Media and Developmental Science

Popular Dissemination of Developmental Science

Developmental science may well be unique in the scope of the demand among nonacademic audiences for its reports and findings. Such publications as Popular Science, Nature, Science, and Psychology Today do, of course, bring scientific findings and discussions of their implications to the public. They do not, however, garner as large a share of the consumer periodicals market as do magazines devoted to simpler and more applied discussions of human development, particularly those focusing on infancy and early through middle childhood, for example, Parents, Parenting, American Baby, Working Mother, Child, and scores of regional and specialty parenting magazines. In addition, mainstream women's magazines (e.g., Woman's Day, Redbook, Good Housekeeping) and general interest periodicals (e.g., Parade, Reader's Digest, The New Yorker) also cover child and family science and policy issues. Newsweeklies regularly devote not only feature story inches but also special editions to the science of human development (Special Report, 1997), and respected newspapers like the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Christian Science Monitor cover the “family beat” in greater depth than in previous eras. Stories focusing on the status of children and families in the United States (and on crises among them) are regularly featured on television news digest shows such as 20/20, Prime Time, Dateline, and 60 Minutes.

Translating Developmental Science into Consumer-Friendly Language

For developmental science, translation from science-speak to parent-ese often results in simplistic interpretations of what we know, fabrications of material to substitute for what we don't yet know, and misunderstandings about the implications for rearing, educating, and caring for children on both national and family levels. These oversimplifications and misunderstandings have the power to distract our attention from the most salient problems in developmental science and may result in wasted time, effort, and resources.

In some cases, such coverage also tarnishes the public perception of social sciences already too often viewed by the public as imprecise or “soft.” In other cases, hyperbolic claims about the implications of developmental science have led to the development of programs and interventions that—in spite of being based on overstated or flawed interpretations of research findings—have provided valuable services to children at risk for educational, social, and health problems.

History of Developmental Science Media Coverage

The 1990s saw considerable growth in the media coverage of developmental science topics. Once relegated to the features and women's sections of newspapers and a handful of magazines devoted to children and families, articles about child development, the needs of parents, maternal and child health, and family policy have become front-page fodder for newspapers and leading stories in televised news digests. The number of major newspapers that have added child and family beats to their coverage has increased dramatically; these positions are now coveted by journalists who might previously have resented being relegated to covering “women's” stories (Lakshmi, 1996).

...