Etchells et al. (2017) responds to an article in The Guardian titled, “Screen-based lifestyle harms children’s health” (Palmer et al., 2016), disagreeing with the perceived underlying message of the article that screens are inherently harmful and implying that the article was “moral panic about the impact of new technologies on our behaviour and development” (Etchells et al., 2017, para 1). Specifically, Etchells et al. (2017) argues that there is not sufficient research to implement policy guidelines and that additional research is required.
Despite the article’s title, Palmer et al. (2016) only mentions screen-time twice in the article, once in the first paragraph where they state four large issues that they believe are undermining children’s health and well-being and once in a subparagraph where the recommend, “National guidelines on screen-based technology for children up to the age of 12, produced by recognised authorities in child health and development” (Palmer et al., 2016, para 3). As Palmer et al. (2016) are recommending a recognised authority produces guidelines, this could in fact involve research if the recognised authority deems there is insufficient evidence. Additionally, Palmer et al. (2016) does recognise the issue is complex and there are numerous factors and has indeed cited four influential factors. So, in many ways although Etchells et al. (2017) are setting themselves up as an adversary, the desire to focus on children’s health and further understand and progress the issue appears to be something that they share with Palmer et al. (2016).
As a mother, I found Etchells et al.’s response unhelpful as they did not provide any guidance that could help even though they linked to several articles that specifically identified areas where there are known impacts of technology. For example, George & Odgers (2015) noted, “Sleep is one area where there is now compelling evidence that adolescents’ use of new technologies is having adverse effects on sleep duration and quality” (p. 16). A far more useful response is given by Livingston (2016) where she examines the American Academy of Pediatrics stance on screen time and the evidence behind it. This examination provides readers with a balanced viewpoint helping parents understand some of the nuances that Etchells et al. (2017) merely referred to as complex. Overall, Etchells et al. (2017) could have used the opportunity to help parents understand some of the things we do know about what is a very complex issue and instead their only recommendation is for more research. I find their approach to be antagonistic within the scientific community and uninformative to the public at large.
References:
Etchells, P., et al. (January 6, 2017). Screen Time Guidelines should be built on evidence, not hype. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/jan/06/screen-time-guidelines-need-to-be-built-on-evidence-not-hype
George, M. J., & Odgers, C. L. (2015). Seven fears and the science of how mobile technologies may be influencing adolescents in the digital age. Perspectives on psychological science, 10(6), 832-851. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654691/pdf/nihms704598.pdf
Livingstone, S. (October 21, 2016). New screen time rules from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Retrieved from: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2016/10/24/new-screen-time-rules-from-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics/
Palmer, S., et al. (December 26, 2016). Screen-based lifestyle harms children’s health. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/25/screen-based-lifestyle-harms-health-of-children