In reading the article \u201cscreen time guidelines should be based on evidence, not hype\u201d by Etchells et al., it is difficult to go against the position of \u2018science\u2019 based empirical pursuit. But, let me play \u2018devil\u2019s advocate\u2019 in this rebuttal post, posing for the opposition to the proposition\u2019s case. Etchells et al. (2017) argue, in response to a letter written by Palmer et al., that \u201cwe need quality research and evidence to support these claims and inform any policy discussion\u201d (para. 2). Their argument is in response to Palmer et al. (2016) who argue in a letter that \u201cdespite widespread public concern, subsequent policy-making has been half-hearted, short-termist and disjointedly ineffective\u201d (para. 2) in regards to \u201cincreasingly screen-based lifestyles\u201d (para. 1) of children. Etchells et al. (2017) make the case that the solution to this problem is effective empirical research which in turn will increase the probability of good policy. They assert not enough empirical and science-based evidence is present in the literature to warrant the response of Palmer and her colleagues.<\/p>\n
On a quick glance and read of the article, most individuals would probably agree with Etchells et al. After all, are they wrong in anything they assert? I have read their article many times over now and have to say, I do not really disagree with the principles they assert. After all, good empirical research is usually always helpful and the notion that policies should be based on good evidence is also true. But what about their word choice or diction inherently required for them to do the rebuttal in the first place\u2026words like moral, family, and well-being, to name a few within the article. Policy cannot simply be based on the notion of good empirical research. Are the 40 signatories of education professionals, not-for-profit agencies, and health professionals who align their views with Palmer some how catastrophizing the children technology usage issue? My answer to that, No.<\/p>\n
As a childcare professional and childcare manager for numerous facilities, prior to my military career, I understand the position of Palmer and her colleagues. I saw too many times children from ages 4-12 addicted to their phones, tablets and smart devices alike. I saw children who refused to want to interact on a physical level with other children, but were perfectly fine, if not adamant, to interact with other kids between their smart devices. Is there anything wrong with the technologically inclined child, lets call them the digitally native child? The answer depends, in my opinion, on your worldview. What inherent principles or moral codes do you hold to? What does it mean to you to be in good relationship with another person? Watching a child refuse to play tag with all the other kids, but someone was fine to play a car racing game on their smart phone seemed wrong on so many levels to me. By no means by any empirical standard, but from my worldview position.<\/p>\n
Policy formation is complicated and multifaceted. I assert that empirical evidence can indeed aid in the policy formation of children screen usage \u2013 whatever that actually looks like. However, I also assert that non-empirical evidence is equally important in this case, perhaps arguably more important. Policies based on the almost metaphysical concepts of terms like family and well-being, deserve a multitude of evidence-based approaches and data. Data such as anecdotal evidences, survey polls, and approaches for viewpoint consensus such as formal debate may be useful. Etchells et al. (2017) said themselves that the \u201cacknowledgement that children\u2019s health is a complex issue\u201d must be realized (para. 3). Moreover, their evidence within the literature was inconclusive, with most articles hinting that Palmer and colleagues may have research backed merit to their so-called exaggerated analysis (see Mills, 2016; George & Odjers, 2015; Gebremariam\u00a0 et al., 2013; and Briddle et al., 2004).<\/p>\n
After this rebuttal, you can start to see my unintentional worldview take shape. But you can arguably see the worldview of both Etchells et al. and Palmer et al. equally take shape as well in their articles. Something to think about when pondering policy production.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Briddle, S.J., Gorely, T., Marshall S.J., Murdey, I., & Cameron, N. (2004). Physical activity and sedentary behaviours in youth: issues and controversies. Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 124(1), 29-33. Retrieved from: https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/14971190<\/p>\n
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<\/p>\n
Gebremariam, M.K., et al. (2013). Are screen-based sedentary behaviours longitudinally associated with dietary behaviours and leisure-time physical activity in the transition into adolescence? International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(9). doi: 10.1186\/1479-5868-10-9<\/p>\n
George, M.J., & Odgers, C.L. (2015). Seven fears and the science of how mobile technologies may be influencing adolescents in the digital age. Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(6), 832-851. doi: 10.1177\/1745691615596788<\/p>\n
Mills, K.L. (2016). Possible effects of internet use on cognitive development in adolescence. Media and Communication, 4(3). doi: http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.17645\/mac.v4i3.516<\/p>\n
Palmer, S., et al. (December, 25, 2016). Screen-based lifestyle harms children\u2019s health. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/education\/2016\/dec\/25\/screen-based-lifestyle-harms-health-of-children<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In reading the article \u201cscreen time guidelines should be based on evidence, not hype\u201d by Etchells et al., it is difficult to go against the position of \u2018science\u2019 based empirical pursuit. But, let me play \u2018devil\u2019s advocate\u2019 in this rebuttal post, posing for the opposition to the proposition\u2019s case. Etchells et al. (2017) argue, in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":144,"featured_media":282,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lrnt523"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/144"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=281"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":284,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281\/revisions\/284"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/282"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0114\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}