Canadian Kids Get an "F" in Active Play

This week, Active Healthy Kids Canada published their annual report card on physical activity levels of Canadian children and youth, giving kids - and their parents - failing grades when it comes to engaging in active play. You can read the short report here, or delve into the longer report here. The gist was well summarized in an article written by Lauren La Rose for the Globe and Mail:

Many Canadian kids are failing to make the grade when it comes to reaching physical activity targets, with too few hours devoted to active play and too much free time fixated on TV, computer and game screens. Active Healthy Kids Canada released its annual Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth on Tuesday which paints a grim picture of the activity levels of many Canadian youngsters.

The report itself consists primarily of a broad literature review of recent studies, data and articles examining various aspects of kids' physical activity levels, so some of this is definitely stuff we've heard before. The main contribution of this type of report is in how it compiles and makes sense of the data...but in summarizing, there is indeed a bit of a risk of obscuring the source. i.e. if any of these findings or studies included in the report are of particular interest or relevance to you, be sure to track down the original source and read/evaluate it for yourself to make your own judgements about the validity and reliability of the study, generalizability of findings, whether or not the conclusions drawn make sense, etc. With that in mind - here are some items from the report that I think deserve in-depth attention and further discussion.

The report describes that research in this area has consistently found a substantial decrease in the amount of time kids are engaging in free play. The key "takeaway" that everyone studying, teaching, caring for and working with kids needs to stop and think about = 46% of Canadian kids getting "3 hrs or less of active play each week." Three hours. Or less.

So, if the big finding here is the starling lack of "active play" kids are engaged in, of equal importance are the findings on where and when kids aren't playing. Outdoor play continues to decrease, down 14% in the past decade. According to one of the studies reviewed, "At lunch and after school, kids are getting only 24 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity out of a possible 4 hours" (the minimum recommended is 1 hr/day). Another study reveals that on weekends, when kids theoretically have the most amount of free time, they are actually "less active than on weekdays."

Although the report and organization both focus on physical activity, their analysis isn't limited to questions of fitness and exercise. Throughout the report, Active Kids Healthy Canada consistently stress that there some important distinctions between physical activity and active play, highlighting the unique attributes and importance of unstructured, child-driven play in particular. I especially appreciated this aspect of it, as an over-emphasis on "good" play = fitness is just another way of instrumentalizing kids' leisure. Anyway, the report defines play as:

"generally freely chosen, spontaneous, self-directed and fun.34-35 Play allows children and youth of all ages to try new things, test boundaries, learn from their mistakes and, perhaps most importantly, enjoy being active.

According to Mark Tremblay, director of Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, who was interviewed for the La Rose article, active play is the "overlooked sibling" of physical activity. He is cited in the article as saying:

"It doesn’t have to be complicated, it doesn’t have to be equipment-intensive, it doesn’t have to be led by us, the parents or the playground supervisor or the coach or anyone. This is the business of childhood: let kids play or reduce the suppression of their natural desire to play.”

The report also stresses that "Not only is there value in this free time, it’s what kids want." One report showed that 92% of kids reported that they would chose playing with friends over watching tv. In another, global study, "playing with friends was the single favourite pastime of kids around the world." In addition, 74% of Canadian kids (grades 4 to 6) reported that they would like to do something active after school, while 31% would chose to play with friends at a playground. So if it's not a lack of interest on the kids' part, what's the issue?

Overprotective Parents
According to the report, the research indicates that over-structured leisure time and over-protective parenting are clearly part of the problem:

Unfortunately, over-protective parenting, plus the lure of ever-present technology, is driving kids into highly controlled environments, where they have little opportunity to let loose, run around, build, explore and interact with peers on their own terms.

This issue was also  covered in the La Rose article, who describes:

"A survey featured in the report reveals 82% of mothers cite safety concerns as reasons why they restrict outdoor play, such as worries about crime, traffic, outdoor darkness, lack of supervision and neighbourhood dangers like bullies and rundown buildings. In another poll, 58% of Canadian parents say they’re very concerned about keeping their kids safe and feel they have to be overprotective of them."

As one of my tweeps (@cogno) commented: "My fav line: "they feel they have to be overprotective of them". Isn't "overprotective" by definition too much?". Indeed!

This aspect of the report was the subject of a second, follow-up Globe & Mail article, written by Bauja and McGinn, bearing the headline: "Parental fear contributing to sedentary lifestyle of Canadian children: report." They interview Free-Range Kids author & trail blazer Lenore Skenzy, who makes the uncomfortably compelling point that "Your fear ... is putting your kid at risk of something far less dramatic, like obesity ... and something that’s more likely to happen than getting snatched off the street."


Indoor Play vs. Screen Time
Another facet of the AHKC report (and subsequent news reporting) warranting further discussion (not to mention one that gave me an initial cringe reaction) was the emphasis placed on screen time. My first thought was - here we go again, blaming the media for what is clearly a much larger problem, i.e. children's ever-decreasing access to leisure spaces...or at least, leisure spaces that aren't designed for, afford or are explicitly limited to sedentary activities.

The report describes that "63% of kids’ free time after school and on weekends is spent being sedentary," and that "seven hours and 48 minutes per day in front of screens, almost four times the guideline of no more than two hours per day." I'm a big fan of indoor play as well as outdoor play, but know that it isn't always all that fun or free. Homes have restrictions on who's allowed to do what where and when...and I'm wondering how much household rules, negotiation of space, etc., also contribute to the predominance that screen time seems to have taken in kids' indoor play lives.

©2008 libbyrosof on flickr

Of course, screens and gadget do also offer pretty entertaining alternatives to other forms of indoor play. I'm reminded here of @davidgauntlett live tweeting a recent video-presentation by Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi on creativity, who relayed the following: "In the past, Csikszentmihalyi says, childhood was boring, & you had to make your own solution to that problem. This was good thing." 

There is indeed plenty of research indicating that videogames and online environments are offering pretty appealing spaces for kids to congregate and play, where they can enjoy the "complete freedom of movement" (see Jenkins, 1999) once enjoyed by kids as they played in and explored their backyards and neighbourhoods, something that today's kids clearly no longer have access to. But it's also this very aspect of gaming and online exploration that makes it sound more like active play than something that is purely sedentary. I'm uncomfortable with many of the categorizations here, and very uncomfortable with the clumping together of all media/tech engagement as "screen time." Many of those benefits associated with active and/or free play are also associated with gaming, online creation and exploration, so the dichotomy doesn't really work for me. I'm also still dubious about this really being a cause...from kids' own reports and preferences, it sounds more like a provisional solution. That said, there is a lot in the report that I do like, not least of which is that it leaves a number of questions unanswered...the perfect context for further research and discussion. 

The AHKC also offers up some solutions as part of their report card, which I'm reproducing below because they include some pretty excellent points. But as mentioned above, I hope that this is the beginning of a renewed interest in supporting more opportunities for kids to play, and discussing some of the underlying, systematic barriers to play that have emerged over the past several decades...not just in terms of parental fears, but also in terms of playground closures, child-unfriendly public (and sometimes even domestic) spaces, funding cuts on gym classes and community events, shortened recesses, and the broader implications of hyper-risk-aversion on childhood as a whole. 

How to pRess plAy

Recommendations for increasing opportunities for active play  

[with my own italicized comments added in]

eARly yeARs 

> Provide access to safe, open areas,

either indoors or out, where kids

can move freely. 

> Add balls and toys to encourage

more vigorous play at home, and in

childcare and community settings. [Another study out this week on kids & creativity also points to the importance of having these types of objects available for kids to play with]

> Get down on the floor and play

with them!

sCHool-Age CHildRen 

> Provide access to fields, nature,

skipping ropes, balls and equipment

to facilitate active play. 

> To counter safety concerns, parents

and caregivers can take turns supervising kids at play in the park or on the block, encourage kids to play outside with a buddy and consider street-proofing courses. 

[SMG: not quite the "free range kids" approach, but one step closer, I suppose]

YouTh 

> Accept that tweens and teens need

free time to play without the assumption they are “up to no good.” [yes!!!]

> Increase youth-friendly play spaces

where youth can hang out and direct their own activities.

Kids of All Ages 

> If your child has no free time,

consider reducing the number of

scheduled activities. 

> To increase neighbourhood safety,

advocate for traffic-calming measures such as speed bumps and roundabouts, which have been shown to decrease pedestrian-vehicle accidents.

> To reduce screen time, encourage time spent outdoors, 

every day, instead of in front of TV or video games. [SMG = and here I really wish it said something like, "to diversify kids' play, encourage time spent outdoors...." instead of focusing on the old "all screen time is the same and equally bad" adage]

Pink Aisle Politics (Prezi)

In follow up to last week's post re: INplay 2012, here's the prezi I used for my talk about the gender, toys and the LEGO Friends controversy:

Pink Aisle Politics on Prezi

I had a really great time at the conference, BTW - and met LOADS of very nice people working on really fascinating projects (those one-on-one match-up meetings were such a great idea). Looking forward to following up with them and seeing all the cool stuff set to come out over the next few months.

Next Up: INplay 2012

Next week, I'll be speaking at a very cool sounding local annual conference that brings together professionals and academics engaged in various different facets of the children's cultural industries: INplay 2012. Taking place over two days (May 15-16), the conference schedule includes presentations, panel discussions, case studies and a number of technology ‘show and tells.’ Here's an excerpt from the official website's About page:

INplay is a unique, international event that connects kids creative industries with insights and opportunities in the interactive space. From the video game business to the broadcast industry, from toys to toons, the INplay conference brings together leaders in the kids space to learn, network and be inspired by the future of kids interactive digital media. This year, our integrated programming allows attendees to learn about different dimensions of working with properties for kids aged 2-12 in a single session. Our panelists will connect the dots in these three essential areas: inspiration, investment, insights.

I'm going to be giving a talk on the LEGO Friends controversy that erupted last Christmas, and try to give a bit of context and insight into the girls' games/play debate. This is largely based on a paper I've been working on intermittently since Jan, and will hopefully inspire me to finish it up and publish it somewhere. The talk (and paper) builds on previous work I've done on girls' digital games, and draws on some of my ongoing research on LEGO (but not just the digital versions this time!) and mediatization.

INplay 2012 boasts an extremely exciting lineup of speakers, including Warren Buckleitner (Children's Technology Review), Jesse Schell (Schell Games/Carnegie Mellon), Alison Bryant (PlayScience) and Lori Takeuchi (Joan Ganz Cooney Centre at Sesame Workshop), and including some of my usual partners in crime, Jason Nolan and Melanie McBride (EDGE Lab/Ryerson U), Jaime Woo (Gamercamp/Gamercamp Jr), Jason Kreough (Zinc Roe) and David Fono (Atmosphere Industries). I've been playing LEGO pretty steadily over the past two weeks in preparation ( ;) ), and am really looking forward to engaging with this diverse new audience.

This Week: Pathways to Privacy Research Symposium

©2012 Sara M. Grimes

As the semester is finally winding down, I'm heading to Ottawa this week to take part in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC)'s first Pathways to Privacy Research Symposium at the National Arts Centre (May 2, 2012). The theme is "Privacy for Everyone," and I'll be talking about some of the privacy issues/privacy policy implications I've encountered in my research on kids' online games and other digital communities. The symposium will bring together a small number of academics and key stakeholders from industry, government, advocacy groups and other NGOs, to discuss a variety of privacy issues focused on youth, addressing the needs of diverse populations, emerging technologies and practices, including those focused on identification and surveillance. This will be the first in a larger Pathways to Privacy series, which aims to fulfill a number of important objectives over the coming months, including (as reproduced from the OPC website):

• To showcase privacy-related research funded by OPC’s Contributions Program and other funders.
• To facilitate dialogue between the people who do the research and those who apply it.
• To enhance the relevance of research results and enable uptake and application by relevant end-users.
• To provide an opportunity for interdisciplinary capacity-building, partnership and networking among researchers.

I'm especially looking forward to hearing talks by Dr. Valerie Steeves (University of Ottawa), Dr. Ian Kerr (University of Ottawa), and famous privacy theorist Dr. David Lyon (Queen's University). I'm also beyond delighted to be speaking on a panel with 20 Awareness' Jane Talim (not to mention hearing more about the latest phase of their Young Canadians in a Wired World research), as well as finding out what John Lawford (legal counsel with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre) has to say about data-mining (and compiling) kids' info (at least, that what I'm guessing his talk is about based on the title).

For those of you planning to attend, I'll see you there next week!

Coming Up: TIFF Nexus New Media Literacies Conference!!

This is one of the things I'll be busy with next week: The New Media Literacies Conference at the TIFF Bell Lightbox. It takes place next Friday, April 20th 1:00 pm – 7:30 pm, and there are still tickets left. The conference includes an AMAZing line-up of speakers (that I feel very lucky to be presenting alongside), a bunch of workshops and activities, spaces/installation, and a chance to meet some of the really fascinating people involved in the kids' digital media scene. Here's the conference description, cut-and-paste from the official website:

The children and youth of today – and their families, educators and content creators – exist in a drastically evolved media landscape than those of even 10 years ago. It’s clear these emerging technologies have outgrown the critical abilities that a more traditional media literacy education can offer, but exactly what are the additional new skills necessary in order to thrive in this interactive, instant-on, internet-enabled, and mobile media ecosphere? The popular TIFF Nexus series, designed to promote cross-sector connections across film, games and new media, returns to explore and engage in these themes through inspirational presentations, creative collaboration, demonstrations and hands-on learning workshops led by creators and researchers who are committed to enriching the lives of kids, youth and families.

A key selling feature of the conference is a keynote by Dr. Nicole Pinkard:

Dr. Pinkard shares insights into the inspirational work she and her collaborators are doing with platforms like the Digital Youth Network and institutions such as the Chicago Public Library (co-founding YOUmedia), to build new media literacy awareness and skills development for children and youth. Following her keynote address, Debbie Gordon, the director of the kidsmediacentre at Centennial College, will engage Dr. Pinkard in conversation.

And, in addition to some awesome-sounding sessions and lighting talks by media creators and academics, the conference includes access to various TIFF Kids-associated things, including the digiPlaySpace:

TIFF Nexus ticket-holders can let their imaginations roam free in the TIFF Kids digiPlaySpace by engaging in interactive art installations, learning-centric games, mobile apps, new digital creative tools and hands-on production activities. COME EARLY between 11am and 12:30pm, and be mindful that the doors will be closing at 12:45 to allow time to get to the conference venue.

The Industry/Educator rates are $60, Students get in for $30 and full price admission is $99: which gets you into the workshops, the digiPlaySpace, a networking cocktail and a chance to hear wonderful speakers and panelists, such as Jason Krough (zinc Roe), Carly Shuler (Joan Ganz Cooney Centre), Jacob Blackstock (Bitstrips) and Mark Rabo (Gamercamp). Hope to see (some of) you there!

Hunger Games Post Coming Soon!

End of semester madness started a bit early this year, so I've been a bit behind on my writing - including my Part 2 follow up to last month's Grim Games and Dangerous Fairy Tales post, which will address the Hunger Games "controversy" and some of my thoughts on the film. It's almost ready, but I've got a few more things to cross off on the to do list first, so stay tuned!

Awesome Job Opportunity Alert!!! Postdoc in Adaptive Gaming, User Innovation and Inclusive Play among Elementary School-Aged Children

I'm hiring a postdoc to work with me on a new project that I'm launching this spring on Adaptive Gaming, User Innovation and Inclusive Play among elementary school-aged children (part of a much larger project on Mobile and Pervasive Computing lead by the amazing Dr. Matt Ratto, that will also encompass a new set of projects run by another of our fabulous iSchool colleagues, Dr. Rhonda McEwen). The details can be found on the University of Toronto iSchool job site, and are reproduced in full below. Interested candidates are welcome to get in touch with me directly to find out more about the position, project, what it entails, etc.

Keywords: kids, inclusive play (facilitating play between kids with and without disabilities), modding/hacking gaming consoles, and supporting user innovation.

Please spread the word (and the link): http://www.ischool.utoronto.ca/jobsite/2012/postdoctoral-researcher
------------------------
Postdoctoral Researcher in Adaptive Gaming, User Innovation and Inclusive Play among Elementary School-Aged Children

The Faculty of Information (iSchool) at the University of Toronto seeks to employ a postdoctoral researcher for a funded project within the Inclusive Design Institute. The successful applicant will play a key role in designing and conducting research on issues of adaptive design, inclusive play, innovation and creativity within elementary school-aged children’s engagement with emerging digital game technologies. The primary goals of the project are to (1) advance knowledge of an emerging phenomenon, (2) explore potential applications for supporting inclusive play experiences among children with and without disabilities, and (3) contribute new insight into the relationships between game design, technology, user innovation and playfulness.

The research will be conducted using a mixed-methods approach that will most likely include qualitative methods such as participant observation, critical design analysis and focus groups. The project will incorporate in-depth analysis of a series of tools, titles and programs designed to enable meaningful user interventions into game designs and other content by non-specialist users, supplemented with case studies of how these tools are (or might be) used by children with and without disabilities.

Responsibilities
---------------------

• Collaborate with the lead researcher of the Adaptive Gaming project (Dr. Sara M. Grimes), the principal investigator and other researchers within the Mobile and Pervasive Computing Cluster and the larger Inclusive Design Institute, as well as with investigators on related projects at the University of Toronto and other institutions
• Act as liaison and coordinator for the Adaptive Gaming, User Innovation and Inclusive Play project
• Plan and conduct ethnographic research involving child participants with and without disabilities, including assisting in the design and implementation of ethics protocols
• Publish and present the resulting research findings in leading academic journals, national and international conferences, as well as in public forums
• Assume an active role in shaping the research design, including introducing additional, related research questions and objectives into the project as it unfolds, and identifying additional funding opportunities
• Assist in the daily management and administration of the Mobile and Pervasive Computing Lab

Qualifications: 
---------------------

• A PhD in a relevant area, in hand by the position start date
• Research interests in at least one of the following: children and technology, disability studies (including adaptive design), game studies, critical technology studies and/or game design
• Prior experience working with children is an asset
• Proven track-record for successfully engaging in self-directed research
• Working language is English
• The successful applicant will be expected to be in residence in Toronto, Canada, for the duration of the postdoctoral appointment and be an active colleague within U of T as well as the IDI project.

Compensation: 
The salary for this position is competitive in the Canadian context, and is governed in part by SSHRC practices.

Additional information : 
The contract can begin as early as 1 September 2012; it is for a two-year term, with possibility of renewal.

Apply by email:  idimp.ischool@utoronto.ca
Application deadline:  Apr 23 2012

How to apply: 
Applications comprising a brief cover letter, CV, recent writing sample, and the names and contact information for three referees should be sent electronically to idimp.ischool@utoronto.ca. Please use the subject line “Application: IDI Cluster - Adaptive Gaming” when applying for this position.

Interviews will be conducted via phone or Skype. Applications will be reviewed until the position is filled. The application deadline is Monday, April 23rd, 5PM EST.

If you have any questions about the position itself, please feel free to contact me directly. But any and all application materials must be send to the email address indicated above (which is all set up and ready to receive large files, etc.).

Grim Games and Dangerous Fairy Tales: Part1

Cinderella - Edmund Dulac

Last month, The Telegraph and a number of other news sites covered the results of a new poll that indicated that a significant proportion of UK parents (or, more specifically, 2000 adults) now consider traditional fairy tales to be "too scary" for children. Some highlights of the poll, as reported in the Telegraph article, included:

"[O]ne in five parents has scrapped old classics such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and Rapunzel in favour of more modern books. One third of parents said their children have been left in tears after hearing the gruesome details of Little Red Riding Hood...[N]early half of mothers and fathers refuse to read Rumplestiltskin to their kids as the themes of the story are kidnapping and execution...And 52 per cent of the parents said Cinderella didn't send a good message to their children as it portrays a young woman doing housework all day."

The survey was conducted and published by Watch (a UK television channel) in the days leading up to its premiere of the US television series Grimm, a gritty fantasy/cop drama where the characters from the Grimm Brothers fairy tales really exist and it's up to their descendent to keep the supernatural existence of these magical creatures in check. There was an obvious promotional advantage to publicizing the results of this particular poll for Watch - they were about to launch a fairy tale drama targeted to adults, and the results seemed to confirm that the Grimm fairy tales in particular contain high levels of gore, violence and mature themes (target marketing anyone?). Much of the ensuing news coverage focused on the many ways in which fairy tales - both the traditional versions and reinterpretations such as NBC's Grimm and various recent/upcoming PG-rated fairy tale films (e.g. last year's Red Riding Hood, the upcoming Snow White and the Huntsman) - are rife with dark subject matter, sexuality, and other things that are often more squarely associated with teen and adult culture than that of children. In short - by arguing that fairy tales are increasingly seen as inappropriate for children, the poll introduces the idea that fairy tales are indeed appropriate for adults.

The story caught on, however, in no small part because it taps into larger, longstanding debates about what constitutes as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" content for young people...especially younger children. The debate itself has been around for centuries and although it has always included a strong focus on books, it has extended into pretty much every media form that's surfaced: penny "dreadfuls," comic books, television, film, videogames...you name it. Fairy tales themselves have already stood at the centre of various incarnations of this debate. For instance, in addition to recurring concerns about their at-times-dark and at-times-violent content, fairy tales have raised objections in regards to their very emphasis on fantastical, whimsical and magical themes (which for some critics are a slippery slope into witchcraft, while for others present a risk of "misinformation"). So, the current interest in the role of fairy tales in kids' culture actually has a rich historical and theoretical context - one that needs to be considered when we think about the Watch poll or about the nastier moments contained in the Grimm Brothers' version of Snow White.

Earlier this week, Tralee Pearce wrote an article for the Globe and Mail entitled "Fairy tales or scary tales: Should we sanitize stories for our kids?" (riffing on the title of an article written by Liam Lacey last year about all those PG-13 fairy tale films). Pearce asked parents and experts to weigh in on the debate, using the Watch poll and ensuing debate (e.g. Libby Copeland's Slate article) as the entry point. As Pearce writes, while fairy tales have undergone various changes and retellings over the years, filling a number of prominent roles in kids' culture (in terms of providing core themes/motifs, containing morality lessons, and so on):

We’re certainly not sure if they’re edifying for children any longer. Many parents blanch when they stumble upon alarming scenes in volumes they haven’t vetted. Cinderella's stepsisters slice off their toes and heels to try fitting into the slipper? Red Riding Hood and her grandma actually get eaten by the wolf and a huntsman slices the wolf open?

Pearce points out that the "sanitized Disney versions, with their focus on pretty princesses and happy endings, dominate our collective memory," and claims that "even Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm edited out some of the more unsettling elements in their later editions." While it's certainly true that the Disney versions have come to overshadow other iterations of these tales for many of us, they are nowhere near beyond critique - in fact, Disney's fairy tale films represent some of the most thoroughly studied, critiqued and challenged children's texts out there. And the idea that the Grimm's edited their stories to remove the darker elements builds on some other common misconceptions circulating out there about the history and origins of fairy tales...namely, the idea that the stories were not originally intended for children at all. The actual argument that is most frequently made by children's scholars and historians is that the oral folk tales that modern fairy tales are based on were not solely intended for children - which is very different from saying that they were NOT for children. As many historians argue, the idea of a completely segregated children's culture is a fairly recent phenomenon - storytelling was traditionally an activity enjoyed by people of all ages and they would engage in the practice together, communally. In terms of the Grimm tales specifically, well, it would very much appear that the first volume of fairy tale stories the brothers published was entitled Children's and Household Tales, which certainly implies that children were indeed among the original intended readers.

There are similar complexities behind the idea that the Grimm's edited their stories in order to make them less "unsettling." The Grimm's edited their stories for complex and multifaceted reasons. As Jack Zipes, leading expert in fairy tales, points out in his 1997 book Happily Ever After, those changes made to the Grimm tales were part of a larger movement (involving clergymen, some publishers, educators and parents) to ensure kids were reading "appropriate" material that reflected "proper" values (i.e. Christian, upper class, patriarchal, etc.):

"At first, fairy tales were regarded as dangerous because they lacked Christian teaching and their symbols were polymorphously meaningful and stimulating. But by the beginning of the 19th century, fairy-tale writers had learned to rationalize their tales and to incorporate Christian and patriarchal messages into the narrative to satisfy middle-class and artistocratic adults. For example, the Grimms purposely changed their fairy tales between 1819 and 1857 to make them more instructional and moral, and other writers worked to create tales more appropriate for children, not realizing that often, in seeking to protect children, we harm them most."

The key argument that Zipes makes in much (if not all) of his work is that these rationalizing processes are what pose a real danger to children's culture. It is the recurring modern tendency to sanitize, simplify/infantilize, and homogenize fairy tales that robs children of potentially rich, meaningful cultural experiences. I've incorporated a lot of Zipes' work into my own teaching and research about fairy tales, and how this genre functions as a core component of kids' culture. For instance, the idea that fairy tales are dynamic and changeable, and that each iteration is a transformation - a symbolic act designed to arrange and rearrange the shared themes, archetypes and motifs that are found throughout our culture. Fairy tales serve a wide variety of purposes, from addressing and representing the concerns of those in power (e.g. traditional mid-19th century tellings, hegemonic reinterpretations a la Disney), to challenging power relations, established hierarchies and social norms (as found in both folk and contemporary versions).

So how does this fit in with a debate about fairy tales containing darker themes, violence and sexuality? Well, in a few ways. By tracing the ways in which fairy tales have been the subject of different but similar controversies, oftentimes changed in ways that advanced very particular ideologies and agendas, we can see how notions of "appropriate" content are not only relative but also political. These discussions should always raise more questions than they answer: Appropriate according to who? According to what criteria and cultural norm? In what context, which version of which story?

In contemporary discussions, appropriateness is oftentimes justified by association with some sort of scientific research or developmental theory, but in the end these types of justifications are almost always contentious in their own right, and come with a whole assortment of counter theories and criticisms that problematize any attempt to apply them categorically. As a group, kids are as diverse as any other...perhaps even more so, given all that's going on with them in terms of their physical and cognitive development, their rich social and emotional lives, all the learning they're constantly doing and all the adult expectations they have to attend to. They mature and learn in diverse ways, they like and are drawn to a wide variety of things, just as they are disturbed by and afraid of different things. So linking a concept as rife and changeable as "appropriate" to some sort of standardized template based on "age" or gender or any other static and ultimately over-simplified category is going to be problematic.

That doesn't mean that an individual child, along with their teacher or parents (and other caregivers), can't figure out what's appropriate for them...they can! And do! What it means is that making sweeping generalizations about "kids" runs a risk of effacing important nuances and differences in how kids engage with culture, what they need from it and how they learn through it, in different contexts and at different times (of the day, of life, etc.). Once these nuances are made invisible, everything that falls outside becomes labelled as different, as deviant. Which is not only easier to exclude, but also tends to invite more active forms of disciplining, control and vilification. Book bans come to mind here, as do the many moral panics linking children's so-called "inappropriate" book or media consumption with various forms of social and behavioural "deviance." Classifying certain books or genres as inappropriate implies that the kids who read and enjoy them are somehow inappropriate, at risk or dangerous (e.g. they'll expose other kids to scary ideas, they'll become desensitized to violence, etc.).

Many of the articles I've read in this recent discussion contain really valuable anecdotes about a child asking their parent not to read Grimm fairy tales at bedtime anymore, or a child reporting having nightmares after reading a particularly gruesome edition of Cinderella. The reactions of the parents to then put those books away (or "away for now") is completely valid, I think, and highlights the enormous value of familial negotiation (and family dynamics more generally) in kids' mediated cultural experience. It also points to the very individual and subjective relationship different kids have with different materials at different stages of their lives. But some children love gory, scary stories. The continued popularity of Goosebumps, and the enduring tradition of watching horror movies at sleepover parties both attest to this. It is for these kids that we need to avoid overly stringent categories like "appropriate" - these kids, and various others who don't fit whatever dominant, hegemonic notions about "what kids are" and "what kids should be/read" happen to be circulating at the time.

For these children, sanitizing or banning darker versions of fairy tales could mean cutting off a potentially important outlet for exploring things that are important to them, in a format that appeals to them, through experiences that could lead to new and meaningful understanding of the world around them, how it works and how they feel about it. Research on the profane aspects of kids' culture reinforces this idea that such encounters can be enormously significant - they can serve as bonding rituals, can help children discover (and push) both personal and cultural boundaries (e.g. reading a scary book you aren't quite ready for can serve an important function in terms of figuring out what your limits are, what you're afraid of...why). Buckingham's examination of the delight that some viewers (both child and adult) take in being disgusted by and terrified by horror films is a great example of this particularly under-reported body of research. And I'll have more recommended readings to add to that list once I finish Part II.

In the next section (coming later this week), I will attempt to link the debate about fairy tales to another contemporary controversy, as children of younger ages are now flocking to the dystopian sci-fi hit series, The Hunger Games, raising a similar set of questions among parents, educators and librarians around (similar, but also slightly different) issues of "appropriateness," violence and impacts.

Bill C-11, SOPA and UGC

Hot on the heels of last months' quashing of the US government's proposed SOPA/PIPA acts by massive public protest, the Canadian government has reembarked on its own turbulent journey toward copyright reform. Bill C-11 - An Act to amend the Copyright Act - was first "read" in September 2011, and the second reading debate concludes today. The bill is thus moving ahead despite, as Michael Geist points out, "huge public concern with the bill's digital lock rules and proposed SOPA-style amendments."

Indeed, Geist reports that during yesterday's debate a number of Conservative MPs highlighted that Bill C-11 is "one of the most consulted pieces of legislation in recent memory." But as he, Peter Nowak and others have pointed out, the key complaint that came out of these public consultations -- including a massive amount of written feedback submitted by individuals and organizations back in 2009 (here's mine) -- was that the digital locks rules seemed to supersede many (if not most) of the individual (i.e. user/audience) rights outlined in the Bill. As Geist describes, the problem here isn't that the government failed to consult the public about the contents of Bill C-11, but rather that it appears to be disregarding public concerns and opinion. He writes, "The question is whether it has taken the public comments into account and conducted a full analysis of the implications of its current proposal. There is reason to believe that it has not."

At issue here is that the Bill appears to enable corporations to largely decide for themselves how users will be allowed to use commercial technologies and content...a concern in no way assuaged by recent statements by Industry Minister Christian Paradis that the government "cannot speculate" on how the digital lock rules will be enforced (as highlighted in Geist's post). Which is really too bad, as the Bill also outlines a number of really awesome amendments addressing important issues like the use of copyrighted materials in (published) user-generated content (see below). As Peter Nowak writes in an op-ed that appeared yesterday on the Globe & Mail:

While C-11 introduces a raft of new beneficent rights for the ordinary person, such as making it explicitly legal to copy a CD onto an iPod or mash-up content into a YouTube video, many are worried that the lock provision will act as a negative “super-clause” that will trump all the other good stuff.   

In other words, if you want to copy that CD onto your iPod, go right ahead – unless the record label that produced it says you can’t. Want to delve into the electronic guts of your video game console, laptop or DVR to see how it works, perhaps with an eye to improving it? That’ll be off limits because [or perhaps more accurately "if"] the manufacturer says so.

Whereas protests in the US and in the EU (led by Poland) led to important (albeit small and likely temporary) and relatively immediate victories against overly-industry-centric copyright laws (SOPA and ACTA, respectively), Canadian objectors (first to Bill C-32 and now to Bill C-11) have been engaged in a 2-year process of letter writing, petition signing and participating in democratic processes...seemingly to little or no avail. Perhaps our more tempered approach has diluted the core message: the digital locks provisions (e.g. technological protection measures, circumvention prohibitions) are too sweeping and imbalanced, and come with too many uncertainties.

As mentioned above, however, that doesn't mean that there aren't really great aspects to the Bill as well. In fact, that's possibly what makes the presence of the so-called "super-clause" so disappointing. For instance, check out the section on non-commercial user-generated content:

Non-commercial User-generated Content

29.21 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to use an existing work or other subject-matter or copy of one, which has been published or otherwise made available to the public, in the creation of a new work or other subject-matter in which copyright subsists and for the individual — or, with the individ-ual’s authorization, a member of their household — to use the new work or other subject-matter or to authorize an intermediary to disseminate it, if  

(a) the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter is done solely for non-commercial purposes;  

(b) the source — and, if given in the source, the name of the author, performer, maker or broadcaster — of the existing work or other subject-matter or copy of it are mentioned, if it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so;  

(c) the individual had reasonable grounds to believe that the existing work or other subject-matter or copy of it, as the case may be, was not infringing copyright; and  

(d) the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work or other subject-matter — or copy of it — or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work or other subject-matter is not a substitute for the existing one.

While I'm a tad concerned with that last phrase "not a substitute for the exiting one" (maybe one of you can help me out here: what if the UGC work is better than the original? Would that count as a substitute?), there's a lot in there to feel very optimistic about. I also have yet to examine how exceptions for people with disabilities are addressed (e.g. perceptual disabilities) and how these are balanced out against the "super-clause". In the meantime, though, the bill continues to advance with little resistance from Canadians. What do you think: Time for a more vocal and active opposition?

New Semester, New Course

The Winter 2012 semester officially launches today, and this week will mark the first class of a new course that I've just recently designed called "Mediating the Social: Social Networks and Technologies," which I'll be teaching in the Book and Media Studies undergraduate program at the University of St.Michael's College, University of Toronto. As per usual, I'll be maintaining a blog for the course, which can be found here, and publishing most of the course materials online (primarily for the students, but also for those of you who want to follow along at home). The syllabus will be available on the course blog shortly, along with links and details about course assignments, etc. I'm super excited to start the course on Thursday - I haven't taught undergrads in awhile, and have been missing the unique energy and optimism generated by 3rd and 4th year classrooms in particular.

I'm also teaching my information workshop on children's digital games again this semester, which you can find additional details about here (on its course blog, to be updated over the next two days). This workshop is a ton of fun, and I'm super keen to see what kinds of games and playlists the groups will come up with this time around.

See (some of) you in class!

Handling Reviewer Comments

I posted this on Facebook this morning, but then realized that it might be useful to a broader audience than my family and friends. A short (but sweet) post relaying the best advice I've thus far received about the peer review (publishing) process and how to handle those ego-deflating (and sometimes just plain mean) reviewer comments. 


What to do when you get your reviewer comments back: 

1. Read through them ONCE - thoroughly but very quickly. 
2. Promptly close the reviewer document/email and set it aside for at least 2 days. 
3. Read through the comments a second time (2 days later) w/ a clear head & fury quelled.
4. Create a list of the issues you can actually attend to (in your own, non-snarky words), a list of things that are beyond your capabilities (e.g. "instead of surveys, you should do interviews"), and a list or note of places where reviewers contradict each other. 
5. Tackle/check things off the (first) list one at a time. 
6. Use your lists to write up your report of changes made (& any not made).
7. When in doubt, don't be afraid to ask the editor for clarification (e.g. what to do about contradictory advice, etc.)

And throughout the whole thing, try to keep reminding yourself that the revisions and criticisms you've received are (deep down ;) meant to help you make your paper even better, and that the reviewers wouldn't have taken the time to craft detailed feedback if they didn't think your contribution was worthwhile. 

Mobile Apps Get Rated

A pretty key and interesting development has been unfolding over at the ESRB this fall, as reported by Wendy Goldman Getzler for Kidscreen magazine last month. It would seem that despite their early hesitation to delve into mobile games, the videogames ratings board is now extending its system to mobile games as well, through a new partnership with CTIA-The Wireless Association® (an international nonprofit industry organization that represents the wireless communications industry). As  Goldman Getzler describes:

"[The] official CTIA Mobile Application Rating System with ESRB is designed to provide parents with more context on the appropriateness of apps for children.  The system will utilize the well-known age rating icons that ESRB introduced to computer and video games back in 1994. Apps will fall into six categories running from EC for Early Childhood to AO for Adults Only (18 and older)."

While a number of stores have already agreed to voluntarily support the new ratings system (including those run by Microsoft, AT&T and T-mobile), the two biggest players in the app landscape - Apple and Google - are opting to stick with their own systems instead. Leading to Jeff Blagdon's assessment that the ESRB's mew mobile app rating scheme is "toothless" and raises serious questions about "what impact, if any, it will have."

In addition to buy-in woes, the system itself seems a bit lightweight. As Blagdon, writing for The Verge, explains, the ratings themselves will be generated through a "cursory multiple-choice questionnaire about sexual content, language, and the sharing of user-generated content and location information. Once completed, the app is then rated "within seconds" – unlike the much more detailed rating process used for console games." The rating is then supposed to last for the "life of the app," with a small caveat that if the app is later updated in ways that might affect its rating, it *should* then be resubmitted. However, as Goldman Getzler points out, the ESRB has also stated that "it will routinely test the most popular apps and adjust inappropriate ratings when necessary" - which means that it's not intended to be a totally "laissez faire" self-directed system.

While I share in some of Blagdon's reservations, I'm also somewhat impressed that the ESRB is stepping up to the plate here. As I've written elsewhere (e.g. "Obsolescence Pending"), failure to keep up with new platforms and developments has been hugely diminishing the impact and efficacy of the ratings system over the past few years...which, although problematic and flawed (esp. around issues of censorship, access to culture, etc.), remains the only real regulatory framework for games that we have. So - good for the ESRB for making this important move. But also - good for Apple and Google for deciding to take on the enormously challenging task of trying to curate and manage such an enormous and ever-changing corpus of content. I hope something useful and innovative comes out of all this.

Gamercamp Lv3 Starts this Friday!!!!

The big "do not miss" event in town this weekend is Gamercamp Lv3, which runs from Nov. 25-27, features a plethora of awesome games, events and speakers, and showcases the pure awesomeness that is the Toronto indie game scene. Co-founded by Mark Rabo and Jaime Woo, Gamercamp is now in its third year and appears to be hitting one heck of a stride. Here's the description from the official website:

Gamercamp celebrates the artistry, innovation, and power of play. Attendees experience three days of inspiring talks, panels, presentations, gameplay sessions, demos, films, game jamming, and arcades showcasing the depth and talent of the North American games community.

The festival kicks off on Friday, with a keynote by FoldIt lead designer Seth Cooper, a series of MakerU events, and an evening "casual gala" hosted by Electric Playground's Shaun Hatton. Saturday is an eclectic mix of talks, including a morning in-conversation panel that I will have the honour of participating in along with the wonderful Emilie McGinley (Bigpants and TOJam co-founder) and the fantastic Mare Sheppard (Metanet co-founder). Saturday's schedule also includes demos, pwnage breaks, rapid fire talks and fascinating-sounding presentations, a grilled cheese factory, film screenings, game tournaments and a live-action Mario Party style game called "Urban Road Trip". Sunday morning is all about cartoons, gaming and eating sugar (in cereal form), more presentations, game tournaments and film screenings. I think I'm missing a couple of pub outings in and amongst there, but you get the general idea. Mayhem, inspiring talks and designs, and plenty of opportunities to play and meet the people making some of the most interesting and creative games out there right now.

Included on Gamercamp's extremely impressive and exciting roster of speakers are number of my most genius pals and colleagues, including Jason Nolan (Ryerson/EDGE Lab), Emma Westecott (OCADU), David Fono (Atmosphere Industries), Melanie McBride (York-Ryerson/EDGE Lab), Kate Raynes-Goldie (Atmosphere Industries), Nick Pagee (TIFF Nexus), and fellow iSchooler Andy Keenan.

Tickets are still available for most of the events (I think! Some things may have already (or are about to) sold out, but as of Monday afternoon there are still festival and day passes left). The festival is spread across downtown Toronto (starting in the Annex and ending up at George Brown College), is very grassroots and social, and promises to be eight and a half tons of fun. Hope to see some of you there!

Stop the Stop Online Piracy Act

©2011 Avaaz.org

Some really important and troubling things happening right now on the digital culture/content/access front. Via digital law expert Michael Geist:

The U.S. Congress is currently embroiled in a heated debated over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), proposed legislation that supporters argue is needed combat online infringement, but critics fear would create the "great firewall of the United States." SOPA’s potential impact on the Internet and development of online services is enormous as it cuts across the lifeblood of the Internet and e-commerce in the effort to target websites that are characterized as being "dedicated to the theft of U.S. property." This represents a new standard that many experts believe could capture hundreds of legitimate websites and services.

For those caught by the definition, the law envisions requiring Internet providers to block access to the sites, search engines to remove links from search results, payment intermediaries such as credit card companies and Paypal to cut off financial support, and Internet advertising companies to cease placing advertisements.

While those of us outside of the US tend to think of ourselves as not (or less) effected by American legislation, Geist warns us to think again. The jurisdictional implications of SOPA are wide-reaching and imperialistic. As Geist explains:

While these measures have unsurprisingly raised concern among Internet companies and civil society groups (letters of concern from Internet companies, members of the US Congress,international civil liberties groups, and law professors), my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues the jurisdictional implications demand far more attention. The U.S. approach is breathtakingly broad, effectively treating millions of websites and IP addresses as "domestic" for U.S. law purposes.

There's a hearing today, apparently, but requests for action are still circulating, so there is perhaps still time (albeit fleeting) to take action on this. The fabulous Avaaz has organized a "Save the Internet" campaign that includes an online petition. If you're an educator, you might want to add your name and support to the Concerned Educators Letter to Congress. For more information, you might want to check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation's growing reservoir of info and resources, which includes an easy online form for sending your objection to SOPA to your member of congress (US only).

Live Blogging @ iWDMS Part 4 - Day 2

Some rough notes on the final panel of the final day of iWDMS (with usual disclaimer for typos, etc.).

OMDC: Play
Panelists: Claudette Critchley, COO, Big Blue Bubble
Valerie Fox, Director, Ryerson Digital Media Zone
Ana Serrano, Founding Director, Digital Media Lab, CFC
Diane Williamson, President, Digital Wizards Inc.
Moderator: Kim Gibson, Program Consultant, Industry Development Group,  OMDC

This panel is basically an overview of some of the projects & organizations the OMDC is involved in - sort of a platform for promoting the organization and raising awareness of the types of things it funds, supports, etc. Linkages to industry, academia, media archives, think tanks, etc. Useful if you're thinking about getting involved with them or applying for one of their funding opportunities.

Claudette Critchley: Big Blue Bubble - est.2004 - closing in on 100th game developed, mostly mobile: cell phones, NDS and now iOS. E.g. Dark Incursion -3D game; Burn the Rope; Home Sweet Home - casual game series on multiple platforms. Some of the largest game companies in Ontario are in London (other than Ubisoft in Toronto). Conference coming up in November - half of which will focus on development. Minors in videogame development, lots of talent in Ontario to feed the industry.

Valerie Fox: Digital Media Zone (DMZ) @ Ryerson, est. 2010 - aimed at helping young innovators (students - current or former, and other) grow new business/markets (?) and create jobs. Undergrads, grad students and alumni (also entrepreneurs and people from other universities and colleges) with amazing ideas - DMZ helps to turn these ideas into young companies - giving spaces, support, etc. From 6 or 7 to 34 companies (note: only 6 out of 34 founded by women). the idea is that they can begin there and then grow up and out (leave the DMZ once they've become big enough to make it on their own).  Free space (and resources) in exchange for commitment to be open with ideas, findings - goal of the Zone is to foster collaboration and "cross-pollination" of ideas and expertise. Idea has to have a plan, prototype, commercial or social value. [Note: check out "Shape Collages"]

Ana Serrano: CFC Media Lab - currently located at MARS. est.1997. Was with Don Tapscott's think tank, brought in by Norman Jewison etc. to create an "electronic cottage" at the CFC originally focused on enabling technologies for film. Became a proactive initiative aimed at seeding talent (e.g. storytellers and other Canadian creatives)  who could work towards creating/anticipating/understanding/shaping (etc.) new ways of storytelling in/through interactive media & other tech. 200 alumni who have started their own companies (e.g. Stitch Media). Shifting their focus now that these activities are being taken up by other orgs (such as DMZ) - for instance toward curriculum development and collaborative university programs (e.g partnership with OCAD), as well as collaborating to produce company accelerators (re: commercialization of interactive products). Current expertise in building prototypes. What they're missing (or Canada is more generally) is getting those products marketable, globally. Focus on sustainable, viable business plans, etc. Take the risks the private industry can't bear. Some examples of their products: First user-generated content storytelling project - the Great Canadian Story Engine. Locative cloud music service. Game that uses brain waves to move the story along. The future is now.

Diane Williamson: University of Waterloo-Stratford, particularly REAP (research entrepreneurship acceleration program) - new program, external to course of study, paid research position drawing students from across disciplines. focused on interactive digital displays. Working with GestureTek [yay!], and others. Work with tech to find new uses, new market, and collaborate on new research [so...using students for R&D???].

Of possible interest re: industry/academia partnerships:
OMDC's Entertainment and Creative Cluster Fund
Research Grants

In all of these initiatives, female representation is above average but not great. 25% at Big Blue Bubble; 30% at DMZ (mostly producing content - only 6/34 companies started by women, only 10% involved in tech work); 30% at CFC - women are not starting their own companies out of there either; Waterloo research program - 50/50.

Live Blogging the iWDMS - Part 3 - Day 2

As before - filled with typos, spelling mistake and maybe even the occasional mis-attribution. This is live blogging - it's messy!


LUNCH & LEARN - WIFT-T Industry Study Presentation


Panel Discussion between:
Susan Annis, Executive Director, Cultural Human Resources Council
Lynda Brown-Ganzert, Vice-President, Nordicity
Shelley Simmons, Director, Chocolate Liberation Front
Madeline Ziniak, National Vice-President, Rogers OMNI Television

Moderator:
Susan Ross, Partner, ISM Access; Chair of the WIFT-T Industry Study

Susan Ross: Representation in media industries lagging behind the rest of the workforce. Haven't seen great gains since previous studies - and in broadcasting, even a decline in women's participation.

Madeline: Unfortunately sees it as a trend - not on the radar - feminism is no longer an accepted word. Sea change in broadcasting generally, which she sees as not as sensitive to the importance of having women on board, in executive positions. 20 years ago, management would make an effort to have better representation (of women, other excluded groups) on short lists for positions - no longer the case.

Susan Annis: Advocacy groups are being silenced - not participating, not being funded, etc. It seems so obvious that we need that kind of balance for our cultural products to reflect the entire country, it's not rocket science. No need to get lost in the rhetoric of feminism, could potentially just be a numbers game (me: hmmmmm).

Linda: The idea of equality falling off the agenda found throughout. Several years ago, there was funding and support and curriculum to get girls into math, computer science, etc. Not so much anymore. If tech skills aren't being fostered at home, or elementary school, may not get it anywhere (or in time).

Susan (moderator) - technical side?
Shelley: From the interactive side - sees more women in technical roles, making casual games - but certainly not still dominant. Thinks there's a real potential for women to make games for women - don't see this as much.

Susan (moderator) - dismayed by the stats showing low take up rate (17%) on business training among women in film and tv sectors. how critical is business training.

Susan Annis: business skills aren't often why people go into the film and television industries - they want to direct, produce, write, etc. but business skills are really key - important to know them, know how that aspect of the industry works. WIFT has been taking a real lead here - holding workshops, etc. on production accounting, etc. These are key areas the industry has identified as important - a real need here - Susan says not limited to women.

Do the business skills open up doors? Madeline says not as much as they'd like to see - so another gap between skills training and application (opportunities for application).

Linda: recommends "just in time" training - quick and short that can respond to immediate needs, in lead up to a specific opportunity, etc.

Shelley: refers back to the summit's recurring theme of taking risks - and points out that there's a need for dispelling the myth around risks - revealing the repercussions, which often aren't all that bad.

Susan (moderator): Need to address the glass ceiling - we've shattered a layer, there's one more layer to go (executive level). not seeing movement amongst women. other than ruminating and training, what's left to do?

Madeline: mentions tokenism as a trend. Women work harder in attaining the positions, volunteering, trying hard to break through and get a network going. What do we have to do? Doesn't want affirmative action, but wants corps. and orgs. to take out the excuses for not looking at women for positions. sees a lot of old boys network that no one is talking about - people getting hired without going through the regular interview process. need to dispel certain cultural misunderstandings (e.g. perceptions about women and aggression - not being aggressive enough, or too aggressive, etc.).

Linda: Almost need to leap frog into issue of women on boards. On a board, women are empowered and have responsibility - can take action at this level to ensure that women *are* being considered for jobs, that hiring processes are fair and transparent, that diversity is on the agenda, etc.  [me: good stuff]

Madeline: reiterates the need to be more vocal - take a stand. trend away from that - just don't see or hear it anymore. needs to be reinvigorated.

[Me:...Gotta say, Madeline's comments are refreshing and overall quite awesome. the continued emphasis on women getting more training, more of the "right" kind of training, is sort of frustrating. Are women really the problem? I want to hear more about challenging the old boys' network...which I'm not sure an extra accreditation or accounting knowledge can really stand a chance against.]

Susan - moderator: Work life balance comes up again - a tired phrase, but nonetheless important finding of the study. Is there a level you can reach in an organization where you can have more freedom to have a "life"? In creative industries - with production schedules - is there a happy way to have both life and a career?

Linda: Time shifting, supportive co-workers. Work-life balance is a fallacy - there are moments/glimpses of it, but constant changes and shifts involved. Need to change the pitch - accommodate more life in the way work is structures, how employees are chosen and managed (and retained), results in a better workforce, better business, reputation, etc.

Shelley: Also need to encourage that men take parental leave - be more open to men taking this time as well - normalize the idea that this isn't (and shouldn't be) just something that applies to women. Clearly applies to men as well. [me: yes!!!!!]

Susan - moderator: Future - what's next - what would you like to see?

Susan Annis: Won't see a return to the 80s. All need to work together. Can't wait to see what will happen in 5 years, thinks men and women are understanding more and more that "we're in this together".  [me: btw: this here is a response that many of my undergrad students used to have when faced with current stats about inequity in employment/pay rates, etc. they'd say the study was outdated - even if the stats were only a year old - and that things were changing, and that men and women didn't feel that way anymore, so the statistical evidence was temporary, etc. Just sayin'! This is a pretty common reaction. Part of the problem?]

Madeline: this should be a signal - a pressure point - for organizations to take this and address it - to better reflect and prioritize diversity. need to take a leadership role in equity employment, etc. Ties this into business/economics - better for the market, which shouldn't be used as an excuse to not take risks, entrench in status quo, etc.

Shelley: would like to see this conversation back on the radar. comparative studies to show that there have been plateaus and lack of change.

Linda: wants canada to be global leaders in some sort of agreed upon standards for equitable employment.

Q&A.

Live Blogging iWDMS Part 2

Making Media that Matters Panel
Moderated by Andra Sheffer, ED, Bell Broadcast and New Media Fund

Jill Golick, Screenwriter/Digital Creator, Story2.OH
Years ago, TV producers told her that boys won't watch stuff with girls in it, but that girls would watch programs with boys (*can't remember the source, this is from one of the foundational books on kids' tv from the 60s or 70s)*. Today, they're still telling her the same thing. The continued belief in this gender segregation ignores how smart and insightful kids really are. Her work tries to represent kids that are more like real kids - mentioned Ruby Sky PI.

Katerina Cizek, Filmmaker in Residence, National Film Board of Canada
Documentary linking new media/social media, participatory media and film - currently working on one that focuses on high-rise living. Made one a couple of years ago for tracking the global handy cam phenomenon (*think Burma V.J.*). Describes Out My Window - the lives that people create out of the cracks in the grey concrete of the high rise. Doing action research through documentary filmmaking - peer researchers, getting people who live in suburban high rises to record their own experience. Many of their findings defied expectations - e.g. broadband penetration, which is supposed to be linked to income, was very high (80%??). Cizek argues that the most important question: What are people doing with these digital tools - in the peripheries and hidden places of our cities. Wants to better understand the city at its edges - the ways in which digital tech reconfigure, etc. (e.g. always on Skype with family members from country of origin, etc.).

Kirsty Hunter, Managing Director, The Project Factory UK
Presents the documentary film How to Start a Revolution her team was involved with on Gene Sharp - who wrote a highly influential guide to overthrowing dictatorships, links back to what's going on today. Tracking the patterns and "guide book" that revolutions around the world (Egypt, Syria, etc.) are basing their actions upon (e.g. english signs, non-violence). Online tracking has found increased traffic to Gene Sharp's works immediately preceding big massive social movements. Her group has launched a site, and are working on an app. Running a campaign alongside a television broadcast exposing the UK property scandal - media aimed not just at informing, but at instigating public action and law reform. She says her company is interested in "Ideas that hopefully affect change".

Jill Golick: Getting girls into tech, working with her daughter (?). Created a series that examined things you could do with your computer - set your Facebook settings, etc. Independent Production Fund call for web series - Golick pitched an online girl detective series (hadn't been one in awhile - live action for kids - maybe Harriet the Spy?)...which became Ruby Sky P.I.  Trailer takes on the whole email from a Nigerian prince requesting money transfer assistance scam. Wanted the kids to look like real kids (not TV kids) - light makeup, if they didn't brush their hair that morning - don't fix it, mix of purchased wardrobe and own clothes (actors'). Another episode focused on banning plastic water bottles - on the website included a real petition which was sent to parliament, etc. - also sell reusable (metal) water bottles.

Sheffer asks where is Canada lagging behind when it comes to new technology?
Cizek: mentions the mobile device issue - people from other countries are used to really cheap mobiles, and come to Canada it's a shock + barrier.
Golick: also ties in to making shorter programs (to watch on mobile devices).
Hunter: doesn't know - hasn't been here enough. But mentions Twit_Knit as a cool thing someone is doing in the UK, converging crafting and social media in innovative way.

Sheffer asks about media/tech convergence
Golick: Arab Spring - protests, etc. Showing films in different areas - say that documentaries don't work, but fiction (??).
Hunter: use of BBM in the London protests.
Cizek: Technology is just one piece of a larger social puzzle.  To a later question also mentions the tension between open source/participatory design and traditional models as a key consideration (in thinking about how tech will develop, role it will play, etc.). Also links this to later comment about the need to get more people into programming, design of technology, as key part of open source convo.
Golick agrees that keeping open source alive is crucial.

Sheffer - who is developing the new tech we're seeing (besides Steve Jobs).
Golick: explosion akin to the music scene of the 60s. Many different people, but people who want to color outside the lines
Cizek: many different industries, from military to various other. Emphasizes user appropriations (and re-appropriations) for new, humane uses - media industry has a role to play here.
Hunter: need to look outside regular toolkits. They've been experimenting with using chat bots inside games as characters - who adapt their responses to you. Taking bits of tech and adding them to your arsenal.