Does the term 'research-based' keep parents in the dark?

Does applying the term 'research-based' to parental advice automatically provide a stamp of authority? A commentary paper published in the Journal of Children and Media suggests that parents and caregivers are frequently misled into an 'ignorance trap' by recommendations which are based on ill-informed research.

The risk of ambiguous parental advice is a hazard across health and education journalism, but seems to particularly affect the reporting on media and children. Parents are faced with making sense of increasingly intricate research findings and so are becoming ever-more reliant on advice provided by bloggers and reporters. Meanwhile, new ways for children to use arrive every year, and so clear guidance and advice is imperative to support parents in their choices.

The commentary names one particular example of a report published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which contained advice relating to children's use of . The report contained reference to the phrase 'Facebook depression', an expression which was quickly picked up by the press and used with the cachet of a real medical term. Stories on this phenomenon appeared across newspapers and television channels worldwide, despite not being based on any real evidence. The commentary finds that the citations actually originated from a first person account in a school newspaper, and from two websites names Trend Hunter and Science a Go Go. None of the citations referred to any research showing that social media use causes depression. Yet, because of the reputation and authority of the AAP, the one small mention of 'Facebook depression' has had a large impact.

Guernsey suggests that both reporters and professional organizations have a responsibility to communicate clear and transparent advice to parents. Reporters need to gain an understanding of how research works and professional organisations need to be able to back up their statements with carefully reviewed research. To do so otherwise causes confusion, and undermines the credibility of professionals and the important research they conduct.

More information: "Garbled in Translation: Getting Media Research to the Press and Public," Lisa Guernsey. Journal of Children and Media, 2014. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2014.863486

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Contradictory nutrition news creates consumer confusion

Jan 29, 2014

Exposure to conflicting news about the health benefits of certain foods, vitamins and supplements often results in confusion and backlash against nutrition recommendations, finds a recent study in the Journal of ...

Most parents monitor kids on Facebook, study finds

Jun 13, 2013

Some two-thirds of American parents monitor their children's Facebook activities, but a large percentage say they trust their youngsters to manage on their own, a study showed Thursday.

Recommended for you

Unique EarlyBird study set for historic third phase

1 hour ago

A unique study which has followed 300 young people from age five since 2000, has received backing for a third phase which will see it become the first study of its kind in the world to track the same group ...

Singapore launches universal health insurance

3 hours ago

Singapore's parliament has enacted a universal health insurance scheme with nearly $3.0 billion in subsidies to help the elderly and lower-income people, as it responds to demands for better social safety nets.

Some doctors won't see patients with anti-vaccine views

15 hours ago

With California gripped by a measles outbreak, Dr. Charles Goodman posted a clear notice in his waiting room and on Facebook: His practice will no longer see children whose parents won't get them vaccinated.

User comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.