Hey there, it’s Melinda. I can’t believe this is the penultimate blog for my tenure as the CMA blogger. But don’t weep yet gentle reader there’s still one more from me to come. This one is not from me as I’ve invited our guest blogger extraordinaire Laurie-Anne Vazquez to once again share her insights on our last even of the season. Well last event with the exception of the holiday party because what happens at the holiday party stays at the holiday party. As you may recall, Laurie is a graduate of NYU’s Goldberg Department of Dramatic Writing and an aspiring kids’ TV writer for ages 6-11. She was submitted for a Humanitas Award for her spec for The Jackie Chan Adventures and she currently bides her time at Popular Science magazine, pitching geeky science articles while she figures out how to write smart kids and fun fight scenes for a living — or The Legend of Korra. Take it away, Laurie!
I learned a whole lot at CMA’s “Bridge Under Construction: Connecting Academia and Industry” event on Wednesday, November 20. I forgot to put my academic cap on, for one (scaffolding? Is that like the moveable skeleton of a computer-designed character??). Someone invented an iPad potty to use in toilet training, for another.
Mostly, I learned that academics and industry folks have deep respect for each other’s work. They’re just not speaking the same language.
Alison Bryant, CEO and Chief Play Officer of PlayCollective was our enthusiastic moderator. The panel featured Fran Blumberg (Fordham), Renee Cherow-O’Leary (Teacher’s College, Columbia) and Vikki Katz (Rutgers) speaking on behalf of the academic community, and Sean McEvoy (VP Game Production for Nick Digital), Bob Higgins (EVP, Fremantle Kids and Family Entertainment), and Alice Cahn (VP, Social Responsibility for Sesame) speaking on behalf of the industry. All of them smart and devoted to enriching children’s lives. All of them trying to make the best stuff possible.
None of them were quite sure about this bridge.
The academics kicked us off by sharing what they wanted the industry to know. Developmental appropriateness for each product’s intended audience was a large concern for Fran, as was scaffolding – or, building in educational touchpoints from the conception of the product or Show Bible instead of shoehorning them in later. Renee (whose career spans both academia and industry) emphasized that content creators need to be more unified across transmedia brand experiences – and Vikki summarized the problem by saying that academics focus on process while industry folks focus on best practices… or, the same goals but different foci without a framework for thinking across industries.
She spoke in words I understood, God Bless her.
The industry folks took copious notes and addressed all of those concerns. Sean was extremely concerned about scaffolding and developmental appropriateness being part of every game Nickelodeon makes. Bob clarified that industry folks read and anticipate academic research; they just want to know, with exact certainty, what is going to work for their demographic in a way that doesn’t come across as boring. Alice pointed out that this issue has been discussed FOREVER and there is a bridge… the difficulty is that the industry is in the business of entertaining, not educating. “We’re not PBS,” she explained. “It’s a different industry. We take what you give us, but we don’t use it the way you want us to.”
She also spoke in words I understood.
The industry folks then asked industry folks what they wanted to know about academics. Sean wanted to know what the academics considered an ideal example of collaboration with the industry, while Bob wanted to know how quickly research could keep up with the pace of technological development. All practicality from these folks.
In terms of a successful collaboration, the academics all cited Sesame Street. No one disputed that – but when Alice pressed for an interactive, non-preschool example, the discussion evolved into adapting the academic process for media with faster deadlines (and cited “Ben 10: Game Creator” as a successful, interactive, non-preschool collaboration). Renee pointed out that it’s hard to do fast well because ALL of the academics and content creators need to be at the table from the start. Vikki pointed out that it’s impossible to chase the latest shiny gadget, but they can offer context for in-house media usage; she had kids draw up a map of all the devices in their house and describe how and how frequently each got used. It wasn’t about quantity for her kids, but quality – and that reminder that “people don’t use technology in a vacuum” was a fantastic boon to the industry folks.
Lastly, Fran wanted to know how industry folks were consistently able to create such engaging products. Alice shared a great story about giving kids content they actually want rather than content we want them to absorb. Bob pointed out that finding the right talent to make those products is key – and when Vikki asked how they handled diversity he shared that his company tries to showcase as many different kinds of people as possible in every show. Alice chimed in to point out that she thought children’s television was leagues ahead of primetime television in terms of showcasing diversity – or, as she so eloquently put it, “letting kids see themselves.” Sean, to his immense credit, admitted that the gaming industry has a lot of work to do in terms of diversity.
Speaking of games – we got to play one! Quizmaster Stephen Gass (President, every baby company & Principal at The Gass Company) threw out 4 interesting research-based questions with multiple choice answers for everyone to guess at. The first one that threw us for a loop was about Christake’s infamous 2004 study linking early TV viewing with ADHD. We learned that the study was totally bogus: researchers essentially called parents and asked if their kid was more jumpy after watching TV, and these parental observations of their children at ages 1, 3 and 7 were manufactured into clinical results. It was refuted a year later – but never reported in the media! That’s why people still think that showing wee ones TV will give them ADHD. But it won’t. At least, not according to that study.
Hard, right? Here was the next question:
We were all over the place on this one, though correct in understanding that each of those statements is completely contextual.
There was a fantastically interesting question about when interactive hotspots in e-books helped improve a child’s ability to retell stories after that. The answer, which everyone guessed, was sometimes: when the hotspot was on track with narrative, rather than distracting the kid from the story, kids were better at retelling the story. Which sounds obvious. Because it is.
This was our last question:
In short, we learned that all of this stuff is correlational. Stephen urged us to always look at what variables are being balanced… and to never believe anything you read at face value. All in all, it was a great way to explore the role of data and research in children’s media – and a great way to remember that we really are all in this together. Kudos, everyone!