Here it is:
I want to be positive. I want to talk about the things that WORK for families, and that are life-enhancing.
I don’t want to spend my days in a defensive crouch, parrying and rebutting. I mean, I’ll do it, because sometimes you gotta. Because, to quote Naida Glavish: “īna kite koe ki tētahi mea hē, me whakatika. Īnā kao, he rite koe ki taua hē.”
Which is to say: If you see an error you must correct it. If you don’t, you become part of that error.
Which brings me to this piece of research, which got a bit of media coverage here. This is another example of what I call “SHRUG!” responses within family research … it kinda goes like this: “Guidelines are hard to adhere to, so … SHRUG … let’s not”. I came upon this again and again while reading everything I possibly could during my PhD. Admittedly, I’ve slowed down a lot of my consumption of research in the ensuing months, but I’m still keeping an eye out.
So, I read the study closely, and (shout out to my colleague @ Auckland Uni) I paid attention to the twenty-one times the authors use the word “technopanic”. I also noted that there is NO mention of infant needs, neurodevelopment, attachment relationship, or developmental trajectories as impacted by screen use/technoference.
In fact, the child’s eye view is completely absent. Ugh. This shizz grinds my gears.
Therefore: I conclude that this is a piece of adult-centric work without declarations of researcher positionality. I see that it privileges parent’s conveniences and feelings without consideration of children’s developmental needs. Their irrefutable, biological, time-sensitive needs! I also don’t recall seeing any acknowledgement of the benefits for parents that are associated with reduced or purposeful screen use.
Yes, guidelines are imperfect and behaviour change is often hard, but it’s worth a crack. It’s a modifiable factor with implications for child development. So … ideally with clinician support … let’s give it a go!
The acceptable reason not to do so would be because a person is so darned busy with their activism, working to get child-centred design on people’s radars, and spreading the word about the need for humane technology.