Parent engagement, not policing, best policy for Internet use

Parent engagement, not harsh policing may be the best policy for Internet use, according to a recent study of the habits and techniques of thousands of teens and their families in over two dozen countries.

David Spencer/The State Journal-Register/AP
Springfield High School junior Timothy Miller, 17, sits for a portrait in his family's computer room Springfield, Ill., on April 27, 2012. Miller is creating a website called Capital City Cuisine, seen on the monitor at left. Recent surveys say that parent engagement, not policing, may be the most effective Internet use policy.

The guidance has never been clearer, nor have the reasons for it.

Based on surveys of 25,142 families of 9-to-16-year-olds in 25 countries, researchers came to the conclusion that parents’ active engagement with their kids’ Internet activities works better than restricting them. They found that, while both imposing restrictions (e.g., installing a filter, banning certain Web sites, or restricting activities like photo-sharing or texting) and actively engaging reduced “risks of harm,” the more restrictive approach also reduced children’s opportunities online.

“For parents, talking to their child about the internet, encouraging them to explore alone but being nearby in case they are needed and talking to them about what they do online are all ways in which they can reduce online risks without reducing their child’s opportunities,” said EU Kids Online research director Sonia Livingstone in a press release.

Ms. Livingstone also said that the surveys found a generally “positive picture in which children welcome parental interest and activities, and parents express confidence in their children’s abilities.”

In their analysis – “How can parents support children’s Internet safety?” – the researchers said that “Cynicism that what parents do is not valued, or that children will always evade parental guidance, is ungrounded.”

More than two-thirds of the young people surveyed said their parents’ guidance is helpful – “27 percent ‘very’, 43 percent ‘a bit’,” and the 13-to-16-year-olds as much as the younger children.

This resonates closely with what the Pew Internet Project found in its research last year (see “Parents Matter” in my post about it). In fact, the EU Kids Online researchers even heard a small percentage of children say they wish their parents were more involved in their online experiences (5 percent “a lot” more and 10 percent “a little” more).

Interestingly, two-thirds of the young respondents also said their parents “know a lot (32 percent) or quite a lot (36 percent) about what they do online.” Of course there were differences in digital parenting styles from country to country.

Report co-author Andrea Duerager said that, “in Turkey and Austria, for example, parents favor a restrictive approach while in Nordic countries they do more active mediation.”

The Christian Science Monitor has assembled a diverse group of the best family and parenting bloggers out there. Our contributing and guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor, and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. Anne Collier blogs at NetFamilyNews.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.