LAUSR

Over the years, much has been written about how to promote collaboration between academic researchers and children’s media professionals. In this sense, my co-author (and husband) J. J. Johnson and I are good role models: I’m a developmental psychologist who earned my PhD from Vanderbilt University, and am a children’s media consultant and co-director of the Children’s Media Lab at Ryerson University. J. J. is an award-winning writer, producer, and director of children’s media, the co-founder of Sinking Ship Entertainment, and has created 17 children’s series including the international hit Annedroids, the Emmy-winning Dino Dan series, and This is Daniel Cook. Initial steps towards finding ways for academics to support innovative content creation is to understand the type of network feedback creators receive, and how “research” is often thrown around with various meanings. It is the funding networks who decide which shows get picked up in the first place, and who help shape the development of shows. Content creators often adapt to network notes and feedback due to the competitive nature of the business and the network’s profound influence. Although these notes are often extremely helpful and effective, they can also stifle innovation. This is because networks often rely on market research and infer broad trends from the results rather than hard data, which risks perpetuating into myths. In J. J.’s case, these myths have often gone against his creative ambitions and have therefore nearly prevented him from creating successful and innovative content on multiple occasions. Relevant and thoughtfully disseminated academic research, on the other hand, has both inspired and validated his work. Although market research can be helpful in identifying trends, it risks underestimating children and their desires. Until children are presented with alternatives to what they currently have, it is difficult to truly know what they want, and thus what will be successful. We believe that networks must exercise caution when drawing assumptions from market research and presenting them to show creators as steadfast “facts” about children and media. There has to be room for shows that defy existing myths, particularly as society is rapidly changing and diversifying. If not, we risk everything looking the same, and missing out on the “next big thing”. More importantly, timely content that could truly benefit children may not be created. This is easier said than done; it requires show creators to push back on this type of network feedback (which is where academic research can help in making their case),