Children Tag

Earlier this month, Allison Caplovitz and Stefanie Cousins attended SXSW EDU in Austin, TX, where they explored the intersection of technology, early childhood education, human connection and wellbeing. The event offered a wealth of insights into how we can thoughtfully integrate AI and digital tools into the lives of young children while preserving the values that help them thrive.

Monica Sutton, a beloved educator and creator of the Ms. Monica YouTube channel, delivered a powerful message urging developers, policymakers, and families to rethink how technology is designed for young children. She emphasized the importance of bringing developmental specialists and child psychologists into the room during the creation process. Sutton also encouraged policymakers to slow down and carefully consider the long-term implications of digital tools, while reminding families to trust their instincts and wisdom when guiding their children. Her framework for evaluating technology for young learners is simple yet profound: Does it honor how young children learn? Does it support their growth and wellbeing? Does it help them thrive? And does it protect their curiosity and connection?

The role of AI in early childhood was another key theme at SXSW EDU. Interviewed by Michael Levine, Dr. Dana Suskind, a cochlear implant surgeon and co-director of the TMW Center for Early Learning & Public Health, highlighted the importance of nurturing connection, curiosity, and lifelong learning in an AI-driven world. She shared a striking observation about how quiet waiting rooms have become, as both parents and children are now glued to their devices. To help families and educators navigate the influx of AI tools, she introduced the DETECT framework, which encourages thoughtful evaluation of AI tools by asking questions like: Who is this designed for? Is there evidence it works? Do children have trouble with it? Does it promote ethical use? Does it protect children’s confidentiality? And does it teach in a way that is aligned with the values of the home or classroom?

The growing digital divide was another critical topic of discussion. While access to technology has expanded, the divide has shifted to who has access to opportunities for developing creativity and human-centered skills. Higher-income families are better positioned to prioritize these skills, while lower-income students often face more rigid, tech-mediated learning environments. This disparity raises concerns about equity and the long-term impact on children’s competence, agency, and resilience. Dr. Suskind also introduced another guiding acronym, HOPE, which underscores the irreplaceable value of human connection, the importance of owning AI’s imperfections, and the need to protect the foundational early years while using AI as a tool for enhancement, not replacement.

Several speakers likened the introduction of AI to the early days of social media, emphasizing the need to “get it right” this time. The stakes are high: relying too heavily on AI and removing opportunities for children to struggle and overcome obstacles could undermine their ability to build resilience and agency—qualities essential for wellbeing. Adeel Kahn, Founder and CEO of Magic School AI, shared an interesting lesson from his company’s journey. Initially, they anthropomorphized their AI bot for both teachers and students but quickly learned this approach wasn’t effective, underscoring the importance of thoughtful design in educational technology.

The conversations at SXSW EDU underscored a shared commitment to ensuring that technology serves as a tool for connection, creativity, growth, and wellbeing—not a replacement for the human touch. As Ms. Monica so eloquently put it, we must ask ourselves: Does this help children thrive? By keeping this question at the forefront, we can navigate the digital age with intention and care, ensuring a brighter future for the next generation.

By Stefanie Cousins, Vice President, Marketing & Communications, Fluent Research

At first glance, Positive Youth Development and the Native Tongues might seem to live in different worlds — one grounded in research and youth policy, the other born from hip-hop’s playful, inventive spirit. Look closer and you see the same heartbeat: Young people thrive when we recognize their strengths, connect them to community and give them real opportunities to contribute.

The Birth of PYD

Positive Youth Development (PYD) emerged in the late 20th century as a response to deficit-based models of adolescence. Too often, young people were seen as problems waiting to happen, defined by risks like delinquency, dropout or substance use.

Developmental psychologist Richard Lerner, Ph.D., helped flip that script. His research identified the Five Cs of thriving youth: competence, confidence, connection, character and caring. Similarly, Peter Benson, Ph.D., of the Search Institute emphasized the power of developmental assets (i.e., relationships, skills and opportunities) that allow young people to ignite their “sparks.”

Together, these scholars (along with many others) advanced a movement that was not just about preventing harm but about promoting growth, leadership and well-being.

The Native Tongues as a living PYD case study

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Native Tongues — including A Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul, Jungle Brothers and Queen Latifah — modeled a youth-positive culture long before PYD was a common acronym. They offered a countercurrent to cynicism and narrow definitions of “realness,” centering curiosity, humor, Afrocentric imagery and community. The cipher wasn’t just a performance — it was a classroom, a lab, a family.

Through that lens, you can see the principles of Positive Youth Development in motion:

• Aiming for positive outcomes: The Native Tongues didn’t build their movement around fear or scarcity. They built toward something: connection, creativity, pride and contribution. They showed that the best way to keep young people from harm is to give them something powerful to move toward.

• Using a strength-based approach: Their music celebrated what was already strong in their communities (i.e., language, rhythm, humor, intelligence and culture) and turned it into an engine for self-expression and growth.

• Promoting youth engagement and voice: They didn’t wait for permission to lead; they created their own platforms and spoke in their own voices. Collaboration and co-creation were the rule, not the exception. This was authentic youth-adult partnership before the term existed.

• Utilizing inclusive strategies: Their art welcomed everyone into the fold. Black, white, brown, queer, straight, nerdy, street, spiritual … it didn’t matter. The goal was to bring more people into the circle, not to draw lines around who belonged.

• Fostering collaborative, long-term community engagement: They worked together across crews, neighborhoods and generations to create a lasting cultural shift that valued mentorship, belonging and contribution over competition.

They didn’t reject struggle; they transformed it. Their legacy reminds us that Positive Youth Development isn’t about denying what’s hard but rather about creating spaces where joy, dignity and possibility can thrive alongside it.

Culture as a Pathway

The Native Tongues’ influence extended through the music and messages of affiliated artists. Queen Latifah, with her anthem “U.N.I.T.Y.”, elevated self-respect and empowerment, especially for young women in spaces where their voices were too often marginalized. Afrika Baby Bam from the Jungle Brothers celebrated the strengths that he saw in his context when he said, “We weren’t trying to separate ourselves from the street. We were trying to lift it up.”

These artists carried forward the same developmental ideals that scholars like Lerner and Benson articulated: youth need opportunities to express themselves, to contribute to something larger, and to be affirmed as valuable members of a community.

From deficits to strengths

As Karen Pittman reminds us, “problem-free is not fully prepared.” Both PYD and the Native Tongues rejected the notion that young people should only be measured by what they avoid: violence, drugs, failure. Instead, they emphasized what young people can become: leaders, creators, community-builders.

Consider a modern youth center. A deficit approach might emphasize control and surveillance, aiming only to “keep kids out of trouble.” A PYD approach, inspired by both research and hip-hop culture, would instead provide mentorship, leadership opportunities and creative outlets that help young people prepare not just to stay safe, but to thrive.

Seeing the bigger picture

Neither PYD nor the Native Tongues ignored the realities of poverty, racism or trauma. But both refused to let those forces define young people. They insisted on seeing talent, resilience and possibility. That shift from deficit to possibility is what allows youth programs, cultural movements and whole communities to move from survival to thriving.

Learning from the Native Tongues

The Native Tongues show that PYD isn’t only a framework, it’s a way of building culture. It’s a set of practices that turn individual sparks into community light.

If we want youth to thrive, let’s do what both the research and the records tell us: invest in competence, connection and contribution; honor identity and creativity; build spaces where joy and rigor live side by side.

In other words, let’s recognize what the Native Tongues already knew: When young people are given real chances to express their gifts and lift each other up, they don’t just survive, they thrive. And if we didn’t know before … well, now we do.

Dan Warren is Director, Youth Development & Education.

This article was originally published in Youth Today, on November 11, 2025.

Research Camp is an immersive experience for both youth and clients. For the kids, it involves engaging in a full schedule of camp activities and participating in research for a brief period each day. Clients have the opportunity to witness children grapple with their research or design questions in real life while also interacting with them informally. What makes this experience unique is that we conduct the research in a fun and engaging environment: Camp. Research Camps take place in cities across the US at established camps that hold sessions during school vacations and in the summer. The incentive for youth participation is a week of the camp’s tuition at a significantly reduced price.

At Research Camp, we explore the world through the eyes of children. Using a range of qualitative research methodologies, we aim for deep insights into their thoughts, feelings, and experiences to answer our client’s research questions. Over the past few weeks, we’ve published articles about how Research Camp came about and how we found our first participants. In this article, we’ll focus on how we leverage a convenience sample and five qualitative research methodologies to understand and enhance the lives of children.

Convenience Sampling – A Quick Entry Point

Research Camp relies heavily on a convenience sampling. A convenience sample is just that, convenient, because participants are selected based on ease of recruitment over randomness. It is particularly helpful when conducting exploratory or formative research because it allows us to gather data quickly from children who are either attending the camp or already interested in going. Convenience sampling tends to be time efficient and cost effective compared to other sampling methodologies, making it a great choice when appropriate.

Convenience sampling, however, comes with its limitations. Since participants aren’t randomly selected, the sample may not accurately represent the broader population, thus limiting the external validity of the research. Additionally, the absence of randomness in the selection process makes reliable estimation of sampling error problematic and, therefore, precise statistical inferences and hypothesis testing doesn’t really work. For our purposes, the convenience sample is perfect, but researchers must be aware of the drawbacks when designing and interpreting convenience sample-based studies.

Qualitative Research Methodologies We Use with Kids at Camp

Because children have unique perspectives and experiences that may not always be adequately captured by utilizing one research solution, we use five different qualitative research methodologies at Research Camp. These methodologies were chosen to generate rich data to help us explore nuanced responses, emotions, and stories that go beyond data from surveys or questionnaires to provide a more holistic view of children’s experiences and opinions.

1. Focus Groups – Exploring Children’s Perspectives

One of the primary qualitative methodologies we use is focus groups. In a focus group a skilled moderator guides a small group of children through discussions on specific topics. This methodology offers several advantages:

        • Careful Participant Selection: We ensure that the children in our focus groups are uniquely positioned to provide valuable insights into the topic under investigation.
        • Experienced Moderation: Our moderators have backgrounds in child psychology or education, creating a safe environment for children to express themselves.
        • Age-Appropriate Sessions: Recognizing children’s shorter attention spans, our focus group sessions typically last 45 minutes to an hour and may involve engaging activities like games or storytelling.

 

2. In-Depth Interviews – A Personal Connection

In-depth interviews (IDIs) with children are another valuable qualitative methodology we use during Research Camp. These semi-structured interviews facilitate detailed discussions with children on a wide range of topics. Conducting in-depth interviews with kids provides two benefits to the research process:

        • A Child-Centric Approach: In-depth interviews allow us to adapt questions to the child’s developmental stage and cognitive abilities, ensuring age-appropriate interactions.
        • Building Trust: Conducted in a one-on-one, non-threatening environment, these interviews often lead to stronger connections between children and researchers, fostering more honest and open responses compared to focus groups.

 

3. Child Ethnography – Immersed in Their World

Child ethnography, a specialized form of ethnographic research, plays a crucial role in Research Camp. This qualitative methodology involves immersive, long-term fieldwork to study the lives of children within their cultural and social contexts. We do this both on-site at the camp as well as in the homes of some of the campers outside of the camp hours. Child ethnography is invaluable because it provides:

        • Deep Insights: Child ethnography provides a holistic understanding of children’s daily lives, experiences, and perspectives by allowing the researchers to see things play out over a longer period in a more natural environment.
        • Cultural Context: Ethnographies can help researchers explore how cultural norms, values, and practices shape children’s experiences and development, offering insights into their socialization.

 

4. Observations – Becoming part of the scene

Nothing has been more effective than getting into the thick of it with kids. By interacting with youth through observations and immersion during Research Camp, researchers spend time with children, observe their interactions, and engage in informal conversations. Observations have some specific benefits:

        • Immersive Insights: Observations and immersion provide authentic insights into children’s lives by creating the opportunity to see kids over a longer and less contrived period of time.
        • “Quantity” time: By creating a wider timeframe to observe kids, we increase the possibility of kids becoming more comfortable and, therefore, authentic. It also makes the space for other unintended insights that can provide some of the most profound breakthroughs.

 

5. Co-Creation Sessions – Collaborating with Children

Co-creation sessions, when children are invited into the process of the design, development, or improvement of products or services, are an amazing and inspiring experience. Often, researchers and designers get stuck in a certain adult-centric way of thinking and need to enlist the help of kids to create alongside them. Co-creation is great because it provides:

        • Fresh Perspectives: Children offer fresh, imaginative, and innovative viewpoints that can lead to creative solutions.
        • User-Centric Solutions: Co-creation ensures that products or services are tailored to children’s needs and preferences, enhancing customer satisfaction.

 

Research Camp employs a range of qualitative research methodologies to unlock the unique perspectives and experiences of children. From focus groups and in-depth interviews to child ethnography, observations, and co-creation sessions, these methodologies help us understand, empower, and advocate for children in a world that often, intentionally or not, misinterprets or tunes out their critical voices.

By Dan Warren, Director, Youth Development & Education

A wise and dear professor once told me, “The medium is not the message. The message is the message.” And when television was the medium, that was certainly true. But is that still the case with the proliferation of interactive media for children taking hold? Does the interactivity of the medium outweigh the content being delivered on it?

In the podcast series, Chasing Life, Dr. Sanjay Gupta delves into the science behind the impact of technology on our brains. This particular episode, Inside a Lab Studying Toddlers and Touchscreens,” explores the impact of interactive touchscreen technologies on very young children. Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a pediatrician and director of Seattle Children’s Research Institute, explains how his research is finding that children between the ages of 18 and 24 months struggle to disengage from an app in comparison to a traditional toy. This knowledge triggers questions for both parents of young children as well as the technology companies that create these apps. What can parents and tech companies do to prevent adverse effects on children’s young brains from this relatively new technology?

As a parent myself, I see in my teenagers how the interactivity and stimulation of technology keeps them fully engaged and immersed. And in my role as Director of Content Research and Evaluation at Fluent Research, I help technology and media companies understand how children and parents experience apps, games, and other products so designers and producers who create digital content for kids do so with their wellbeing in mind. This is more important than ever as technology continues to evolve and draw in the attention of a generation. As Dr. Christakis says, “Every program is educational. The question is, ‘What is it teaching?’” We need to do better for our children.

By Allison Caplovitz, PhD

Digital contexts are becoming more prevalent in children’s lives than ever before, fueled in part by the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to move various aspects of children’s lives online*. Since human development is a holistic and dynamic process between the developing person and his or her context* and children develop in positive and healthy ways when their strengths are combined with the strengths of their contexts, we have an opportunity as researchers to bring this framework to the changing landscape of children’s lives.

What has become apparent in our company’s recent requests for proposals, is that there is a lack of fit between the knowledge and experience of many designers and the developmental needs and abilities of children. This lack of fit signals a fundamental problem, and an opportunity, given the growing presence of digital technology as a context for children’s development. The virtual world is a new frontier and there has been a land rush of companies looking to stake their claim flag.  This rapid growth has seemed to create holes in the capabilities of these frontier companies. More precisely, the talent needed to design for adults does not adequately translate to designing for kids. In the absence of comprehensive knowledge about child development, current designers may err in using themselves or those close to them as the markers of success and/or “normality”.

“We all have a blind spot and it’s shaped exactly like us.” – Junto Diaz, Author

Short of extensive training in child development, designers can utilize a few central rules of thumb when designing for kids. Keeping these in mind will go a long way to minimizing, or at least acknowledging, our biases:

1) All humans are whole. Sometimes by necessity, we need to zoom in and focus on a specific part of children’s development, such as their literacy level or their ability to swipe on a tablet. But it is important to understand those parts within the context of the whole developing person. We then need to further adjust our lens to view that person as situated within a dynamic relationship with his or her context.

2) There is no ‘typical’ child. Much of what we know and have studied about children is approximations that are gathered from information that has been averaged over large groups from mostly Westernized societies. Expectations about children should be considered approximations that can get you close to understanding.

3) All households are different. A common mistake is to view children’s development as unfolding in a vacuum. Rules and expectations differ greatly by household and are driven by cultural, situational, and practical factors. Just because a child is developmentally capable of something does not mean that they will do it.

4) Child development is less linear than it appears. Because development is an iterative process, there are often regressions that ebb and flow with progressions. Development of a skill or competency may occur steadily over time or rapidly in spurts. While many abilities get better over time, it is not always the case.  Some abilities, like attention span increase gradually over time during childhood while other capacities, like learning a new language, decrease over time. Other aspects of development, like identity development, are latent during younger years and then rapidly develop.

If there is one mantra that we could recommend to all designers and those thinking about how to best support kids, we would strongly offer this:

“Every [child] is like all other [children], some other [children], and no other [child].” – Kluckhohn & Murray, Anthropologist & Psychologist

By Dan and Amy Warren.

==========

1*Responsible Innovation in Technology for Children. UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti, Florence, 2022.

*Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdóttir, S. Naudeau, S., Jelicic, H., Alberts, A. E., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D., Simpson, I., Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.

 

Here at Fluent Research, we find ourselves interacting with kids nearly all year around. We interview them about playtime and class time, film them at home and at school, play games with them, and even watch videos alongside them. We talk to kids a lot for the research we conduct on behalf of our clients!

Some researchers may be intimidated by talking to children. It’s understandable. We were young people too once, but we might not remember what it’s like to be 4, 6, or 8 years old. Well, fear no more! Our Director of Youth Development and Education Dan Warren put together the above video to help you get through your next interaction with a small human and have fun at the same time!

If you would like to download the slide show, click here.