by Christopher Thurber, Ph.D., A.B.P.P., and Clare
E. Durkin
e-bivalance
There you are. Face-to-face on Opening Day
with a camp parent who wants you to explain your camp's communications
policy. "Why can't my child call me on his cell phone?" "Why
aren't you set up to receive daily e-mails?" "Where's
the Webcam so I can watch my child play at camp from my desktop?" Whether
you're a camp director or a bunk counselor, you'll need answers
to these questions — and others like them — before the summer
starts. And to avoid a vapid or inflammatory response, such as "That's
just our policy," you'll need an understanding of parents
and their views about electronic communications. The data in this article
will help you do just that.
If the pages of Camping Magazine are any
indication, then ambivalence about electronic communications (or "e-bivalance"
if you will) at camp has reached an all-time high. Back in the January/February
2006 issue of Camping Magazine, I wrote that camp directors needed
to design electronic technology policies that were in accord with their
camp's mission ("The Digital Umbilical," pp. 44-51).
A few readers misinterpreted my stance as anti-technology, even though
I'd stated, "Loyalty to your mission is not about being anti-technology
or pro-technology, it's about being pro-camp and pro-children."
Camp
directors began writing and revising their camp's electronic technology
policies, including guidelines for staff use of the Internet, rules for
campers' contact with home during the camp season, and parameters
for camper-staff contact in the off-season. Many camps have now aligned
all of their electronic technology policies with their camp's mission.
For example, in the American Camp Association's (ACA) 2007 Emerging
Issues survey, 56 percent of the 365 camp professionals who completed
the survey said they had a written policy regarding staff use of social
networking Web sites.
In the two years since "The Digital Umbilical,"
various authors and camp professionals — both in Camping
Magazine and at
conferences — have upheld a variety of opinions. Some assert that
weekly e-mails from camp are a necessity; others say emails from camp
are a self-destructive play into the hands of helicopter parents. Some
have written that live Webcams at camp are inevitable; others have warned
that live broadcasts are a fast track to a lawsuit. (Who will be the
first camper to flash the live Webcam?) Some have argued that campers' use
of cell phones is benign or that prohibiting cell phones at camp is fighting
a losing battle; others see cell phones as unnecessary, believing that
cell phones erode a camp's mission of nurturing independence. There
are certainly two valid sides to any argument about electronic communications
at camp.
Amid this e-bivalance, ACA's CEO Peg Smith wrote, "We've
lost our understanding of child and youth development and the need to
nurture and provide opportunities for independence as a result of our
unrelenting fear for safety." She went on to discuss the irony
that although we live in "a world of connectivity that binds us," it
also "holds us bound to the point where we can't see beyond
the horizon (September/October 2007 issue of Camping
Magazine)."
Time,
Fear, and Trends
These prescient words from Peg capture the tension I've
sensed for years. The camp directors who pull me aside at conference
ask questions like: "Will we succumb to the force of evolving technology
or stay true to the core mission of camp?" and "Will we work
hard to win any battle that ensures our integrity as an industry or be
crushed by cultural inertia?" I agree that human communication
habits are evolving, but that doesn't mean that the habits are
healthy in all environments. And if respected professionals posit that
time, fear, or trends should shape camps' electronic communications
policies, where does that leave us?
To start, let's state the obvious:
We know that camp directors and front-line cabin leaders don't
have to integrate electronic technologies into parent-child communication
during camp. Even technology companies understand that we have that choice.
Did you know that U.S. Cellular and PBD Worldwide Fulfillment Services
have "e-mailfree Fridays"? Indeed, some people receive so
much e-mail these days that they periodically delete their entire inbox.
If we want, we can set limits with our campers and parents, just as we
do with ourselves and own children.
Next, we must craft winning mission
statements for our camps and then design policies around our stated youth
development goals. (That principle is embodied in ACA-accreditation standards
such as PD-6.) If, for example, a camp wants to cultivate independence,
then perhaps it should let children really be apart from their primary
caregivers for a while. But that's the rub. How can we nurture
children's independence and satisfy loving parents who have become
accustomed to frequent, electronic communication with their children?
The answer is not as elusive as some think.
What Parents Say
In the summer
of 2007, I surveyed 293 parents at a traditional, all-girl, resident
camp and 196 parents at a traditional, allboy, resident camp. About three-quarters
of these parents had household incomes above $100,000, most were White,
all had a son or daughter away from home for two or four weeks, and all
were questioned after camp was over. Most of the families were from the
northeast U.S. and all of the campers were between the ages of eight
and fifteen, with an average age of twelve.
Participating parents completed
an eighteen-item, paper-and-pencil questionnaire on the closing day of
their child's stay. Among other questions, they were asked to rate
the desirability and appropriateness of five kinds of electronic communication,
using a numerical rating scale that varied from 0 to 10. The parents'
responses, and the semantic anchors for interpreting the rating scale,
are presented in Figure 1.
As you can see, these parents' average
ratings of electronic technologies were unfavorable. Personal music players
were viewed less negatively, but average scores for desirability and
appropriateness on this item hovered around 3, somewhere between "not
at all desirable/not at all appropriate" and "doesn't
matter." Perhaps the fact that personal music players are not two-way
communication devices produced a less unfavorable rating.
Whereas other
published studies may have been representative of some parents' attitudes
about communication with older teens away on trips, this study's
sample was more representative of parents' attitudes about communication
with eight- to fifteenyear- olds at traditional, single-sex, overnight
camps. However, note that this group of parents was self-selected. They
chose to enroll their children at camps with conservative electronic
technology policies.
At the boys' camp, there were no camper cell phones, no e-mail,
no streaming video, and no Webcams. Campers were allowed only personal
music players (without video) and use was restricted to inside cabins
during rest hour. The girls' camp went a step further. Their policy
prohibited personal music players altogether. In both cases, parents' intentional
choices were reflected in the data. If there were parents who desired electronic
communication with their children, they probably found different camps
with more liberal policies.
The unsolicited comments some parents wrote
in the margins of the surveys revealed some of the reasoning behind their
camp selection. For example:
- "I would not enroll my daughter
here if camp allowed cell phones."
- "I want my daughter
to have the valuable experience of being away from home."
- "It
is fantastic to have the kids ‘unplugged' for a month."
- "I
bring her here to have a totally different environment: no electronics,
boys, or clothes/hair/make-up issues."
- "We would probably
choose an alternate camp if these technologies became part of life
here. It would diminish the special experience our daughters have here."
- "I
like that my daughter is away from the pressures of our material society."
- "Do
not taint the pure, wholesome, and authentic camp experience you provide
for our son."
- "If you allowed cell phones, I'd
think twice about sending my boys back. Don't change."
- "I
don't believe electronic technology has any place at camp."
- "Don't
lose camp traditions to the clutter of technology. We have that all
year."
- "Let
me be clear: I HATE cell phones attached to a child's ear."
In
fairness, I should point out that a dozen of these 489 parents thought
they might like to e-mail their son or daughter, some had no problem
with their child having a personal music player, and a few were intrigued
with the idea of a Webcam at camp. Attitudes do vary.
What Camp Directors
Say
One wonders whether parents at these two camps are representative
of most U.S. parents who enroll their children at camp. Someday, a large-scale
national study — one that includes camps with liberal electronic
technology policies and more ethnically diverse parents — will answer
that question. For now, it is interesting that these 2007 parent data closely
mirror the results of the Emerging Issues survey that ACA conducted online
in December 2007.
Some 74 percent of the 365 camp directors who completed that Emerging
Issues survey said their campers could not use electronic technology
while at camp. This includes all of the devices covered in Figure
1.
Twentyfive percent said that their campers could use only certain forms
of electronic technology and only during "limited, appropriate
times," such as listening to an MP3 player during rest hour. Camp
directors were also surveyed about which kinds of electronics were "available
and accessible for approved use by campers." Their responses are
depicted in Figure 2.
These results support the conclusion
that parents and camp directors may actually be aligning along conservative
electronic technology and communications policies. Perhaps there is less
e-bivalence than once believed.
Lessons Learned
My research last summer
revealed that most parents in these traditional camps were strongly opposed
to electronic communication with their children at camp. Indeed, many
parents are searching for camps that embrace the natural world rather
than the electronic one. These parents disagree with those who insist
that e-mail is necessary or that Webcams at camp will reach popular acceptance.
They disagree with those who predict that cell phone use at camp is inevitable.
And they seem to agree with Peg Smith that our world of connectivity
can "hold us bound" if we're not mindful.
ACA's data revealed that many camp directors are in step — perhaps
more in step than they realize — with these parents. Most telling
was the question on the Emerging Issues survey that asked camp directors
to pick one of four paragraphs that best reflected their philosophy (not
necessarily their policy) regarding electronics at camp. Just 3 percent
(perhaps a few of the computer camps I work with) endorsed "Electronics
are a necessary part of all aspects of life and should be seen as an
opportunity for camps" and just 5 percent endorsed "Electronics
may become a necessary part of all aspects of life, and camps will have
to adapt and accept the inevitable."
In contrast, 70 percent of
the directors endorsed "Although electronics may become a necessary
part of all aspects of life, camp should be one of the places where electronics
are limited." And 22 percent took the purist stance by endorsing "Although
electronics may become a necessary part of all aspects of life, camp
is not the place for electronics."
Ties That Bind
In what ways
do electronics hold us bound? Take cell phones, for example. The biggest
problem with campers talking on cell phones to their parents is that
they are not talking to the camp staff or to their camp friends. How
can staff help a child resolve a personal or social problem at camp if
they don't even know about it?
A primary reason parents provide
a camp experience for their son or daughter is to build social connections.
Indeed, 75 percent of the parents in my parental attitudes study said
that "making new friends" was one of the top three reasons
they sent their son or daughter to camp. And 82 percent said that "gaining
independence" was also among their top three reasons. But this
can't happen if a child is calling home with questions, comments,
and concerns. Writing home, however, is different, because writing forces
a deeper synthesis and analysis of ideas. Creating written narratives
of experiences actually promotes understanding. Moreover, the modest
speed of a written letter exchange leaves time for personal reflection
and the development of coping skills and social connections.
Once again,
if a traditional overnight camp's mission includes nurturing independence,
building social skills, and spending time in nature, then electronic
technologies might play a limited role or none at all. Contact with parents
is important, but as one parent put it, "It's a wonderful
thing to write a letter. I will keep my son's handwritten letters
from camp forever and treasure them." Indeed, my research on homesickness
suggests that letter writing is one effective antidote. These days, many
camps are set up to receive e-mail from parents, but a snail-mailed,
handwritten response does have special appeal to parents. [Tips
for parents on writing good e-mail to campers.]
Your
Value Proposition
Electronics do have their place at some camps (especially
computer camps), but perhaps not at all camps. One father summed it up
well: "Electronics at camp would enable the very behavior we're
looking to get a respite from. We don't want kids to be constantly
tethered to hovering parents! Plus, electronics can isolate kids from
their peers at camp. Instead of considering the negative impact of being
without electronics, I suggest promoting all of the activities and peer
connections that camp offers instead."
Some readers will object
that their camp's parents are not like this father or the other
dads and moms at the camps I studied. This is true. Nevertheless, even
if a camp had a staunchly pro-electronics clientele, that doesn't
mean parents need to shape policy. At the very least, it's worth
collecting your own data. Truly, we can only know how synchronized our
policies are with our parents' attitudes by asking. Hard data always
trumps anecdotes and armchair assumptions.
This brings us full circle,
back to conversations with parents. This summer, when you're face-to-face
with a parent who wants to know why your electronic communications policy
is what it is, you'll have lots more to say. Perhaps you'll
even have your own data to back up your answer.
At the very least, I
recommend saying something like, "We work hard to create policies
in line with our camp's mission. That mission includes _______,
_______, and _______. And although no single policy would satisfy everyone,
we embrace this policy because it supports our goals of _______, _______,
and _______ for our campers." That's a great value proposition
. . . once you've filled in the blanks.
There is room on our planet
for all kinds of camps with all kinds of electronic technology policies
and communication practices. If you have articulated a mission, designed
policies congruent with that mission, assessed your campers' and
parents' attitudes, and marketed your camp with your core values
in hand, then you are directing with integrity. And if you're directing
with integrity, your camp will attract the kinds of families whose mission
matches yours.
Originally published in the 2008 May/June
issue of Camping Magazine. |
