Should commercial researchers be more academic, or should academics be more commercial?

Ethical committees in Universities are challenging and questioning about the way research is carried out, especially in relation to vulnerable participants, and research with children. Some of the post-graduate students I’ve supervised over the last few years with subjects that centre on child development and wellbeing have steered clear of certain topics, or even avoided doing research with children at all for fear of being turned down by ethics committees. Which raises the question about whether the same scrutiny should apply to commercial research?

Some professional academic researchers (in that they are employed by Universities to carry out research) profess to being driven mad by the hurdles of ethics committees, not least because of the time it takes to prepare materials and to have clearance. In the commercial world such luxury of time may not be possible. It could be argued however that to ensure that research is valid, and especially research carried out with vulnerable participants, it should never be rushed or not thought through.

Academic research, in the UK amongst other countries, is highly regarded and trusted. While mostly highly respected, this may nevertheless not always the case of commercial research. If this means ensuring that the research methodology, sampling and proposed reporting is subject to the scrutiny of a body of professional researchers beforehand, as well as results rigorously peer reviewed afterwards, this should not be challenged. It could be argued that commercial research should sometimes take a leaf out of academia in ensuring that it is truly robust, ethical, fair, and interpreted in a way that reflects the high standards of the professional commercial research industry. The demand for instant results will always be there, but commercial researchers may sometimes need to push back and argue for time, consideration, and peer review of results.

Kids as Consumers

There is little heard now about ‘Pester Power’ or the ‘Nag Factor’, but these were terms frequently used a few years back by marketers. Happening on a brochure from a very old conference about marketing to children, held in a southern European city, it is clear from this that the message appeared to be ‘how do we persuade kids to buy, or pester their parents to buy for them’. It is refreshing, and probably says a lot for the adoption of CSR by large organisations, that the emphasis now is on child wellbeing; how might we understand children and how might we protect children rather than how do we sell to them. Not that children today are regarded any less as consumers, but they are rightly viewed also as potentially vulnerable consumers with rights. Perhaps the industry has grown up. Certainly many of our clients now have children of their own, something that was not always the case a few years back when anything to do with kids was delegated to junior execs.

My experience is that clients today have a deep interest in and hunger for knowledge about their target market, be it child development, cultural differences, behaviour, or psychology. They are far more sophisticated and sensitive in the way they communicate with families and children, and are eager to learn about children’s world and children’s behaviour. ‘Learn how to maximise pester power and tips for encouraging kids to ask for your product’ (a true quote from that old conference brochure) is unlikely to be seen again.

Conferences, and myth busting about kids and digital

I attended an excellent conference yesterday at the British Library (yesterday was ‘Super Thursday’, the day booksellers rush out titles for Christmas). Organised by The Bookseller, the Children’s Conference looked at the digital landscape for children and considered how this is impacting on print media; the conference had a thoughtful and receptive audience as well as insightful co-speakers. I presented key findings from our Digital Family Kids and Youth research.

It is the season of conferences; last week was the ESOMAR Congress in Amsterdam, where I presented a paper co-written with Catriona Ferris from Unilever on the change in family life in emerging countries such as China and Brazil. In the hotel lift on the way to breakfast on Tuesday I met the conference cartoonist Mark Siermaczeski (crueltyfreecartoons.com) which resulted in a highly entertaining breakfast; he has since sent a cartoon – not bad drawn from memory.

There has been much discussion about the UNICEF Research carried out in the UK, Spain and Sweden, published 14 September. Being qualitative research it inevitably focused on relatively small samples of families (8 in each country) and groups of children (2 groups or depth interviews in 7 schools per country). The report pointed out that families in the UK appear to be more materialistic than in Spain or Sweden. The conference yesterday emphasised the reality of children’s lives today and the place of digital devices, and there was discussion about digital media replacing parental engagement. Parents do feel guilty about the amount of time and the quality of time they spend with their children, but our IKEA Play Report research, carried out with 11,000 parents and children in 25 countries, emphasised how common this is in many countries, and how children do indeed want their parents to spend more time with them. While our Play Report reflects much of what was in the UNICEF research, we did not find that the UK was particularly worse that Spain or Sweden in terms of parental time and feelings of guilt.


At yet another very good conference last week the third wave of the EU Kids Online research was launched at the LSE, London. Sonia Livingstone summed up the findings by questioning a number of myths that abound around children and digital. Included in these was the myth that children are meeting strangers online. This certainly backs up our research; most children are meeting their friends online, and as I have frequently argued, it is those children who are vulnerable in the off-line world who are most vulnerable in the online world. If parents do not have the ability, the time, or the inclination to engage with their children, this can leave their children more vulnerable to becoming lonely and isolated, which in turn might make them victims of unpleasant experiences online. There was a general call for adults - parents, teachers, social workers - to become better clued up about children’s online activity, a point emphasised at yesterday’s conference by Tamara Littleton, CEO of eModeration http://www.emoderation.com/ . Tamara described the work that eModeration does in monitoring websites, and made the point that many responsible social networking sites can do a great deal to protect children and moderate language and behaviour; this must be reassuring for parents.

What is poor parenting?

An American commentator said yesterday that a couple of months ago England was viewed as the land of Harry Potter and royal weddings, and now it is apparently the land of anarchy. He has a point. It is shocking to see bored and disillusioned children and teenagers behaving on our urban streets in a way that is more like Lord of the Flies than helpful, clever, Harry Potter. William Golding’s novel describes children stranded on a desert island and attempting to govern themselves with no adults around, painfully recording their decent into savagery.

Children need boundaries, and they need adults around them who will guide them, care for them and listen to them. In the aftermath of 3 days of unbounded behaviour it is easy to imagine that all children can behave like savages. Of course this is not true, any more than saying that all parents are bad. In our research we have been into many family homes where there is little in the way of material goods and even less in the way of family income, but where the warmth and love given to children by parents and grandparents is moving and impressive. Equally we’ve been into homes of prosperous families where there is no shortage of material wealth but little time for interaction with children. But most parents want to do the best for their children, and most bring them up in the best way they can. Parents do need support and they do need friendly (not prescriptive) advice; being a parent is tough, especially when children reach adolescence, and that is irrespective of social class or race.

Many studies have been carried out on resilience, considering why some children seem to survive difficult and deprived childhoods, emerging as healthy and successful adults and others are sucked into a black hole of truancy, petty theft, and drug abuse. The common factor seems to be that that there has been one person, or a group of people, to whom the child can turn for support and understanding. This can be a relative or someone in the community: for example a grandparent, a neighbour, a priest, or a teacher; someone who has taken sufficient interest in that child to make them feel worthwhile, and to build their self-esteem. Friends are important to children and especially to adolescents, but they can be a negative as well as a positive influence. Without a sense of confidence and self-esteem adolescents can be deeply influenced by their peers, and at its worst drawn into a world of gang culture and subversive behaviour.

Parents who can’t cope, who might be depressed or addicted to drugs or alcohol, are clearly not likely to be able to be a positive influence on their children. These children are then very vulnerable. Poor parenting is much more than not knowing where your child is, or what they are doing, it is about not having the time or emotional resource to be fully engaged with that child. But it should also be remembered that most of the time most parents are, in paediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s phrase, ‘good enough’.

5 a day – tips on parenting – helpful or prescriptive?

Giving tips on parenting is always a difficult area, but the news that the Coalition Government is thinking of rolling out a national campaign to help under-performing children was bound to prompt criticism (see The Telegraph as an example). This has been based on the Lib-Dem’s think tank ‘The CentreForum's report’ which suggests a ‘5-a-day’ guideline to effective parenting. It might be the name that is unfortunate. There have been many comments over the last week since the guidelines were issued that ‘5 a day’ refers to the ‘unsuccessful’ campaign that encourages children to eat fruit and vegetables. But I would question this; I don’t think we’ve interviewed a school-aged child who does not understand what ‘5-a-day’ in terms of eating fruit and vegetables is about – often prompted by their school being part of the Healthy Schools initiative. Children are frequently telling their parents about healthy eating.
CentreForum's five guidelines are: Read to your child for 15 minutes; Play with your child on the floor for 10 minutes; Talk with your child for 20 minutes with the television off; Adopt positive attitudes towards your child and praise them frequently; Give your child a nutritious diet. Twitter, Netmums and Mumsnet have all registered disquiet about ‘directing’ parents about parenting but perhaps the report deserves a closer look.
The full report ‘Parenting Matters: Early Years and Social Mobility’ by Chris Paterson at the Centre Forum is very good. The report states ‘It is now firmly established that the single most important factor influencing child intellectual and social development is the quality of parenting and care that a child receives and the quality and conduciveness of the Home Learning Environment (“HLE”) that this creates. ‘(page 12). It goes on to look in depth at early brain formation, and points out the vital need for early interaction and bonding between child and parent or care giver: ‘when strong, frequent, or prolonged exposure to adverse experiences – such as extreme poverty, abuse or neglect – are experienced in early life without adult support, the stress caused can become literally toxic to the developing brain architecture.’ (page 20). This point is made by Sue Gerhardt in her book ‘Why Love Matters: how affection shapes a baby’s brain’, based on research in neuroscience, psychology, psychoanalysis and biochemistry.
Issuing such guidelines in the summer school holidays may be a sound move, but in our most recent research with mums over the last week we have found that many find themselves enervated, and there’s still another 4 weeks to go before children return to playschool and school. The weather hasn’t been great, and for many families money is short; there is uncertainty about their financial future, and holidays away from home have not been possible, so not surprisingly there is trepidation about what to do with the kids in the holidays. Grandparents can play a part in helping with childcare and with ideas for entertaining the kids, but many families are now removed from family support, and mums we talk to do not necessarily turn to their parents for guidance. It is interesting to note that our research for the Ikea Playreport (the largest international study ever done on play) indicated that two-thirds of parents would seek information on parenting from the media (including websites, blogs and TV), but the most trusted source would be their parents (30%) followed by health professionals (17%). However other research has shown us that some parents can find social networking sites for mums in particular a bit daunting and patronising; having advice and support online or anywhere would help, but does it have to be quite so prescriptive?