a journalistic background (IP15) explained: "We actively communicated [the introduction of this algorithm] and noticed that it was also a very important lever, for [NRS] to gain acceptance in the whole newsroom."These anti-bubble algorithms that were developed "hand in hand" (IP15) with journalistic, tech, and managerial actors can be linked to the concept of bricolage as they are a material result of the consideration of multiple logics: a technological solution that accommodates the journalistic value of diversely informing audiences as well as the economic imperative of responding to perceived user demand.Specifically, interviewees (e.g., IP7, IP13, IP28) noted that audiences, despite desiring personalisation, do not expect a fully personalised news experience-thus such a "corrective" algorithm (IP11) may indeed help organisations better cater to their readers.
Besides diversity, transparency was mentioned, especially regarding how explanations about the employed algorithms and collected data could be integrated into the website.A managerial representative explained that the integration of transparency at this stage was often "nerd talk amongst developers" (IP2).Nevertheless, interviewees also acknowledged the significance of internal transparency about how NRS algorithms functioned.For example, a tech specialist at the Swiss public broadcaster pointed out that they had written a "white paper" (IP4) for internal circulation describing how the recommender algorithms worked.However, a managerial representative also noted that extensive transparency might threaten organisations' "competitive advantage" (IP7).
Despite this, tech, market, and journalistic actors believed that the consideration and integration of notions of "responsible" NRS (IP11) could benefit both users and foster acceptance amongst internal actors adhering to distinct logics.

Discussion
News organisations have long had to consider both journalistic values and marketoriented goals.Yet, following the datafication and "algorithmic turn" (Napoli 2014, 341) in journalism, they need to increasingly and simultaneously manage not two, but three, sometimes incompatible, logics advocated by journalism, the economic market, and digital technology.
The coexistence of these logics within news organisations can affect internal work practices and power structures, ultimately giving rise to tensions which necessitate resolution (Lischka 2020).How organisations decide to navigate this institutional complexity can have more far-reaching implications for news work: If journalistic logics are increasingly subordinated under tech and market ones, how does this implicate the pursuit of traditional journalistic missions in the long run?Conversely, if journalistic logics prevail over tech and market considerations, can news organisations survive in today's digital high-choice information environment?
The present study zoomed in on one technological change within the newsroomnews recommender systems-that constitute a prototypical example for solutions that involve journalistic, market, and tech logics in news organisations.Drawing on the institutional logics framework (Thornton and Ocasio 2008) and based on 32 interviews across ten news organisations in Switzerland and the Netherlands, we aimed to shed light on the interplay of logics in NRS development (RQ1), resulting tensions (RQ2), and their resolution (RQ3).By doing so, we extend on previous scholarship which has examined responses to logic multiplicity relying on content analyses rather than interviews, and not related to NRS (see e.g., Lischka 2020).
Our findings show that journalistic, market, and tech logics surface to varying degrees in decision-making (RQ2) and that they may have different expectations, priorities, and demands regarding NRS (RQ2).Notably, journalists' limited involvement in decisionmaking can pave the way for tensions.
At the same time, we see signs of subordination of tech and market imperatives under the more dominant journalistic logics.Interviewees across countries, organisation types, and functional roles deny the prospect of fully replacing journalistic with algorithmic content curation.Even commercial media, in which market logics are particularly important, note the dominant role of journalistic logics and the necessity to adhere to journalism's democratic mission.This finding largely mirrors current NRS endeavours in other European countries like Denmark (Schjøtt Hansen and Hartley 2021), Norway and Sweden (Møller 2023).Thus, although journalists' direct involvement in the development of algorithmic solutions may be limited as indicated in response to RQ1, news professionals consider journalistic logics too valuable to disregard.
Yet, the question remains how serious these efforts to incorporate journalistic logics are.Attempts to collaborate are, to some extent, pursued to ensure journalistic compliance and persuade journalists of the merits of NRS.This, alongside limited journalistic involvement and in some instances, a spatial separation from tech and management, might point to organisations compartmentalising or even loose coupling demands posed by journalistic logics without fully implementing them in their daily practices.These contradictory insights raise a series of important questions about journalists' ability to effectively bring their imperatives "to the table": Do journalists not want to be involved in NRS development because they do not have the time, as interviewees insisted?Or are they intentionally prevented from doing so by tech and managerial actors who rather bet on getting the support of former journalists in managerial positions as they are more likely to side with market or tech logics?Or perhaps it rather boils down to journalists' inability to participate due to insufficient knowledge about NRS and algorithms?
While we cannot unambiguously answer these questions, our examination demonstrates how the institutional logics perspective can serve as a promising conceptual basis through which researchers can better understand competing goals and organisational tensions.Its systematisation of responses to logic multiplicity can further provide initial directions for how practitioners can resolve them.Indeed, despite signs of subordination as well as compartmentalisation and decoupling, news organisations also pursue other strategies that might prove more promising in addressing logic multiplicity (RQ3).
The most widespread response in the context of our investigation can be connected to logic aggregation, whereby actors carrying different logics cooperate and realise synergies.Efforts to alleviate reservations about NRS through workshops, question-andanswer sessions, and informal coffee meetings constitute such responses.Some organisations go a step further by accounting for editorial values in their NRS solutions, highlighting how tech and journalistic logics can effectively be considered simultaneously (see also Svensson 2021).In today's media environment, news organisations might have no choice but to incorporate tech, market, and journalistic logics to ensure their survival (Lischka 2020).Thus, logic aggregation may be a promising response, as it does not question the relevance of each logic but tries to incorporate the best of all "worlds".
Additionally, integration of logics is noticeable: The adoption of notions of "responsible" NRS which align with tech, market, and journalistic logics constitutes a noteworthy example.These efforts can even result in novel bricolage configurations of NRS, like diversity-maximising or "anti-bubble" algorithms.Therefore, integration in the form of bricolage can also be a sustainable response to logic multiplicity.However, as a full integration of logics may be possible only when support for the individual logics is low, such strategies may not be as common as aggregatory responses which are also viable when there is high support for individual logics (Pratt and Foreman 2000).In our case, high support for journalistic, tech, and market logics was evident across organisational types and might thus complicate further integration of logics.
Aggregatory and integratory responses were facilitated by ambidextrous "bricoleurs" who can enact multiple logics, due to, for example, their interdisciplinary background (see also Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon 2022).Looking ahead, as news organisations continue to adopt algorithmic technologies and AI, ambidextrous actors might become even more important in alleviating journalistic reservations and accommodating journalistic logics.At the same time, their increasing importance may lead to a redistribution of power and voice within news organisations-especially as these actors may be in managerial positions and closely align with market logics.In the long run, these actors' pivotal role in both decision-making and in aligning different logics might undermine the sustainability of traditional job profiles with clearcut role delineations (see e.g., Guo and Volz 2019).
While not the focus of this study, we also discover indicators of an increasing importance of responsiveness to audience preferences, highlighting the role of audiences as silent stakeholders (Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon 2022).Such an audience orientation may be the result of a fusion of tech and market logics into a new "personalisation logic" (Svensson 2021).Corroborating this, we find a pervasive belief among tech and managerial actors that NRS can help news organisations better cater to their audiences.Future research should therefore more closely examine the emergence of novel logics, for example, audience logics (Lischka 2020), and how they potentially steer the implementation of data-driven solutions.
Although our analysis was based on a wider set of different types of news organisations in Switzerland and the Netherlands, our findings largely mirror Svensson's (2021) and Smets, Hendrickx, and Ballon's (2022) studies, which were conducted in Sweden and Belgium.Overall, the present study corroborates existing investigations of NRS and expands scholarship to new country contexts, showing that responses to conflicting logics seem to be similar across media organisation types as well as across countries with democratic-corporatist media systems (Humprecht et al. 2022).However, our findings indicate some slight differences across organisational types which merit further investigation.For example, solutions that algorithmically account for diversity were described as more advanced in the sampled upmarket and mass-market outlets than in the public broadcasters and the Dutch digital native outlet.Moreover, ambidextrous actors seem to be particularly influential for decision-making in the sampled massmarket outlets and the publishing house.Yet, it is difficult to disentangle whether these differences are necessarily related to the media type and associated professional ideals and commercial imperatives (see also Klinger and Svensson 2018), or rather to resource configurations and the state of NRS development.
Our study is not without limitations.As we employed a qualitative approach, our findings pertain to a small set of actors and hinge on individual news professionals' accounts and recollections about NRS projects.To tap into possible contradictions in what is said and what is done, future research can benefit from a stronger ethnographic approach.
Additionally, we are not able to examine how the different approaches were enacted or institutionalised, and the conditions that facilitated or perhaps inhibited these responses' pursuit.Indeed, aggregation and integration come with their own set of challenges: A full integration of logics into a new one may reduce organisational flexibility in responding to multiple logics, particularly if the original logics are dismantled, whereas aggregation requires time, coordination, and resources to ensure feasible synergies (Pratt and Foreman 2000).Future research should therefore examine these conditions in more detail.
Lastly, our qualitative approach and small sample does not allow us to systematise differences between countries and media organisation types.Thus, a broader examination of individual news organisations' NRS projects, also beyond the context of small, democratic-corporatist media systems, is a promising next step.
Despite these limitations, our study shows that in today's digitalised world, news organisations constitute complex institutional environments in which the interplay of journalistic, tech, and market logics are both consequence and antecedent of change.To deal with this institutional complexity, organisations might not have to bet on one single strategy; instead incorporating different approaches might prove a more promising solution.Ultimately, the "collision of worlds" can give rise to new organisational dynamics and synergies, particularly visible in the increasing importance of mediatory roles.Yet, this collision can also facilitate the creation of unique algorithmic configurations such as responsible NRS.Future research should continue to investigate how these changes implicate news work more broadly and recursively influence the different logics at play.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Overview of RQs and corresponding themes.