CAVEAT: This blog article was inspired by one of our followers who understandably questioned a piece of research cited in one of our articles. They pointed out that one of our research citations was identified by a Canadian family doctor as being funded by big tech. The implication was that this research might not be reliable due to a perceived conflict of interest, potentially influencing research bias in its results.
As parents, it’s natural to be concerned about the impact of social media on our child’s mental health. A common criticism we encounter is that research funded by big tech companies shouldn’t be trusted due to potential bias, often summed up by the phrase “follow the money” – an attempt to discredit the research, especially if it does not support one’s narrative or belief. While skepticism towards any research funded by big tech is needed and healthy, it’s essential to understand why dismissing such research outright can be a logical fallacy.
When social media research is funded by social media companies, potential conflicts of interest can be a possibility. Researchers who receive funding from social media companies may face a real or perceived conflict of interest, as their findings could be seen as biased towards the interests of their funders. The main concerns include:
- Bias: The possibility of tailoring research questions, methodologies, and interpretations to favor the sponsor.
- Selective Reporting: Highlighting positive outcomes while downplaying or omitting negative findings.
- Pressure and Influence: Explicit or implicit pressure from funders to produce favorable results.
There is no doubt that studies funded by social media giants may be seen as less credible if the conclusions consistently align with the interests of these companies. For instance, research downplaying the negative impacts of social media on mental health could be questioned if funded by a social media platform.
It’s entirely valid to question the motivations behind research funding. When evaluating research on youth and social media, it’s crucial to look for these checks and balances – ensure the study was conducted by a respected university or research group, was it reviewed by an independent ethics board, was it verified that it was peer-reviewed by experts in the field, was there a disclosure about funding sources and potential conflicts of interest that should form a part of any reputable research paper.
In our experience, we always look for these criteria when evaluating research, particularly those funded by big tech. For instance, we have reviewed studies on the use of technology by youth from various perspectives and have dismissed several studies from both sides of the debate that lacked independent ethics reviews and peer review. We often found that the studies we dismissed were “opinions” disguised as research studies.
While it’s wise to be cautious about research funded by big tech companies, it’s equally important to recognize that not all funded research is inherently biased or unreliable. By understanding and seeking out the rigorous checks and balances in place, you can make informed decisions about the research you trust.
However, what’s fair for one should be fair for all. Shouldn’t groups, organizations, and individuals advocating for no cellphones in schools or delaying cellphone and social media access until age 16, who receive funding from tech companies promoting tech safety products for youth, also be subject to the same “conflict of interest” scrutiny?
The question arises whether groups and individuals advocating for restrictions on cellphone and social media access among youth should face similar conflicts of interest concerns when funded or sponsored by tech companies that produce safety products for children – we think the answer should be “yes”. Key concerns include:
- Advocacy-Driven Demand: Are they advocating for policies that create a market for their funders or sponsor’s products, thus creating a demand for their products through advocacy that they benefit from?
- Risk Emphasis: Are they over emphasizing the risks of cellphone or social media use to promote tech safety solutions that they financially benefit from?
- Objectivity: Skepticism regarding the objectivity of their recommendations.
Just as academic researchers are held accountable for real or perceived conflicts of interest; groups, organizations, or individuals advocating for delayed cellphone or social media access or tech-free schools might also be viewed with suspicion if they receive funding from companies selling parental control apps or other safety technologies. Their credibility could be questioned, similar to how social media researchers are scrutinized for their funding sources. As mentioned earlier in this article – follow the money!
At least good academic research sponsored by social media vendors often undergoes peer review, providing a layer of scrutiny – agreed, not perfect for sure but at least it’s something. This same scrutiny often does not apply to organizations, individuals, or advocacy groups pushing a message. If these groups are quoting statistics or research they have gathered or conducted, shouldn’t it also be questioned and scrutinized? Good academic research provides all the data for scrutiny to ensure accuracy, which is not necessarily the case when stats and research are promoted by those outside of academia.
As a hypothetical – what if a non-academic group, organization, or individual released a research report, or publicly claimed without citation, that thousands of teens die every year because of social media, or that a certain percentage of youth experience mental health challenges due to cellphones? Shouldn’t they be required to provide their methodology and the actual numbers they used so that these claims can be scrutinized for accuracy, and any conflict-of-interest concerns? I do find that many reputable not-for-profit groups, like MediaSmarts Canada do this, but not so much with for-profit organizations, groups, or individuals who are selling a product or pushing an agenda.
Remember, the goal is to protect your child’s well-being, and reputable, scrutinized research that is funded by big tech can be a valuable tool in achieving this goal. In our experience, reputable ethics-reviewed and peer-reviewed research funded by big tech often aligns with studies that were not funded by big tech. When it doesn’t, however, we do become more vigilant and question its validity.
Digital Food for Thought
The White Hatter
