University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

From networks to Nickelodeon to Noggin: A communication networks perspective on the evolution of the children's television community

(USC Thesis Other)

From networks to Nickelodeon to Noggin: A communication networks perspective on the evolution of the children's television community

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content FROM NETWORKS TO NICKELODEON TO NOGGIN: A COMMUNICATION NETWORKS PERSPECTIVE ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE CHILDREN’S TELEVISION COMMUNITY Copyright 2003 by Jennifer Alison Bryant A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (COMMUNICATION) August 2003 Jennifer Alison Bryant Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3116672 Copyright 2003 by Bryant, Jennifer Alison All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3116672 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695 This dissertation, written by under the direction o f h &C dissertation committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Director o f Graduate and Professional Programs, in partial fulfillment of the requirements fo r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Director Dissertation Committee Chair Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION For my parents: Academic (Peter & Janet), Genealogical (Sara), & Both (Jennings) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the help and encouragement of many people. First of all, I would like to thank my advisor and mentor, Peter Monge, who has consistently (yet gently) urged me push the boundaries of theory-building. Thank you for all of your support and advice, and for teaching me the importance of social networks (in many respects). In addition, I would like to thank my dissertation committee: Peter Vorderer, Peter Robertson, and Janet Fulk. Your feedback, brainstorming, and support during this process have been invaluable. I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the extremely generous folks in the children's television community, who took time out of their unbelievably busy schedules to tell me their stories about the past, present, and future of children’s television: Donna Mitroff (MediaScope), Peggy Charren (Action for Children’s Television), Sholly Fisch (MediaKidz), Marsha Williams (Nickelodeon/MTV Networks), Rosemarie Truglio (Sesame Workshop), Vicky Rideout (Kaiser Family Foundation), Patti Miller (ChildrenNow), Andy Heyward (DIC Entertainment), Donna Friedman Meir (National Geographic Kids), Howard Leib (BrainCamp!), Lloyd Morrisett (Sesame Workshop), Rita Weisskoff, Joan Ganz Cooney (Sesame Workshop), Terri Bartlett (Toy Industry Association), Alice Cahn (Markle Foundation), Thomas Conley (Toy Industry Association), Horst Stipp (NBC), iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kathryn Montgomery (Center for Media Education), Susan Petroff (Reading Rockets), and Brigid Sullivan (WGBH/Boston). Your narratives are priceless. I would also like to thank my many colleagues on the National Science Foundation project “Coevolution of Knowledge Networks and 21st Century Organizational Forms” for their feedback on the early stages of this project, as well as NSF for sponsoring this research. In particular, I’d like to thank Edward Palazzolo, Nosh Contractor, and the TECLab team at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign for their support of my work. These part four years would have been much less interesting if I hadn’t had two amazing colleagues along for the ride. Elisia Cohen and Michelle Shumate have been my sounding boards, editors, brainstorming partners, travel companions, and best friends. I look forward to our many years of friendship (and bigger offices!). Finally, I would like to thank my family for their unconditional support from 2000 miles away. You have always been supportive in every endeavor, no matter how crazy it seemed at the time. Thank you for your phone calls, emails, flowers, biscuits, bunny ears, and fam jams. I love you all very much. IV Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Abbreviations viii Abstract ix Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: A Communication Networks Approach to Community Ecology 8 Chapter 3: The Eight Populations of the Children’s Television Community 56 Chapter 4: Methods 106 Chapter 5: Results 128 Chapter 6: Conclusion 149 Bibliography 159 Appendix A: Population Emergence by Period 171 Appendix B : Network Data By Year & Relationships 176 Appendix C: Final Network Data 306 v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES 1: Environmental Events in the History o f the Children’s Television Community 2: Network Density Measures by Time Period & Between Time Period T-Test Results 3: Results of T-Test Comparison of Mutual and Competitive Ties by TimePeriod 4: Summary of Results 1 2 0 130-1 136 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES 1: Stages of Community Evolution by Network Link Density 2: Network Densities by Time Period 3: Comparison of Proposed Stage Model with Actual Results Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABBREVIATIONS ACT Action for Children’s Television CME Center for Media Education CPB Corporation for Public Broadcasting CTA Children’s Television Act of 1990 CTW Children’s Television Workshop E/I Educational/Informational FCC Federal Communications Commission FTC Federal Trade Commission MTML Multitheoretical Multilevel PBS Public Broadcasting System RTL Ready-To-Leam Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT Understanding the organizational history of the children's television community is the key to understanding why children’s television has evolved in the way it has. In order to discern the mechanisms through which this community has coevolved, this dissertation employs and expands upon theoretical and methodological work in the organizational communication and organizational change literatures. As a result, this dissertation is a response to four recently mentioned opportunities in organizational literatures - the need to understand organizational evolution from the level of the community (e.g., Aldrich, 1999; Astley, 1985; Baum, 1996; Carroll & Hannan, 1999; DiMaggio, 1994; Ruef, 2000); the need to more systematically understand the complex relationships within the community (Baum, 1996); the need to incorporate network analysis in the study of community ecology (DiMaggio, 1994); and the need to move network analysis toward a multitheoretical and multilevel (MTML) framework for investigation (Monge & Contractor, 2003). This dissertation draws on these four opportunities to create an integrated theoretical framework to study the evolution of organizational communities through network analysis, and uses the children's television community to test this framework. In addition, a stage model of community evolution is proposed. Through the triangulation of three forms of data (interviews, network analysis questionnaires, and historical records), a set of over-time networks is created ix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. identifying the relationships between the eight populations within the children's television community. These networks are then used to test the community evolution stage model and several hypotheses regarding the change in the community communication network over time. Analysis yielded partial support for both the stage model and the hypotheses. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION From where we sit, it seems abundantly clear that almost everyone in the TV business is still trying to figure out how to benefit from children instead of how to benefit children. This approach is particularly offensive when the facts are that one in four of TV’s youngest viewers is poor, one in five is at risk of becoming a teen parent, and one in seven is likely to drop out of school. (Action for Children's Television, 1988, p. 2) What these people fail to realize is that commercial television, even for children, is just another business. It is a business that makes money by helping sell products, a valuable stimulator for gross national product which in turn helps to create jobs and greases the wheels o f our economy. Is it fair to ask the television industry to be different from other businesses? Is it fair to ask for more control by the government than other businesses experience? (Schneider, 1987, p. 5) These two perspectives on children's television come from two of the key players in the children's television community over the past 50 years: Peggy Charren, president of Action for Children’s Television throughout its 25-year existence as the children's television advocacy group; and Cy Schneider, who in his four decades in the children's television community created over 1,000 children’s commercials, led Nickelodeon during its infancy, and headed two advertising agencies involved in developing children's television programs and commercials. This stark difference in opinion regarding the role of children's television is characteristic of the differences in opinion held by the different populations and organizations within the children's television community. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This disparity in perspective also arises in trying to define “children's television.” Since the 1950s and 1960s, children in America have been identified in both political and economic arenas as a “special audience.” In the political arena, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress, as well as numerous advocacy groups, have identified children as a special audience due to their developmental needs (Pecora, 1998). In its 1971 Notice of Inquiry and Proposed Rulemaking on children's television, the FCC highlighted the exceptional nature of children. The importance of this portion of the audience, and the character of material reaching it, are particularly great because its ideas and concepts are largely not yet crystallized and are therefore open to suggestion, and also because its members do not yet have the experience and judgment always to distinguish the real from the fanciful. (Federal Communications Commission, 1971, qtd. in Melody, 1973, p. 1) On the other hand, the economically motivated parties in the children's television community argue that what makes the child audience special is their buying power, both individually and within the household (Melody, 1973). Are children a developmentally “special audience” or just another pair of eyes glued to the “tube?” The reality is that children's television caters to both of these “special audiences.” It is both a conduit of information to a developmentally unique audience and “an effective exploitation of profitable markets” (Melody, 1973, p. 83). In addition to the difficulty in defining the nature of its audience, understanding what constitutes “children's television” is also problematic. According to Turow (1981), there are two approaches to defining children’s 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. television. The first approach is “audience-centered” and defines children's television as “any programs children watch” (p. 6). The second approach is “production-centered” and defines children's television as “programs that the production firms and/or the networks specifically intended for children” (p. 6). Both of these approaches have their limitations. If we use the audience-centered approach, every program on television is potentially a “children’s program.” Using the production-centered approach, however, requires getting into the heads of the content creators and content producers and determining their intentions. For the purposes of this dissertation, the production-centered approach to characterizing children's television will prevail. Because this dissertation focuses on the history of children's television from an organizational perspective, it is what is in the heads of those content creators and producers that is important. By invoking a production-centered perspective on children’s television, we can argue that children’s television programs are the end-product of an organizational process. This process takes place within the children's television community, a coordinated set of organizational populations that create, distribute, defend, and support children's television. The process unfolds through the interactions of these populations, so that what five decades of American children have seen on their television screen is the result of this organizational coevolution. Therefore, understanding the organizational history of the children's television community is the key to understanding why children’s television has evolved in the way it has. In order to discern the mechanisms through which this community has 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. coevolved, this dissertation employs and expands upon theoretical and methodological work in the organizational communication and organizational change literatures. As a result, this dissertation is a response to four recently mentioned opportunities in organizational literatures - the need to understand organizational evolution from the level of the community (e.g., Aldrich, 1999; Astley, 1985; Baum, 1996; Carroll & Hannan, 1999; DiMaggio, 1994; Ruef, 2000); the need to more systematically understand the complex relationships within the community (Baum, 1996); the need to incorporate network analysis in the study of community ecology (DiMaggio, 1994); and the need to move network analysis toward a multitheoretical and multilevel (MTML) framework for investigation (Monge & Contractor, 2003). The first opportunity arises from the literature in organizational ecology. With a few exceptions, the research in this area has focused on the evolution of organizations or populations of organizations. The second opportunity arises from the few studies that have looked at the community level within an ecological framework. Although the tenets of community ecology, discussed in detail in the next chapter, identify many different possible types of relationships between organizations, to date the research conducted in this area has focused on only one or two of those relationships. The third opportunity arises from a critique about the field of organizational evolution and its approach to more macro levels of organizational change. Paul DiMaggio (1994), in a commentary on the challenges of community evolution, highlights the importance of understanding the relationships between populations as 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a pivotal locale of evolution. Moreover, he argued, “network analysis and organizational ecology can be combined to their mutual advantage” (p. 447). In a similar vein, the fourth opportunity arises from the recent work by Monge and Contractor (2003), who call for a multitheoretical, multilevel (MTML) framework for using network analysis to understand organizational evolution. This dissertation draws on these four opportunities to create an integrated theoretical framework to study the evolution of organizational communities through network analysis, and uses the children's television community to test this framework. The broad scope of literatures united in this undertaking creates a broad audience for this work. Specifically, this dissertation is written to evoke dialogue with and between children and media scholars, organizational communication scholars, organizational change scholars, and people within the children's television community. By trying to understand the changes that have occurred in children’s television through a community ecology framework, I hope to add to the current literature on children and media by offering a better understanding o f why the community has evolved like it has. This understanding contrasts with the current norms in the literature which explain the changes that have occurred by focusing on one particular change within the environment or the population and extracting an explanation from this single event. Moreover, this dissertation adds to the organizational communication literature by: advancing the community as an important unit of analysis; offering suggestions as to how to translate the study of communication networks onto the study of organizational change; and suggesting a 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. multilevel, multitheoretical framework upon which to build this new arena of investigation. Furthermore, the inclusion of communication network theories and methodologies into the study of community ecology offers organizational change scholars a new set of tools for trying to analyze the relatively abstract and often seemingly intangible community level of organizational evolution. Finally, as this research progressed, it became evident that the history of children's television, or the “why things happened the way they did,” is not commonplace knowledge in the children's television community. Key players in the children's television community, particularly those who have entered the community within the last two decades, are surprisingly unfamiliar with the work of their predecessors. This dissertation initiates a project to deal with this erosion of organizational knowledge over the past five decades, and the corresponding “lessons learned” that have been lost, by gathering data on the community evolution through the narratives of the key players in the community and the historical records kept by the organizations within the community. Chapter Summaries Chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework for this study. By integrating theories of coevolution, complexity, and community ecology within a communication networks framework, this chapter creates a multilevel, multitheoretical model for understanding the evolution of an organizational community. A stage model for this evolution and corresponding propositions are proposed. 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 3 identifies the eight populations of the children's television community. A brief history of each population, including important interpopulation events, is narrated. This chapter provides the historical background of the children's television community necessary to understand how the community is an appropriate case study for understanding the communication network-based, coevolutionary framework articulated in chapter 2. In addition, hypotheses based on the propositions in chapter 2 and specific to the evolution of the children's television community are put forth. Chapter 4 introduces the data collection and analysis methods used in this dissertation. Three forms of data - interviews, network data questionnaires, and historical records - and the triangulation of this data into a set of network data is discussed. Finally, the analysis for each hypothesis is described. Chapter 5 reports the results of the data analysis. In addition, it evaluates the correspondence o f the evolution of the children's television community with the stage model presented in chapter 2. This chapter then discusses the results of the analyses in light of previous literature on community evolution, as well as narrative and historical data collected during the study. Chapter 6 provides the concluding overview for this dissertation. Limitations of this study are discussed, as well as suggestions for future research in this area. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2 A COMMUNICATION NETWORKS APPROACH TO COMMUNITY ECOLOGY The evolution o f an organizational community is the evolution o f the community’ s communication network. This statement is the essence o f the theoretical framework for this dissertation. As mentioned in chapter 1, this dissertation is a response to four recently mentioned opportunities in organizational literatures - the need to understand organizational evolution from the level of the community (e.g., Aldrich, 1999; Astley, 1985; Baum, 1996; Carroll & Hannan, 1999; DiMaggio, 1994; Ruef, 2000); the need to more systematically understand the complex relationships within the community (Baum, 1996); the need to incorporate network analysis in the study of community ecology (DiMaggio, 1994); and the need to move network analysis toward a multitheoretical and multilevel (MTML) framework for investigation (Monge & Contractor, 2003). The fundamental argument is that community evolution can be understood through looking at the evolution of the community communication network. By using a network approach to community ecology, we are able to capture those community-level changes through an inherently multitheoretical and multilevel model. Moreover, subsumed in this approach are: the relationship between the community and its environment; the global level of analysis of the community communication network; and the dyadic, triadic, and subgroup ties between and 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. within the populations. This chapter first offers a brief introduction to the community ecology and communication networks literatures, and suggests current limitations in each of these theoretical domains. Next, a communication networks approach to community ecology is crafted, with a multitheoretical-multilevel model of community evolution at the forefront of this new approach. Finally, several hypotheses specific to the evolution of the children’s television community are proposed. Coevolution “Coevolution” is a term used by scholars to represent the interdependence of any number of evolutionary parts, from technology that coevolves with an organization or population (Rosenkopf & Tushman, 1994) to entire economic sectors coevolving with one another (Baum & Korn, 1994), and many levels of analysis in between. This dissertation focuses on three levels of coevolution: organizations; populations, or interrelated sets of organizations; and communities, or interrelated sets of populations. The body of coevolution literature in organization science, in large part, has its roots in the work of Donald Campbell. Campbell’s broad influence on this area can be seen through his work on evolutionary models of variation, selection, and retention (VSR); evolutionary epistemology; multilevel analysis; and multimethod research (Campbell, 1965, 1990; McKelvey & Baum, 1999). Each of these areas of influence is vital to the organizational study of coevolution. Campbell’s VSR model is established on the analogy between “natural selection in biological evolution and 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the selective propagation of cultural forms” (Campbell, 1965, p. 26). In essence, variations that occur blindly or randomly are selected through elimination, propagation, and retention, and are then preserved in the organism (organization, population, community) (Campbell, 1965, p. 27). This view of organizational change as occurring through evolutionary mechanisms carried over into Campbell’s work as a philosopher of science. His notions of “good” science have been dubbed “Campbellian realism,” o f which one of the main tenets is that the most effective way for science to progress is through selectionist, or trial-and-error, learning (Campbell, 1974; McKelvey, 1999). In addition to his VSR and epistemological work, Campbell also held dear the notions o f multilevel analysis. Although Campbell did not point to the concept of multilevel coevolution specifically, his work on level of analysis issues, such as nested hierarchy (Campbell, 1974), greatly influenced the later work o f coevolution theorists (McKelvey & Baum, 1999). In addition, Campbell advocated the use of triangulation and quasi-experimentation in research (McKelvey & Baum, 1999). Current and cutting-edge research using computational modeling in order to understand organizational change is certainly an outgrowth of these ideas (McKelvey &Baum, 1999). In addition to Campbell, several other scholars over the past thirty years have been seminal to our understanding o f how organizations coevolve (e.g., Aldrich, 1979; Aldrich, 1999; Baum & McKelvey, 1999; Baum & Singh, 1994a; McKelvey, 1982). These scholars have elaborated on the idea that organizations change as a 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. result of evolutionary dynamics, stressing the importance of entwined evolution; or the simultaneous, interdependent, nested evolution o f organizational parts, wholes, collectives and their environment. From this body of thought, the field of organization science has garnered a more complete, complex, and challenging view of organizational change. The work at hand elaborates on this coevolutionary work, focusing on the more macro levels of coevolutionary theory and analysis. Although firmly grounded in the legacy of evolutionary and coevolutionary inquiry, the basis for this investigation has its roots further back than Campbell’s work, to the sociological work of Amos H. Hawley (1950). Hawley’s work is, in large part, the foundation for the area of organization science called “community ecology.” The appearance of community ecology in organization science, however, has been relatively recent. Community Ecology O f the many levels of coevolutionary analysis mentioned above, the multi level, emergent character of the community level stimulates the most effective theoretical and analytical tools for understanding coevolution of organizations simultaneously from the environmental, community, population, and organizational perspectives. The basic premise of community ecology is that populations of organisms (or organizations) do not evolve as a closed system. Instead, communities of populations evolve. Those communities are situated within ever-changing environments, and both react to and actively change those environments. 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Approaching organizational change from a community-level perspective is a rather novel enterprise, and is the progeny of two disparate theoretical and disciplinary parents: population ecology in organization and management theory and the bio-sociological version of community ecology articulated by Amos Hawley. Population ecology focuses on organizations as they form populations. A population is comprised of “all the organizations with the same form that are competing for resources” (Barron, 1999, p. 443). Populations are also often identified as being synonymous with industries (Aldrich, 1999). The population ecology roots stem from the original question posed by Hannan and Freeman (1977), “Why are there so many organizations?” (p. 936). They searched for the answer to this question by focusing on the rates of organizational creation and failure as the impetus for organizational diversity. Since Hannan and Freeman’s (1977) original article, there have been a plethora of population ecology studies (see Baum, 1996 for an overview of this work). For the most part, these studies have focused on three themes in trying to explain organizational foundings and failures: demographic processes, such as age and size dependence; ecological processes, such as niche-width dynamics, density dependence, and population dynamics; and environmental processes, such as institutional or technological processes (Baum, 1996). Demographic processes are the traits of organizations which contribute to their evolution and, eventual, failure. The two most common characteristics studied by organizational ecologists are the size and age of the organization (Baum, 1996; 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Carroll & Hannan, 1999). The importance of size in organizational survival is commonly referred to as the liability o f smallness (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). According to this assumption, larger organizations have greater chances of survival because they are more structurally inert, making them less susceptible to environmental changes; they are more likely to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the shareholders and the stakeholders; and they are not facing the high startup costs associated with organizational foundings (Baum, 1996). The relationship of age to organizational failure is similar. Referred to as the liability o f newness, this assumption says that younger organizations will have higher failure rates than older organizations because they do not have sufficient external relationships to buffer them from environmental changes; they have not yet obtained internal and external legitimacy; and their structures and routines are not yet delineated (Baum, 1996; Freeman, Carroll, & Hannan, 1983; Stinchcombe, 1965). Since new organizations tend to be small, these two liabilities interact, greatly limiting the number of organizations that reach adolescence. Instead of focusing on the demographic characteristics of the organization, research on organizational ecological processes focuses on the interaction between organizations and within populations of organizations. In general, the research on ecological processes has focused on three topics: niche-width dynamics, population dynamics, and density dependence (Baum, 1996). Niche-width dynamics focuses on the adaptations made by organizations in order to survive in the face of resource competition within the niche. Specifically, organizations can be described as either 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. generalists, who focus their product on the “average” consumer, or specialists, who focus their product on a narrowly defined subset of the population (Hannan & Freeman, 1977). The two types of organizations partition the resources of the niche, so that the generalist organizations focus on the resources in the center o f the niche, and the specialist organizations focus on the resources left in the periphery (Carroll, 1985; Dobrev, Kim, & Hannan, 2001; Freeman & Lomi, 1994; Swaminathan, 1995, 2001). Changes in the niche resources or environment will therefore alter the survival strategies of these two types of organizations (Hannan & Freeman, 1989). In addition to the adaptations of organizations to the resources available to them, the study of organizational ecological processes also looks at the ways in which the prior foundings and failures within the population and the current density of organizations within a population affect the resources of the population (Baum, 1996). The foundings and failures within the population, or the population dynamics, are important to understanding the potential for new organizations within the population (Delacroix & Carroll, 1983; Delacroix, Swaminathan, & Solt, 1989). First, a large number o f prior foundings within a population indicate a large number of resources within the environment. On the other hand, as the number of organizations within the population increases, the availability o f resources for new organizations decreases. As organizations fail, resources are freed up and reallocated to the environment. A large number o f organizational failures, however, may be an indication of adverse factors within the environment inhibiting organizational 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. survival. The dynamic nature of organizational foundings and failures, therefore, affects the probability of future organizational foundings. The density-dependent understanding of organizational founding and failure is similar to the population dynamics explanation for organizational evolution (Baum, 1996). Density dependence argues that, at the outset of population formation, the resources within the niche are substantial enough that the organizations within the population do not need to compete for resources. Instead, early increases in the nodal density of organizations within the population are important for the creation of institutional legitimacy. As more organizations enter the population, however, resources become scarcer, resulting in competition between the organizations. Many studies on the importance of density dependence in organizational evolution have been conducted (e.g., Barnett & Carroll, 1987; Baum & Oliver, 1991; Baum & Singh, 1994b; Budros, 1994; Carroll & Hannan, 1989b; Delacroix et al., 1989; Haveman, 1994; Lomi, 2000), with very strong support for the inverted, U-shaped curvilinear relationship suggested by density dependence arguments (Baum, 1996). It is important to note that the density dependence literature focuses on nodal density. Nodal density refers to the number of entities (e.g., organizations within a population or populations within a community). For the most part, this dissertation will focus on a different type of density, link density. Link density refers to the relationships, or links, between the entities (e.g., between organizations within a population or between populations within a community). 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In addition to demographic and ecological processes, another theme in organizational ecology research has been to look at the environmental processes that affect organizational founding and failure, especially institutional or technological processes (Baum, 1996). Working from the institutional approach to organizational change (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977), organizational ecologists argue that the institutional pressures exerted on populations and organizations affect the dynamics and nodal density of the population. Since organizations must conform to the rules and norms set forth by institutions in order to survive, changes in those rules and norms, or the inability of an organization to conform to those rules and norms, will threaten the viability of the organization both through lack of legitimacy and through suppressed access to resources controlled through the institutions (Aldrich, 1999; Hannan & Carroll, 1992; Hannan & Freeman, 1989). In addition, technological innovation can deeply affect organizational founding and failure (Rosenkopf & Tushman, 1994; Tushman & Anderson, 1986; Van de Ven & Garud, 1994). As new technologies enter the environment, opportunities are created for new organizations to emerge and compete against incumbent organizations, which are less likely to be early adopters of the new technology. If the new technology becomes dominant, then the new organizations gamer competitive advantage over the older organizations; but if the new technology does not become dominant, it is highly likely that the new organization will fail. These environmental processes, along with ecological and 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. demographic processes, form the basis for the research in the population ecology framework. Although population ecology has been a mainstay in organizational research for the past twenty-five years (e.g., Aldrich, Zimmer, Staber, & Beggs, 1994; Barnett & Carroll, 1987; Joel A. C. Baum & Oliver, 1992; Baum & Singh, 1994b; Hannan & Carroll, 1997; Hannan & Freeman, 1977,1989), community ecology is a rather new theoretical frame for the field and has been used in relatively few studies (Astley, 1985; Barnett, 1994; Barnett & Carroll, 1987; Barnett, Mischke, & Ocasio, 2000; Baum & Korn, 1994; Brittain, 1994; Hannan & Carroll, 1995; Korn & Baum, 1994; Rosenkopf & Tushman, 1994; Ruef, 1999, 2000; Ruef, Mendel, & Scott, 1998). Many studies, however, have used the term “organizational communities” in order to address aspects of organizational change (e.g., strategic alliances, research and development consortia, trade associations, political coalitions). These analyses often touch on some aspects of community ecology, but do not explicitly take a community ecological perspective. In order to understand how community can be used to study organizations, a basic understanding of community ecology’s roots in social scientific thought is helpful. The use of community as the unit of observation has long been employed in the fields of plant and animal ecology (Hawley, 1950). In 1950, the “father” of human community ecology, Amos Hawley, published his seminal book, Human Ecology: A Theory o f Community Structure. This book revolutionized the way in which sociologists understood the relationship between humans and their 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. environment. Hawley (1950; 1982; 1986) credits the sociological work on community ecology done by the Chicago School (e.g., Park, 1982; Park & Burgess, 1925/1984) as being very influential on his theoretical framework. In essence, this community ecology framework emphasizes the relationship between humans and their environment, focusing on the aggregate level of the community, instead of individual populations, species, etc. To sum his arguments briefly, Hawley argued that: The subject of ecological enquiry is therefore the community, the form and development of which are studied with particular references to the limiting and supporting factors of the environment. Ecology, in other words, is a study of the morphology of collective life in both its static and its dynamic aspects. It attempts to determine the nature of community structure in general, the types of communities that appear in different habitats, and the specific sequence of change in community development. The unit of observation, it should be emphasized, is not the individual but the aggregate which is either organized or in the process of becoming organized. (1950, p. 67) The behavior o f this aggregate hinges on two processes, symbiosis and commensalism (Hawley, 1950, 1986), where symbiosis is "mutual dependence based on functional differences" and commensalism is mutual dependence derived from "the existence in the population of common interests or similar tasks that can be pursued more effectively when two or more like-acting units pool their energies" (Hawley, 1986, p. 36). These mechanisms are fundamentally different than the simple evolutionary mechanism of competition in the population ecology literature. Although noting the possibility of this theoretical framework across many disciplines, Hawley’s work focused on the evolution of human communities in particular places and times. 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Whereas Hawley’s work was immediately influential in sociology, his impact on organizational scholarship was not felt until the mid-1980s. Although early work in population ecology (Hannan & Freeman, 1977) had acknowledged a community level of analysis in addition to the population level, subsequent work in this area (e.g., Carroll & Hannan, 1989a; Hannan & Freeman, 1977,1989) did not expound upon this level or mentioned it only in passing or as an afterthought (Aldrich, 1999; Astley, 1985). Astley (1985) took up Hawley’s cause to the community of organizational scholars, arguing that in order to truly understand how populations emerge, evolve, and dissolve one must use a community ecological framework. Specifically, Astley argued that the oft-used population ecology framework limited the investigation of organizational evolution, using several lines of argument to support his case. According to Astley (1985), several areas of the contemporary population ecology literature fall short in explaining organizational change, and therefore we should change our level of analysis from the population ecology perspective to the community ecology perspective. First, evolution under the population ecology framework is a relatively path-dependent process, with the variation, selection, and retention mechanisms functioning to maintain equilibrium. Under this equilibrium- maintaining process, only gradual change and improvement can occur. This gradual change of populations over time does not elucidate the processes of birth and death of populations (Astley, 1985; Ruef, 2000). In addition, understanding organizational evolution in terms of gradual change does not allow for explanations 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of radical change, such as those described in the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). In addition to issues of gradual change, population ecology is less thorough as an explanation of organizational change because the “motor” of change between entities in population ecology is prescribed as competitive selection (Poole, Van de Ven, Dooley, & Holmes, 2000). This prescription of competitive selection as the only means of change is very limiting when trying to explain the real-world change of organizations that both compete and cooperate in order to survive. Finally, the population ecology perspective assumes that variation is based on changes in the environment instead of being created within or between the populations themselves (Astley, 1985). This perspective subjugates variation to selection, and de- emphasizes the role of variation by assuming that it follows the whims of the environment, creating just enough variability to allow for effective selection processes (p. 239). The community ecology approach to organizational coevolution, however, handles each of these issues (Astley, 1985). First, instead of focusing on variation, selection, and retention mechanisms as equilibrium-maintaining, community ecology views coevolution as a variation-driven process, with the introduction or emergence of new populations as the mechanism of variation. At every level of analysis within the community ecological framework there is variation, selection, and retention. Evolution within the population follows the dynamics mentioned in the population ecology literature: variation is introduced through the introduction of new 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. organizations in the population, selection occurs through the fitting of the organization to the environment, and retention is based upon internal inertia and external pressures (Aldrich, 1999; Hannan & Freeman, 1977, 1984). Evolution at the community level occurs through variation, such as technological innovations, collective action, and pro-active legitimization strategies; selection, such as adoption of community norms by the populations themselves, or vicarious selectors such as venture capitalists who provide external funding; and retention, such as the standardization of a particular software within the community (Aldrich, 1999, p. 329). Second, instead of focusing solely on homogeneity and stability within the population, community ecology subsumes this perspective under a framework of diversity between populations and the symbiotic and commensalistic relationships that both encourage and cultivate change. Third, the community ecology framework is commensurate with the punctuated equilibrium model (Eldridge & Gould, 1972; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985), including both gradual organizational or population change and radical transformations. Community ecology, therefore, deals with two phenomena not covered in population ecology’s gradual change model, the emergence and dissolution of populations (Astley, 1985). Fourth, instead of simply incorporating the prescribed motor of change between entities as competitive selection, community ecology is augmented with the constructive motors of commensalism and symbiosis that illuminate change between entities and allow for both competitive and cooperative relationships over time (Poole et al., 2000). 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Finally, the community ecology perspective puts primary emphasis on the variation stage o f evolution (instead of on the selection stage), purporting that selection in fact impedes organizational or population-level evolution, so that “selection is the regulator of evolutionary change; variation is the dynamo” (Astley, 1985, p. 240). Two aspects of the community ecology perspective, as described by Astley (1985), are important to highlight: the inclusion of the punctuated equilibrium model (mentioned briefly above) and the articulation of the open environmental space. The punctuated equilibrium model (Eldridge & Gould, 1972; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985) includes both gradual organizational or population change and radical transformations. During times of relative environmental stability, organizations are in periods of convergence, in which most of their evolution-related energy is expended in making incremental changes that enhance their pre-defined organizational strategic orientations, goals, and processes (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). Major changes in the environment or extreme failures of the organization to function along their predefined strategies or values may cause organizations to go through a short period of reorientation in which strategies, power distributions, core stmcture, and control systems are overhauled, or recreation in which the basic core values and beliefs of an organization are revamped (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). These different types of evolutionary processes function together to create a step wise, instead of a gradual, view of population change. By allowing for radical change in the evolutionary model, community ecology supports a more thorough 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. understanding of how populations emerge and dissolve, two phenomena not covered in population ecology’s gradual change model (Astley, 1985). In addition to incorporating the punctuated equilibrium model, community ecology also adds to our understanding of population emergence and mortality by explaining the importance of open environmental space (Astley, 1985). Although similar to the concept of a niche in population ecology, open environmental space is fundamentally a different concept. Instead of relying on the notion of a static or fixed set of resources (as is assumed in niches), open environmental spaces are dynamically created by emerging organizations that bring to the community variations that shape the form and function of the community, and therefore shape the fundamental nature o f the communities themselves (Astley, 1985). As new populations and organizations enter into or emerge within the community, they bring with them variation that shapes the future of the space and therefore changes the dynamics of the community. These variations within open environmental spaces are fundamentally different from variations in niches. Due to the static resources in a niche, competition for scarce resources leads toward homogeneity (Astley, 1985). In open environmental space, however, the populations within the community continually modify the resources (and variation) of the community, and therefore allow for both competition for scarce resources and cooperation to create or improve resources. Density dependence arguments may still apply at the population level, but must be modified at the community level. Since the resources within the open 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. environmental space are in constant flux, the simple curvilinear arguments of population level density dependence are not necessarily valid. As the open environmental space within the community evolves, so do the relationships between the populations (and sub-populations). Returning to the evolutionary mechanisms of commensalism and symbiosis, populations within a community cooperate and compete on the basis of their similarities and differences. Aldrich (1999),working from Brittain and Wholey’s (1988) original categorization, describes seven different types of relationships possible between populations in a community - the symbiotic relationship (+,+) between two populations, as well as six possible commensalistic relationships: full mutualism (+,+), partial mutualism (+,0), neutrality (0,0), predatory competition (+,-), partial competition (-,0), and full competition (-,-). The symbiotic relationship occurs between two populations that operate in different resource niches or provide different functions. The two populations benefit from one another, and growth of one population aids the growth of another population. Full mutualism describes the same sort of mutually beneficial relationship, but between populations that are in the same resource niche or provide similar functions within the community. This congruence in resource niche or function is the hallmark of the commensalist relationship, and differentiates the singular symbiotic relationship from the six commensalist relationships. Therewith, partial mutualism describes a commensalistic relationship in which the presence of one population benefits another population, but this benefit is asymmetrical in that the first population receives no benefit (nor any detriment) from the presence of the 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. second. Neutral relationships occur when two populations within the community have no effect on one another. Predatory competition arises when one population benefits from the detriment of another population. Partial competition is the converse of partial mutualism, where the presence of one population negatively affects the other population, which in turn has no effect on the first population. Finally, full competition describes a relationship in which the growth of both populations is prevented by the presence of the other. Although most of the community ecology research has focused on only one of these relationships, a handful (Brittain, 1994; Carroll & Swaminathan, 1992) have dealt with more than one of these relationships (Baum, 1996). This paucity of research is unfortunate, since a full understanding of community evolution would include most (if not all) of these relationships. Each of these eight types of community relationships is important in understanding how organizational communities evolve. A more thorough discussion of these relationships and their relation to the resources within the open environmental space occurs later in this chapter. Community Ecology as MTML Model The community ecological perspective is inherently a multilevel, multitheoretical coevolutionary model of organizational change. It subsumes the population ecology perspective, adds community-level evolutionary mechanisms, and bridges the conceptual gap between the population-level and the environment (Aldrich, 1999; Astley, 1985; Barnett, 1994; Ruef, 2000). Another conceptualization 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of this multi-level model, from Barnett & Carroll (1987), is that “[organizational interdependence can exist at several levels: between individual organizations, between populations of organizations, and between communities of organizations” (p. 100). At the population-level of analysis, the relative enactment of competitive and mutual relationships varies over the life cycle of the population. The early entrepreneurs and entrants into a population lay claims on the “open environmental space” (Astley, 1985, p. 233-234) and its available resources. Because the supply of resources in this space, or niche, is greater than the demand by the nascent organizations, there is no need for competition (Astley, 1985). However, as more organizations enter the population, the demand for resources exceeds the supply, and competition for these resources ensues. As these organizations begin to compete, they also form the beginnings of interrelationships that establish the need for and creation of the community. The mutualistic mechanisms of commensalism and symbiosis are functions of the need for that community (Hawley, 1950, 1986). As the organizations within these populations become more interdependent, areas of need for the community are filled either by outside populations, who then enter the community, or by spin-off populations (Hawley, 1950, 1986). Commensalistic and symbiotic relationships, therefore, form the basis for the emergence of communities. The community, in turn, is the regulator of open spaces (Astley, 1985), and functions as a buffer between the incorporated populations and the environment, especially with regard to resources (which will be described in 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. more detail below). As the changes in the environment restrict or free up resources for the population, the community helps to redistribute the resources based upon the changes caused by the environment. In this way, populations that would normally have become extinct because of the sudden exhaustion of vital resources due to changes in the environment will instead rely on the resources contained within the community. In essence, the whole of the community becomes much greater than the sum of its parts, and the benefits to populations of creating such communities may far outweigh the costs. An important aspect of the multilevel perspective inherent in community ecology is understanding why populations would voluntarily trade market (or some other form of) independence for community interdependence. The most important reason is that the community buffers populations from the environment (Barnett, 1994; Hawley, 1950, 1986). The creation of the community, therefore, ironically creates a certain amount of self-sufficiency. Hawley (1950) described the community, in its essence, as a “collective response to the habitat” or environment (p. 67). Organizations and populations within the community are sheltered from major environmental [or density-independent (Brittain, 1994; Brittain & Wholey, 1988)] changes. Inclusion in such a community, therefore, is especially important for populations upon whom the environment places strict or numerous constraints, or for whom environmental changes are unpredictable. In such situations, the community can act as a buffer from these constraints and changes, and can increase the number and amount o f resources to which the population has access. 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. How does a community reach a point where it is viable against the external forces? According to Aldrich (1999), the viability of a community is dependent upon the achievement of self-sufficiency among the member populations. This self- sufficiency is achieved through the symbiotic and commensalistic relationships between the populations, and is dependent upon the populations achieving legitimacy, both individually and collectively. Legitimacy as defined by Suchman (1995) [and used by Aldrich (1999)], is “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions (574). In order for a new community to gain legitimacy, its core populations must not only gain legitimacy with regard to their services or products (economic legitimacy), but they must also acquire cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacy (Aldrich, 1999; Miner & Haunschild, 1995). According to Aldrich (1999), there are three processes through which developing organizational communities go about gaining legitimacy. First, because attainment of legitimacy is much more difficult for the first populations in the community (Carroll & Hannan, 1989b), it is important that those populations succeed in their struggles for cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacy. Second, through mutualistic actions, populations within the community should strive towards the creation of common standards and interests. Finally, institutions within the community, such as educational institutions or regulatory bodies, create symbolic resources, laws, and regulations specific to and defining the community. 2 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The realization of these cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacies is important on both the population and community levels. At the population level, the initial increase in organizations within the population adds to the perceived legitimacy of the population (Delacroix et al., 1989). At the community level, the creation of the community itself creates a sense of legitimacy politically, in the realm of impressing those in charge o f regulation and policy, and socially, in garnering support through popular sentiment. In turn, the achievement of legitimacy on a community level secures the self-sufficiency of the community, and therefore buffers the populations from environmental changes. Thus far, this chapter has focused primarily on the inter-population relationships that establish and maintain an organizational community. Understanding the larger picture of “community” is also important. “Community” has been defined in almost as many ways as there are analyses of organizational communities (Aldrich, 1999; DiMaggio, 1994). Hawley’s (1950) original sociological work on community ecology focused on relationships within geographically and temporally bound communities. As community ecology has been refitted from Hawley’s original work for organizational scholarship, the definitions of community have moved from a geographically-based scheme to a more functional approach (Ruef, 2000). That is not to say, however, that organizational scholars agree on how community should be defined, operationalized, or analyzed. A preliminary understanding of what “community” means can be garnered from a glimpse of how community has been defined in several of the more seminal 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. works in the field. Astley’s (1985) organizational model of community focuses on the technology-based interrelationships between populations. Barnett and his colleagues (Barnett, 1994; Barnett & Carroll, 1987; Barnett et al., 2000) define community on the basis of commensalistic and symbiotic relationships between organizations. Hannan and Carroll (1995) broaden the scope of this definition, asserting that community “refers to the broader set of organizational populations whose interactions have a systemic character, often caused by functional differentiation" (p. 30). Rosenkopf and Tushman (1994) and Brittain (1994) add that the larger environmental context, in their cases the technological context, is important in understanding how communities evolve. Aldrich (1999) and Ruef (2000) append that the populations in a community should be organized around a “core,” whether it be technological, normative, functional, or legal-regulatory. Therefore, Ruef (2000) organizes the community of health care populations in his research by focusing on four core functions of the health care field. Aldrich (1999) makes sure to maintain an evolutionary bent to his characterization of community, proffering this succinct definition: “An organizational community is a set of coevolving organizational populations joined by ties of commensalism and symbiosis through their orientation to a common technology, normative order, or legal-regulatory regime” (p. 301). This definition by Aldrich not only focuses on the evolutionary mechanisms that are vital to understanding community ecology, but also gives us a starting point from which to work with regard to how communities emerge. Therefore, this definition is the most 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. salient for the research at hand. By focusing on the coevolutionary mechanisms of commensalism and symbiosis, as well as on the emergence and maintenance of the community as entwined in the environment (and varied through environmental changes), this definition inherently deals with multiple levels of coevolutionary theory and analysis. In addition, by incorporating the multiple levels of organizational coevolution (from population to environment), community ecology incorporates theoretical mechanisms from multiple theoretical frameworks, including resource dependency, population ecology, and institutionalism. Limitations o f current community ecology research Although community ecology research has made some headway into explaining organizational coevolution, there are several limitations within the current research. The first limitation of current community ecology research is the need for a greater understanding o f the multiplexity of commensalistic and symbiotic relationships between actors in the community (Baum, 1996). As mentioned earlier, only two community ecology studies (Brittain, 1994; Carroll & Swaminathan, 1992) have explained more that one type of commensalistic/symbiotic relationship. By understanding the full set of relationships, we can more fully understand the intricacies of community evolution. To this end, the current explications of commensalistic and symbiotic relationships (e.g., Aldrich, 1999; Baum, 1996; Brittain & Wholey, 1988) have tended to simplify the symbiotic relationships between populations, classifying all relationships between populations with different functions or within different resource niches as symbiotic. This classification 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. oversimplifies the complexity of symbiotic relationships and assumes that all symbiotic relationships are mutual, instead of allowing for the possibility o f mutual, neutral, and competitive relationships. This dissertation explores a more multiplex understanding of the relationships between populations within a community (described in detail below). Another limitation of the current research is the need for a better understanding of the stages of community evolution. As mentioned above community ecology has an advantage over population ecology in that it can better explain the emergence of populations. In addition, we can understand the emergence of new communities through “technological innovations, transformation of norms and values, and new regulatory regimes” (Aldrich, 1999, p. 310). However, as of yet we do not have evolutionary models that can help us explain the specific stages of community evolution. In this work, therefore, four stages of community evolution are proposed: emergence, maintenance, self-sufficiency, and transformation (described in detail below). A final limitation is the absence of work focused on the relationships, or networks, between the populations as units of analysis. "Networks are the building blocks of communities" (Fombrun, 1988, p. 234). By understanding the interpopulation networks as the locales of evolution we can gamer a better understanding of the changes in the community structure. As DiMaggio (1994) argues, “network analysis and organizational ecology can be combined to their mutual advantage” (p. 447). 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Communication Networks At its essence, network analysis is about understanding relationships between a set of entities (Monge & Contractor, 2003; Wasserman & Faust, 1994 /1998). Communication networks, more specifically, are • the patterns of contact that are created by the flow of messages among communicators through time and space. The concept of message should be understood here in its broadest sense to refer to data, information, knowledge, images, symbols and any other symbolic forms that can move from one point in a network to another or can be co-created by network members. These networks take many forms in contemporary organizations, including personal contact networks, flows of information within and between groups, strategic alliances among firms, and global network organizations, to name but a few. (Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 3) Such a broad understanding of communication networks is vital to understanding the importance of communication networks in organizational coevolution. In addition, this understanding elucidates the multilevel nature of communication networks, in which the nodes of the networks can range from individuals to populations of organizations, and in which multiple networks are embedded in one another. Eisenberg, et al. (1985) elaborate on the multilevel nature of communication networks within and between organizations, specifying three type of linkages: institutional, representative, and personal. An institutional linkage occurs when information or materials are exchanged between organizations without the involvement of specific organizational roles or personalities (e.g., routine data transfers between banks). A representative linkage occurs when a role occupant who officially represents an organization within the system has contact with a representative of another organization (e.g., an interagency committee to formulate joint policies). The emphasis here is on the official nature of the transaction and the representative capacities of the individuals. Finally, a personal linkage occurs when 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. an individual from one organization exchanges information or material with an individual in another organization, but in a nonrepresentative or private capacity (i.e., via friendship or "old school" ties), (p. 237) If we look at these communication networks from a coevolutionary standpoint, we see that they are heterarchically embedded (Kontopoulos, 1993; Monge & Contractor, 2003). Macrodetermination, microdetermination, external influences, and feedback loops function within the heterarchical model to create a coevolutionary framework that entails “multiple access, multiple linkages, and multiple determinations" (Kontopoulos, 1993, p. 55). The use of network analysis in organization studies has become fairly common practice in the past ten years. Recent research has looked at a wide range of topics, including: the relationship between basic communication structure and task performance (Carroll & Burton, 1999); the importance of centrality in information networks in order to compensate for spatial distance (Sorenson & Stuart, 2001); the importance of network position in decreasing uncertainty (Podolny, 2001); the importance of a firm's network of relations on their innovation (Ahuja, 2000); the importance of communicating both tacit knowledge and codified knowledge in idea innovation networks (Hage & Hollingsworth, 2000); and how organizations decide with whom to form interorganizational alliances based on their embeddedness in interorganizational networks (Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999). In addition, recent work by Pentland (1999) focuses on networks of action as the building blocks of organizations, with the actions or events representing the nodes of the network. Limitations o f current network research 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although network research in organization studies has made great headway in the past decade, there are still several areas in which there is room for improvement. First, many different theories have been used in conjunction with network analysis, including theories of self-interest, collective action, cognition, contagion, exchange, dependency, homophily, proximity, complexity, and coevolution (Monge & Contractor, 2003).1 Few studies, however, have incorporated multiple theories, or have looked at multiple levels of analysis (Monge & Contractor, 2001; Monge & Contractor, 2003). This dissertation incorporates a MTML model of community networks in order to understand the evolution of the organizational community. In addition to the need to understand organizational networks from a MTML perspective, there is also a need to expand the way in which we define such networks. Organizational networks mentioned in the current organizational literature include “personal contact networks, flows of information within and between groups, strategic alliances among firms, and global network organizations” (Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 3), but should also include the intra- and interpopulation networks that comprise organizational communities. Moreover, these intra- and interpopulation networks, which include both tangible (money, technology) and intangible (knowledge) resource networks, are based in communication networks within the community. Therefore, as the communication networks of the community evolve, so do the resources. 1 For a complete discussion o f this topic, please refer to Monge and Contractor (2003). 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Moreover, network analysis has been used to understand relationships within organizations and (sometimes) populations, but not as an analytical tool with the organizational community as the level of analysis. In addition, multiplex relationships between the nodes in an organizational network have not been studied. By incorporating a community ecology approach in the analysis of the communication networks of the community, this dissertation expands the conception of organizational networks, allowing for multiplex links within and between populations. In order to deal with the limitations mentioned in both community ecology and communication networks research, this dissertation uses a communication network approach to understanding community ecology. By working from the inherent strengths of each theoretical and analytical framework, the weaknesses of each of the frameworks are eliminated, and a more complete MTML framework for understanding organizational coevolution is formed. A Communication Networks Perspective on Community Ecology Analyzing an organizational community requires first identifying the two parts of its structure: the individual parts that make up the whole and the configuration, or interrelationships, between the parts (Hawley, 1950). With regard to organizational community, the parts are the populations of organizations. Understanding the interrelationships, however, is more complex and requires the addition of communication networks to the analysis. Organizational communities are “networks of organizations that exist with properties of their own” (Baum & 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Singh, 1994c, p. 381). Studying organizational communities is in essence studying the many levels of network interdependence between and within populations. Communication networks subsume other networks vital to community survival, including intangible (knowledge) and tangible (money, technology) resource networks; and the linkages span from personal, to representative, to institutional (Eisenberg et al., 1985). Over communication networks flow information, knowledge, and competencies (McKelvey, 1982). Therefore, the creation, maintenance, and dissolution of communication networks is the key mechanism by which communities emerge, evolve, and collapse. In short, communities evolve on the basis of communication networks. By using network analysis to understand community-level evolution, we inherently use a MTML framework (Monge & Contractor, 2003). Ecological processes such as density dependence can be understood in network terms. In addition, specific aspects of the community ecology framework fundamental to understanding community evolution, such as open environmental space and punctuated equilibrium, can be articulated in terms of communication networks. Moreover, the multiplex relationships within organizational communities can be elaborated upon in order to more fully understand the different types of network linkages found in organizational communities. Finally, mechanisms of network theories can be found at work in the interorganizational networks of a community, and can help to explain the emergence, maintenance, self-sufficiency, and transformation of the community. Each of these areas of theoretical integration will 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. be discussed in turn in this chapter. To begin the fusion of these two theoretical frameworks, we focus on a network understanding of density dependence and the relationship of this perspective to Kauffman’s coevolutionary network framework. Density Dependence According to Hawley (1950), the key to understanding community growth can be found in Durkheim’s notion o f social density, or “the frequency of contacts and interchanges among members of a population” (p. 196). Populations can physically occupy the same open environmental space, but unless these populations interact (or communicate) no community can be formed. Previous research in community ecology has held density dependence arguments similar to those of population ecology, where nodal density is measured by the number o f populations within the community. A communication networks perspective on community ecology is more consistent with Hawley’s notion o f social density, so that the relationships (or network ties) between the populations form the basis of the community density. The link density of the community, therefore, is based upon the number of possible ties within the community communication network, which is a function of the number of populations within a community at any given point in time. As populations emerge within or enter into the community, the maximum number of possible ties changes. Over time, ties between populations can be created, altered, or dissolved. The link density of the community, therefore, does not necessarily follow the curvilinear relationship outlined in the population ecology literature. 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Density dependence, in the traditional population ecology sense, is an argument based on the number of organizations within the population and uses the assumption that populations have fixed resources which limit their carrying capacity. In the early stages of population evolution, increased link density is important because it fosters internal and external legitimacy, and does not put a strain on the resources within the population’s niche; but as more organizations enter the population, resources become strained and competition between organizations ensues (Baum, 1996). Density dependence under the community ecology framework is a more complex phenomenon. The emergence or entrance of populations into a community, and the subsequent increase in the link density of the ties between those populations, fosters community legitimacy. In order for a community to gamer legitimacy, however, it must follow three processes (Aldrich, 1999). First, as populations enter the community, they must either already maintain or quickly achieve individual legitimacy. Second, in order to foster community-level legitimacy, the populations must cooperate to “establish standards and advance joint interests” (p. 321). The ties within the early network, therefore, should be primarily mutual. Third, institutional level norms and standards must be created that can sustain the community through legal and regulatory measures, and the creation o f symbolic resources. Community-level legitimacy, therefore, is not simply based on increasing link density with regard to the number of populations and ties within the community, 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. but is also reliant on the substance of the relationships between the populations as well as environmental influences on those relationships. As the link density of populations within the community increases, so do the strains on the resources within the open environmental space. In population ecology, these resource constraints would foster competition between the organizations within the population. Under the community ecology framework, populations may compete as link density increases, but they may also cooperate in order to create more resources within the open environmental space. Therefore, the ties between populations may be either negative or positive, and may change over time as the resources within the open environmental space change. These density dependence arguments are similar to the arguments made by Kauffman regarding network complexity and coevolution (1993; 1995). According to Kauffman, the number of epistatic (or constraining) links between nodes in a network affects the ability of the network to reach an optimum level of fitness. As the density of epistatic links within the network increases, the complexity of the network increases. Low levels of network density (or link density) improve the ability of the network to reach optimal fitness levels; but too much connectivity within the network leads to a complexity catastrophe, where “conflicting constraints in complex systems limit the optimization of function possible” (pp. 52-54). This notion of complexity catastrophe is commensurate with Astley’s (1985) argument that the “growth of internal complexity accompanying system closure fosters a stabilization of communities but also sets them up for eventual collapse” (p. 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236). According to Astley, as the relationships within the community become more complex, the community begins to close itself off from the environment, and to “function mainly by exchanging resources with each other rather than directly with the environment” (p. 235). This self-sufficiency creates a buffer between the populations and the environment. If the link density within the network moves beyond this “tipping point” (Kauffman, 1993,1995), or the point after the critical mass is reached when even small increases in network density can “tip” the system, the community may collapse. Open Environmental Space Open environmental space is needed to foster a release o f variability that would normally be held in check by the stabilizing selection characteristic of the competitively saturated environments that are highlighted by population ecologists. (Astley, 1985, p. 233) In network terms, the open environmental space of the community is equivalent to structural holes in a network, or the possibility of network connections between populations within the community where none currently exist (Burt, 1992). New populations either enter or emerge to fill holes within the community network. In a community, structural holes provide populations with available resources or “ecological opportunity” (Stanley, 1981, p. 96), in much the same way that “structural holes provide social entrepreneurs with investment opportunities” in a social network (Monge & Contractor, 2003, p. 145). In the early stages of community formation, network holes (and therefore resources) will be plentiful, and therefore competitive pressures between populations will be weak. Over time, new and existing populations will move into these structural holes and competition will 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ensue to fill the remaining holes. Competitive ties between the populations are likely, therefore, as the structural holes within the community communication network are filled; cooperative ties, however, may be formed in order to create new resources within the community. In addition, as new populations enter the community, new network holes (and therefore resources) will be created. In addition, the use of a network perspective in understanding open environmental space is useful in order to understand how organizations and populations “enact their own operating domains” (Astley, 1985, p. 234). As new populations enter the community’s communication network, the number of possible network ties increases exponentially. As the number of possible ties increases, so does the likelihood of creating ecological opportunities (structural holes). At some point, as described above, the number of populations and the ties between those populations may increase to a point where the level of network complexity cannot be sustained. This is the point of recreation in the punctuated equilibrium model (described below), or the point at which the community becomes unstable and collapses (Astley, 1985). Punctuated Equilibrium Using Tushman & Romanelli’s (1985) conception o f punctuated equilibrium, a community undergoes periods of convergence, reorientation, and recreation. Under the communication network rubric, convergent periods are periods in which the communication networks between populations in a community remain relatively stable. Periods of reorientation, occur when dramatic changes, such as the inclusion 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of a new population into the community, rapid environmental changes, or technological innovation, take place. During these reorientation periods, communication networks within the community radically change. As a new population enters the community, for example, it alters the number o f possible ties within the community, inherently changing the network link density. In addition, the entrance of a population will have a greater impact on the link density o f the community early on in the evolution of the community. Recreation occurs when the community fundamentally changes it purpose or function. Because communities are established on these purposes or functions, recreation may mean the transformation of the community network, either through the dissolution o f the network or through fundamental changes in the relationships between the populations. Expanding Commensalism and Symbiosis If we accept that the “community is ... a symbiotic-commensalistic phenomenon” (Hawley, 1950, p. 209), and we understand communication networks to be the interrelationships between the community parts, then it follows that communication networks provide the vehicle for the evolutionary mechanisms of commensalism and symbiosis. The communication networks perspective is commensurate with the multiplex understanding of community relationships because it allows for valued relations between the nodes of the network. It is possible to classify the ties between the populations within the community as varying degrees of symbiotic or commensalist relations. This analytical freedom, along with the focus on the multiplex relationships between the populations, brings into question the way 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in which commensalism and symbiosis have been treated in the community ecology literature thus far. The most complete depictions of the possible relationships between populations within a community have focused on commensalistic relationships as relatively multiplex (fully competitive, partially competitive, predatory competitive, neutral, partially mutual, and fully mutual) (Aldrich, 1999; Baum, 1996; Brittain & Wholey, 1988). These depictions have also, however, allowed for only a unidimensional understanding of symbiotic relationships. The assumption is that populations that, at a particular point in time, are performing different functions will only have mutually beneficial relationships. This is clearly not the case. Consider, for example, an organizational community in which populations are defined on the basis of functional differences (Hannan & Carroll, 1995; Ruef, 2000; Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000). In this case, you would only be able to define the relationships within the community as symbiotic. These community relationships would not necessarily be mutually beneficial. Two populations may have different functions, but may still be competing for similar resources. For example, Ruef (2000) defines a health care community in which the populations fall under four functions: 1. the provision of health care services (i.e., various forms of hospitals, clinics, and medical practices); 2. the funding and coordination of health services (insurance carriers, insurance pools, preferred provider organizations, etc.); 3. the education of health service providers (medical schools, nursing schools, etc.); and 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4. the analysis and storage of human biological matter (medical laboratories, blood banks, etc.). (pp. 663-4) If we use the traditional conception of symbiotic and commensalistic relationships, the evolution of this community could only be based upon symbiotic relationships, since all relationships would be made on the basis of functional differentiation. If we take into consideration the resources of the community’s open environmental space, however, we gamer a different picture of the relationships between the populations. For example, although those organizations that provide health care and those which fund or coordinate health care have different functions, they are competing for the economic resources o f the community. Insurance companies and hospitals, for example, are in constant conflict over medical claims. In the same way, the population of health care providers and the population of educators sometimes compete over human capital. The same doctors who staff the hospitals must also teach the medical school classes. This example illustrates the need to expand our understanding of symbiotic relationships. Instead of defining commensalistic and symbiotic relationships on the basis of functional differences, a more thorough understanding of the multiplexity o f these relationships within the open environmental space can be accomplished through an emphasis on the relative resource needs o f the populations. If a relationship is based upon a mutually necessary resource, then the relationship is commensalistic; if the relationship is not based on a mutually necessary resource, it is symbiotic. The relationships between populations are therefore in constant flux, moving between 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. symbiotic and commensalistic relationships depending on the relative resources needed by populations at a particular point in time. Both symbiotic and commensalistic relationships, therefore, can be fully competitive, partially competitive, predatory competitive, neutral, partially mutual, and fully mutual; and can be coded as valued relations within the community communication network. By expanding our understanding of the multiplexity o f relationships between populations, we enhance our understanding of community evolution. Although this dissertation highlights the theoretical importance of understanding commensalistic and symbiotic relationships between populations within a community, an in-depth look at this issue is beyond the scope of this project. Instead of designating a tie as symbiotic or commensalistic with regard to their resource relationship, the hypotheses and analyses in this dissertation focus on whether the relationships are competitive, neutral, or mutual. In addition, although the six different types of relationships possible between a pair of populations can be identitfied through the network data created in this research, specific hypotheses and analyses that focus on these relationships are not part of this project. Future analysis of these data needs to be undertaken. Community Level Evolution A communication network perspective on community evolution is consistent with Astley’s argument that “variation is the dynamo” of evolutionary change (Astley, 1985, p. 240). Although the actual ties that are forged between populations within a community are certainly vital to understanding community change, as 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. mentioned above, the more important factor is the possibility of network connections between populations within a community. Astley (1985) would refer to this possibility as “open environmental space.” In network terms, these possibilities are structural holes. Astley argues that the difference between a niche and an open environmental space is that the latter is enacted by the organizations and populations within the environment. In the same line of reasoning, novel communication networks must accompany open environmental space in order for community evolution to occur. In short, variation in the community comes from the possibility of communication ties (both competitive and mutual), with the entrance and exit of populations being the main factors in the increase or decrease of this possibility; selection entails those communication ties that are actually forged; and retention requires those selected communication ties to be maintained over time. Another way of viewing the evolution of the community is to understand how the variation, selection and retention of the community communication networks result in four stages of community evolution: emergence, maintenance, self- sufficiency, and transformation. A community can emerge for a variety of reasons. Aldrich (1999) highlights three stimuli for community emergence: “technological innovation, transformation of norms and values, and new regulatory regimes” (p. 310). These stimuli encourage populations to form network ties. During the earliest stage o f community evolution, the ties formed between populations are more likely to be mutual than competitive, since competitive ties may inhibit further growth of the community (Aldrich, 1999). 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 1 Stages of Community Evolution by Network Link Density Emergence Maintenance Self- Transformation Sufficiency = community communication network density = density of mutual ties = density of competitive ties The community emerges as populations begin to enter or emerge within the community and create open environmental space within the network. During this stage, the populations within the community are still very dependent upon the environment for resources and legitimacy. In addition, this is a particularly precarious period for the community because as new populations enter the 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. community, they dramatically change the link density of the network.2 If large environmental changes occur, therefore, it is likely that the community will simply dissolve. Transcribed to the emergence of the children’s television community, this discussion of emergence suggests that: Proposition 1: Major environmental-level events (such as technological innovations, transformation of norms and values, and new regulatory regimes) will initiate the first ties between populations in a community. Proposition 2: The first ties between populations in a community will be primarily mutual. The early increases in network density create legitimacy for the community, as well as foster legitimacy for the populations (Aldrich, 1999; Baum, 1996). As mentioned above, these early ties are primarily mutual in nature. As the community gamers legitimacy, it enters a stage of maintenance. At this point in its evolution, the network has reached a point of minimal density. During maintenance, the number of populations in the community becomes relatively stable, and the network density continues to increase. As more populations enter the community and more ties are formed, competitive ties between the populations increase. As competition for resources within the open environmental space increases, so does the likelihood that populations within the community will fail or that the community will enter into a stage of reorientation due to its susceptibility to environmental changes (Tushman 2 From this point forward, any reference to network density refers to network link density. 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. & Romanelli, 1985). The community has not yet reached the stage of self- sufficiency, in which the community is able to buffer itself from the environment. Instead, during maintenance the populations are still reliant upon resources from the environment. Looking at the maintenance stage of community evolution from the network perspective therefore suggests that: Proposition 3: As a community enters a period of maintenance, the proportion o f competitive to mutual ties will increase. Proposition 4 : Major environmental events during the evolution of a community will cause the community to reorient, so that the communication network will significantly change. There are three possibilities for community evolution at this point. First, following Barnett’s (1994) discussion of the liability o f collective action, communities will dissolve if they cannot reach a viable level of network interconnectedness and cohesion. An organizational community, therefore, will dissolve if the density of the network ties cannot be maintained. The community may also dissolve if a disproportionate number of competitive ties develop, so that there are not enough mutual ties to sustain the legitimacy of the community. In addition, if the community goes through a period of reorientation during maintenance, the temporary instability may temporarily weaken the ability of the community to buffer against environmental pressures, allowing it to dissolve in the face of environmental pressures. The second possibility for community evolution is that the community remains in a stage of maintenance, where the populations within 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the community do not alter, and the ties between the populations remain relatively stable. This is a precarious position for the community, since major environmental changes will force a period of reorientation and possibly transformation. A final possibility is that the community can reach a point of self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency is the zenith of the community evolution. Community level self-sufficiency rests in the assumption that the reason for populations to coalesce into a community is to buffer the constraints of the environment (Barnett, 1994; Hawley, 1950,1986). If self-sufficiency is the essential goal of communities, then cohesion is the key to maintaining the community. If self-sufficiency is achieved, the community is able to act as a shield for the populations from the environment; if self-sufficiency fails, the community dissolves, and the populations are left without intermediary protection. This follows with the reasoning of Barnett (1994), who argues that collective action is a “two-edged sword,” in that if cohesion is not met, the parts of the community will suffer (p. 337). Barnett (1994) describes this move toward collectivity as “collective action.” Because there is such an extensive literature on collective action particularly in relation to public goods (Fulk, Flanagin, Kalman, Monge, & Ryan, 1996; Marwell & Oliver, 1993; Marwell, Oliver, & Prahl, 1988; Monge et al., 1998; Olson, 1965), which differs from Barnett’s understanding of collective action and from the discussion of the community collective at hand, this dissertation will use the term “self-sufficiency” when describing the level at which a community can buffer itself from the environment. 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Understanding the ultimate goal of an organizational community to be self- sufficiency, however, should not suggest that the ties within the community should be entirely mutual. By entering into a community and engaging in network ties with other community members, populations are inherently fostering and constraining their individual actions. Variation during community evolution occurs through both competition and cooperation between the populations and organizations. In order to reach a state of self-sufficiency, however, the ratio of cooperative to competitive ties within the community must increase. At this critical mass, or point in which the communication network has reached a self-sustaining level of interaction, the community has reached a point of collective complexity. At this point, it becomes relatively self-sufficient with regard to resources and environmental level changes are less likely to cause the community to dissolve (Astley, 1985). Once the community has reached a point of self-sufficiency, it is able to subsist more readily on the resources contained within the open environmental space of the community. This resource self-sufficiency allows it to buffer against changes in the environment and creates a relatively stable, closed system (Astley, 1985). This stability is only “precariously maintained,” however (Astley, 1985). If the complexity of the network ties increases too much, the community will collapse (Astley, 1985; Kauffman, 1993). Communities, therefore, are complex, adaptive systems, and sustaining them is a matter of maintaining a tenuous balance between not enough and too much complexity. In addition, if the community becomes unstable due to its internal complexity, it is likely that it will be highly susceptible to 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. marked changes in the environment. Looking at the children’s television community through the lens of self-sufficiency, therefore, generates two propositions. Proposition 5: When a community reaches a point of self-sufficiency, there will be a significantly greater number of mutual than competitive ties. Proposition 6: When a community reaches a point of self-sufficiency, it will be able to buffer its populations against major environmental changes, and therefore the communication network will not significantly alter. Throughout the previous discussion of emergence, maintenance, and self- sufficiency stages of community evolution, possibilities for community transformation abound. The transformation of the community has two possible results: the dissolution of the community or the recreation of the community into a new community with a fundamentally different set of goals, norms, values, etc. Dissolution can occur due to a community’s inability to react effectively to strong environmental pressures or significant or sudden environmental changes, although the denser the communication network of the community the less likely that the community will dissolve. According to Astley (1985) and Kauffman (1993), dissolution can also occur if the density of the network becomes too high, so that the network has become too complex. Recreation can also occur due to the inability of the community to react to strong environmental pressures. Recreation is particularly probable if the resources fundamental to the basic goals or functions of the community diminish dramatically. 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These four stages of community evolution allow us to better understand how changes in the community communication network affect the viability of the community along its life cycle. The birth and death of the community and of the populations within the community can be understood as an outcome of the changes in the network structure. Although the previous explanation o f the stages of community evolution passed through the four stages sequentially, it is possible that different communities may take different evolutionary paths. For example, a community may emerge, enter a period of maintenance, and attain self-sufficiency, only to later fall back into a stage of maintenance due to the loss of ties between populations. Further research on this possibility needs to be done. By looking at community evolution through the lens of communication networks, we can gamer a better understanding of how communities emerge, are maintained, and reach a point of self-sufficiency. Both the community ecology and the communication theoretical frameworks allow for multitheoretical and multilevel understandings and analyses of organizational communities. By integrating the two frameworks, a more structurally sound edifice on which to position the study of organization change is created. Before testing the hypotheses put forth in this chapter, an understanding of the community under investigation is important. The next chapter discusses the populations that compose the children's television community. Brief histories of the eight populations, describing their evolution, key organizational members, and role within the community are provided. Finally, the six propositions put forth in this 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. chapter are revised into hypotheses to be tested regarding the children's television community. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3 THE EIGHT POPULATIONS OF THE CHILDREN’S TELEVISION COMMUNITY The functions that the children’s television community fulfills are the creation, programming, defense, and support of children’s programming. Using this understanding of the function of the children’s television community, eight populations have been essential to the evolution of the community: educational content creators, entertainment content creators, content programmers, toy tie-in manufacturers, advertisers, advocacy groups, governmental bodies, and philanthropic organizations. These eight populations were identified through a review of the several historical texts on the history of children’s television, as well as previous research by the author on the history of preschool television programming. During the interviews with key players in the children's television community for this research project, the categorization o f these populations was only questioned twice. Both times, the addition of “Academics” as a population was suggested. This population was not added, however, because even though academics have been influential in the decision making of each of these populations, they have never been a cohesive decision-making population themselves. These eight populations within the children's television community are a diverse group. Each has a unique history with 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. regard to its emergence, entrance into the children's television community, and relationship with other populations within the community. Educational Content Creators Educational content creators create content that is explicitly educational in nature. In the early days of television, there are a few examples of educational programs. In response to FCC Commissioner Newton Minow’s 1961 pronouncement that children’s television programming was a “vast wasteland,” the networks created several “quality” programs that were educationally oriented (Schneider, 1987). NBC’s Owe, Two, Three-Go and Exploring, CBS’s Reading Room, and ABC’s Discovery were added to the Saturday morning cartoon line-up, but were short-lived due to small audiences and, therefore, a lack o f advertiser support (Schneider, 1987). Other programs, such as Mister Rogers ’ Neighborhood were created and programmed on individual public broadcast stations. The first organization created to explicitly produce educational television content for children, however, was Children’s Television Workshop (CTW). Founded in 1968 by Joan Ganz Cooney and Lloyd Morrisett, CTW tried to harness television’s potential to offer “a universally available, educationally supportive environment in which schools could do their jobs, and in which children would have the opportunity to develop to the limits of their capacity” (Morrisett, 1989, p. 78). CTW’s early creations included Sesame Street, Electric Company, Square One TV, and 3-2-1 Contact', and more recent Workshop creations include DragonTales, Sagwa, and Out There. In addition, and perhaps more important with regard to the 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. population of educational content creators, CTW created the model for content creation, “an interdisciplinary approach to television that brought together content experts, television producers, and educational researchers to collaborate throughout the life of the project” (Fisch, Truglio, & Cole, 1999, p. 166). In the realm of educational content creation, CTW did not face much competition for almost twenty years. There were a few cases where the networks created educational content, such as In the News (ABC); After School Specials (CBS); and Go, Take a Giant Step, and NBC Children’ s Theater (NBC) (Schneider, 1987), but the next major player to enter the population of educational content creators was WGBH, the public broadcasting station of Boston (B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003). In 1984, WGBH entered into children’s educational programming with their series Long Ago and Far Away and over the next two decades created programs such as DeGrassi Junior High, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego, Arthur, ZOOM, and Between the Lions (B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003). In the 1990s, several pre-existing organizations entered this population. Nickelodeon, which had become a powerhouse in the areas of entertainment content creation and programming, Nickelodeon decided to overhaul its programming, in part because PBS was taking its younger audience with its revamped programming, and spun-off an educational content-focused subsidiary, Nick Jr., which focused on educational programs for preschoolers (Andersen, 1998; Tracy, 2002). Nick Jr.’s first two educational co-productions, Allegra's Window and Gullah, Gullah Island, as 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. well as its first in-house production Blue's Clues, introduced curriculum-based programming to cable. In addition, Disney moved into this market, also with a focus on preschool-age children. Moreover, several other smaller organizations, such as Lyons Partnership (Barney), Kratt Brothers (Zaboomafoo), and Ragdoll (Teletubbies) formed partnerships with PBS and its new PBSKids initiative to create educational programs for preschoolers. Other organizations, such as DIC Entertainment (Captain Planet, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego), began relationships with the broadcasts networks to sell educational shows that the networks could program in response to the Children’s Television Act of 1990 (CTA). Most of these relationships proved to be short-lived, however, as vertical integration within the entertainment industry pushed out programs by independent producers in favor of programs created by subsidiary companies. Finally, during the late 1990s, CTW also went through a transformation to become Sesame Workshop, and broadened its scope from television to include new media. Due the expensive nature of research and production associated with educational programs, the number of organizations in this population remains relatively small (J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003; R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003). Programs that are explicitly educational in nature require very high start up costs compared to most entertainment programs. In many cases, this funding has come from philanthropic organizations or governmental bodies, such as the U.S. 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Department of Education, but this form of funding is often only for the first couple of years of the program, after which the program has to be able to finance itself, either through product licensing or through distribution contract with a commercial content programmer (J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003; R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2,2003). In most cases, therefore, educational content creators are now compelled for these financial reasons to form partnerships when creating any programming (J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3,2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003). Moreover, the high start-up costs and research and production complexity of educational content tends to disfavor new and independent content creators (S. Petroff, personal communication, April 7, 2003). In addition, as mentioned above, recent moves toward vertical integration of media companies have resulted in the cross-programming of much educational content. Currently, in order to fulfill their three-hour educational/informational (E/I) programming requirement CBS uses Nick Jr. programs, NBC uses DiscoveryKids programs, and ABC uses Disney programs. This move to intra-conglomerate programming has narrowed the outlets for educational content and, therefore, the resources available for educational content creators. Because the economic resources for producing a program rely heavily on the possibilities for distributing that program (since that is where the money is generated), smaller and newer organizations within this population, which have not had a chance to prove 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. themselves in the marketplace, are finding it much more difficult to find up-front financing of their programs J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; S. Petroff, personal communication, April 7, 2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003; R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003.) In addition, as mentioned above, because the profitability o f any given program is uncertain, cost-sharing partnerships have become the norm in program creation. Another interesting organizational change in children’s television, which is in response to the current regulatory and economic climate, can be seen in the recent undertaking of DIC Entertainment. DIC, which has historically focused on entertainment programming for kids, is revamping their programming to fit the FCC E/I mandate and packaging three-hour blocks of E/I programming, complete with curricula, from their holdings (A. Heyward, personal communication, March 26, 2003). These blocks include previously produced educational programs, such as Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego and Captain Planet; newly produced educational programs, such as Liberty’ s Kids', and repackaged entertainment programs, such as Strawberry Shortcake and Sabrina, The Animated Series, which, due to their prosocial messages, fit under the E/I designation. These blocks will be available to broadcasters, such as Fox and WB, in order to fill their E/I requirement. Currently, these blocks are scheduled to be programmed on over 400 stations during the fall 2003 season (A. Heyward, personal communication, March 26, 2003). Organizations that create educational television content for children face difficult resource pressures. Their programs require large financial resources to 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. create, but are often relegated to non-commercial outlets, such as PBS, due to economic constraints on the part of content programmers. In addition, funding from philanthropic organizations and governmental organizations has become scarce, and when available, is often targeted for start-up costs and requires the program to become economically viable in a relatively short amount of time. Moreover, their programming also is under pressure from the governmental bodies and advocacy groups to comply with certain standards of educational rigor, and lack of adherence to those standards can be very detrimental to their social and political legitimacy. On the other hand, however, established organizations such as Sesame Workshop can often gamer economic, social, and political resources due to their special status as an educational content creator. Entertainment Content Creators Entertainment content creators develop content that is not explicitly educational in nature, but is instead for primarily entertainment purposes. Such programming has been around since the beginning of television. In the 1940s and early 1950s, however, the purpose of television programs for children was to create the vision of the television as the family hearth, and to therefore sell television sets to the parents (Calabro, 1992; Melody, 1973; Schneider, 1987). Programs created by the broadcast networks such as Howdy Doody and Kukla, Fran, & Ollie, which were entertaining for both children and adults, were shown during prime-time hours. For the most part, however, programming for children was concentrated at the local level and was generally inexpensively produced live local programming, Popeye cartoon 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reruns, and old Hopalong Cassidy movies (Schneider, 1987). Once the television set became a permanent fixture in many American homes (around 16 millions sets in 1952), the emphasis switched from trying to sell sets to trying to sell advertising (Melody, 1973). A critical mass of eyes, particularly adult eyes, had been reached. Since children were not seen as an economic force, children’s television programming was relegated to time-slots, particularly mornings and afternoons, when adults were less likely to be watching. The advent of children's television as we know it today occurred in the mid- 1950s. In late 1954, ABC partnered with Disney to create Disneyland, an hour-long, high quality program for children in which Disney was allowed to fully promote the new Disneyland amusement park and the collection of Disney films (Melody, 1973) This program met both ratings and critical success, and quickly became the model for children’s programming - Hollywood studio programming sponsored through advertisements and program sponsorships. Disney’s next venture, The Mickey Mouse Club, solidified this model. In November of 1955, Walt Disney’s Mickey Mouse Club became the first show to be aired every weekday during a children- targeted time (Schneider, 1987). “No other show before it reached as many children with as much frequency. And no other show before it was used as effectively by advertisers of children’s products” (Schneider, 1987, p. 12). In addition, Captain Kangaroo, which was until recently the longest-running children’s program, was introduced that year. 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In the realm of animation, the first cartoons were generally movie overstocks purchased in bulk by television stations or networks (Schneider, 1987). Popeye, Casper the Friendly Ghost, and Terrytoons were some of the more popular programs of the 1940s and 50s. These shorts were generally packed into Saturday mornings and packaged as local shows with live hosts in character as space commanders, policemen, cowboys, captains, etc. (Schneider, 1987). New cartoon programming did not arrive on the Saturday morning scene en masse until the mid-1950s, when Hanna-Barbera began to produce their R uff and Ready cartoons, followed by their Huckleberry Hound and Yogi Bear (Melody, 1973; Schneider, 1987). Tom & Jerry, Woody Woodpecker, and The Pink Panther soon followed. These cartoons were very inexpensive compared to the live action shows, such as Captain Kangaroo, the stations had been programming and were even more popular. Stations began to realize huge profits from this new programming, due to the inexpensive costs of acquiring such programming coupled with the increases in advertising revenues from companies eager to put their products in front of the increasing number of child viewers (Schneider, 1987). This became the status quo in children’s programming for the next decade. In the mid-1960s, Fred Silverman, a 26-year old executive for CBS, decided to revisit what had become very formulaic, low production cost Saturday morning programming (Schneider, 1987). Silverman introduced new production techniques and new higher-quality cartoons to network television, and quickly put CBS in the number one spot for children’s programming. (CBS had been third.) These new 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cartoons, such as The Jetsons, garnered larger audiences than the old genre, and quickly became indispensable avenues of advertising for toys and other child- oriented products. ABC and NBC obviously took notice and quickly followed suit, creating a ratings war for Saturday mornings similar to that of prime time. If a program was not getting the ratings, it was quickly replaced (Schneider, 1987). The concentration o f power in the hands of the networks in the late 1960s and early 1970s created severe barriers to entry for new organizations in the children's television program production and creation market (Melody, 1973). Large production companies created relationships with the networks, entered into production contracts, and often won production contracts based on the ideas of smaller firms that had been bought by the networks. Small independent firms were often required to create an entire season of programming (in finished form) before they could sell it to one of the networks, whereas the larger companies often garnered contracts based simply on storyboards. To highlight this inequality, in the 1972-73 season, three large production houses, along with a few smaller companies, provided the 12 hours of Saturday morning programming on the networks (Cantor, 1971; Melody, 1973). Throughout the 1970s, children’s television continued to consist mostly of inexpensive cartoons. In the 1980s, cartoons continued to reign supreme, but the organizations creating those cartoons changed to some extent. The deregulatory atmosphere of the Reagan administration, along with changes in the technological environment of television (specifically the marked increase in cable channels), 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. provided an environment in which a new programming and sponsorship model for entertainment content arose. In the 1980s, “program-length commercials” became the children's television standard. It is at this point that the line between sponsorship and program became blurred as producers, looking to spread the risk of program production costs, turned to toy manufacturers, and toy manufacturers, wanting to stabilize a market subject to children’s whim and fancy, turned to the media. Shows were developed with the consultation, and in some instances, financial backing, of toy manufacturers and licensing agents.... The cost of producing the program could be spread between program producers and product manufacturer or licenser, and recognition of either the product merchandise or the program increases sales and ratings. (Pecora, 1998, p. 34) Programs from the benign Smurfs, Rainbow Brite, and My Little Pony, to the brutish Transformers, He-Man, and Thundercats proliferated in this environment. In many cases, the organizations within the population of entertainment content creators during this decade were so tightly aligned with toy manufacturers that it was hard to tell where one organization began and the other ended in the production of the programs. Two particularly telling examples show how this blurring of organizational boundaries occurred: The Smurfs and He-Man and the Masters o f the Universe (Pecora, 1998). The U.S. licensing rights to the Smurfs, which were created by the Belgian author Peyo, were held by Wallace Berrie Company, who had bought the rights from the Belgian media firm SEPP (Greene & Spragins, 1982; Pecora, 1998). President of NBC Fred Silverman commissioned a cartoon based on the toys, to be produced by Hanna Barbera, and put them in the NBC line-up in 1981 (Greene & Spragins, 1982; Pecora, 1998). Before the Smurfs reached the air, there were already 40 licenses for 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Smurf products (Pecora, 1998). The airing of the Smurfs, which boosted NBC to number one in the Saturday morning time slot, doubled the number of licenses annually for the first 4 years of the program ("How they keep the Smurfs," 1983; Pecora, 1998). Under this arrangement, the production boundaries were drawn so that Wallace Berrie owned the licensing rights, “SEPP owned the idea, NBC supplied the outlet, and Hanna-Barbera supplied the animated program” (Pecora, 1998, p. 67). As the cartoon moved into syndication, these organizational boundaries began to blur (Pecora, 1998). Hanna-Barbera held the syndication rights to the animation, and those independent stations owned by Hanna-Barbera’s parent company Taft were given first right of refusal of the program (Pecora, 1998; "Smurfs now bartered for '86," 1984). The creation, financing, distribution, and licensing of He-Man and the Masters o f the Universe is an extreme example of how the organizational boundaries blurred in the 1980s (Pecora, 1998). Filmation and its parent company Group W created and financed He-Man in conjunction with Mattel, with creative control remaining in Mattel’s hands (Mattel, 1984; Pecora, 1998). Financially, Mattel retained all licensing rights for He-Man products and Filmation/Group W retained syndication rights (Pecora, 1998). With regard to programming outlets, the cartoon was shown on independent stations, which reaped the benefits of the show in both ratings and product cost (Pecora, 1998). In addition, the direct relationship between Mattel and the stations was mutually beneficial: “Stations had a guaranteed commitment of advertising revenue from Mattel; Mattel, on the other hand, had up- 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. front assurances of advertising time from the stations” (Pecora, 1998, p. 71). A barter relationship was created between the two, where the stations provided the time and Mattel provided the programming. The amazing financial success of He-Man for all organizations involved provided the example for the creation, financing, distribution, and licensing of toy-based entertainment programming for children throughout the decade. By the early 1990s, the landscape of television distribution had changed dramatically. Cable had joined the networks, independents, and public broadcasters to provide a growing number of possible outlets for children’s television programming. The Children’s Television Act of 1990, although implemented without sufficient provision for enforcement, called attention to the strong mutual relationship that had grown between educational content creators and toy manufacturers, and shook the confidence of content programmers to distribute such content (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003). That is not to say, however, that the relationship between toy manufacturers and entertainment content creators has dissipated. But there has certainly been a move away from joint creative control over content. Licensing, however, remains an important relationship between the two (J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2002; T. Conley, personal communication, April 4, 2003). As the number of outlets available for children's television programs increased, so did the variety of entertainment programs. The expansion of resources, both economic and air-time, encouraged new organizations to enter the population of 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. entertainment content creators. Saban Industries {Mighty Morphin Power Rangers), and Pokemon USA Inc. (Pokemon) are examples of organizations that entered the population during this decade. In addition, organizations that had a smaller presence in children's television during the 80s, such as DIC, began to create and acquire more programming (often from international sources) to increase their presence within the population (A. Heyward, personal communication, March 26, 2003). Toward the end of the 1990s, and in the first few years of this century, media consolidation has taken its toll on the number of organizations that create entertainment content. Saban Industries, for example, is now a subsidiary o f Fox Entertainment. In addition, the consolidation of content programmers, such as ABC Family’s purchase of the Fox Family channel has also decreased the number of programming outlets. Other highly touted prospective channels, such as Fox’s proposed Boyz and Girlz channels never got off the ground (D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003). And kids-targeted digital cable channels other than Noggin, which began as a joint-venture between Nickelodeon and Sesame Workshop (and is now solely a Nickelodeon venture, since Sesame Workshop sold out its interest in the partnership) and is a strictly educational channel, are yet to be realized. All of these changes in the landscape of the content programmers have reduced the resources available to the creators of children’s entertainment content and therefore shrunk the population of entertainment content creators. 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Content programmers are the commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters, and cable networks that distribute children’s television shows. Today this population includes channels (and their corresponding organizations) such as ABC, Fox, WB, Discovery Channel, ABC Family, Nickelodeon, and Noggin. This wide variety of outlets for children's television programming is a relatively recent phenomenon, however. Commercial Broadcasters: 1940s-1980s In the pre-cable era, from the 1940s until the late 1970s, content programmers fell into two major categories: commercial broadcasters and public broadcasters. In the earliest years of television, the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, the commercial networks were the major players in this population.3 NBC, CBS, the now-defunct DuMont, and later ABC provided children's television programming as part of their line-up. Before the mid-1950s, this programming was less child- directed and more family-directed, airing in the evening with the sole purpose of children’s television programming to convince adults that they should purchase television sets (Melody, 1973; Schneider, 1987). During this time-period, NBC reigned supreme in the amount of children's programming it aired (Melody, 1973). In addition, during this early period, the model for children’s television was very 3 Since this dissertation focuses on the children's television community on a national level, local content programmers are excluded from this discussion. Particularly in the early years of television, local broadcast stations often provided safe, or even educational, programming for children. For an excellent, state-by-state analysis of children’s television programs available on local stations, please see Hollis (2001). 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. different from the model we know today with regard to advertising - only half of children’s programming was advertiser-sponsored, the rest was sustaining, or non advertiser supported (Melody, 1973). In the mid-1950s, once television sets had become commonplace in the American household, the children’s programming changed and broadcaster perceptions of the importance of child viewers changed from being valued as a conduit to the parent to being valued as a consumer (Pecora, 1998). During this period popular shows such as The Mickey Mouse Club and their sponsors and advertisers became important for the networks, particularly in recognizing the untapped potential of the children’s market. This realization motivated the networks to relocate children’s television in the 1960s to Saturday morning, a heretofore financially dismal time slot (Melody, 1973). The networks packed this time with inexpensive animated programming and extensive advertising (twice as much as in prime-time programming) (Melody, 1973). This Saturday morning marketplace of cartoons has essentially remained constant on the networks since the 1960s. In the 1970s, the networks added weekday afternoons to their slate o f children’s programming. In the 1980s, however, the networks, reveling in the deregulatory atmosphere at the FCC, severely cut their children's television programming. From 1979 to 1983, children’s programming on the networks plummeted from 11.3 hours a week to 4.4 hours (Engelhardt, 1986). Independent broadcasters, eager to fill time and 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. excited about the financial possibilities of the new program-length commercials (described above) moved heavily into children’s programming. Public Broadcasting: 1960s-1980s The next major event in the population o f content programmers came with the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which established the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) as a body within the federal government, focused on non commercial broadcasting to educate and inform everyone in the U.S. (Jarvik, 1998). The Act subsequently created the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) as the conduit for the CPB programming, but shortly afterward, in 1970, PBS’s role was changed from “passive conduit to network gatekeeper and programmer” (Jarvik, 1998, p. 25). After a few bumpy years in which CPB and PBS tried to establish their roles and relationship, the organizations settled into roles where CPB is the governmental body (and controls the federal funding) and PBS is the content programmer (and controls what goes on the screen). The role of PBS in children's television programming was to provide educational programming that would be available to children throughout the nation. The first children's television program funded by CPB and aired on PBS was Mr. Rogers ’ Neighborhood, which had already been in production in various forms for 13 years when it was acquired in 1967. Soon after, PBS found what would become, and continues to be, its flagship children’s show: Sesame Street. As the networks continued to compete primarily with inexpensive, entertaining cartoon programming, PBS moved into the expensive, educational programming realm and 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. soon became the household staple for safe, educational programming for children. Over the next decade, PBS added to its programming shows such as Electric Company and Square One TV, which were both created by CTW. Until the early 1990s, PBS reached the largest children’s audience (Jarvik, 1998). Cable Networks: 1980s As the 1970s drew to a close, a fundamental change in the television landscape was beginning to take place - the rise o f cable. By 1983, “cable supplied almost 70% of children’s programming hours” (Pecora, 1998, p. 82). By 1987, half of America had cable, so access to cable programming for children was a reality for half of American familes (Calabro, 1992). Two major cable organizations, Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel, entered the children's television community during this time and were responsible for most of this dramatic change in children's television programming. Nickelodeon, created as the program Pinwheel in 1979 and evolving into a cable channel by 1982, was the first cable channel aimed entirely at a child audience (Pecora, 1998). Although the channel was originally commercial-free, in 1983 it moved to an advertising-sponsored model (Calabro, 1992; Mifflin, 1999; Pecora, 1998, R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2, 2003). The programs were targeted on the 6-12 year old set, and Nickelodeon successfully set its brand identity as the anti-adult channel (Tracy, 2002, D.F. Meir, personal communication, March 28, 2003). As the decade wore on, Nickelodeon expanded both its reach, through the expansion of cable, and its audience share. Although Nickelodeon’s programming, 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. which was mostly original, live-action productions, did not necessarily lend itself to the type of licensing found with the program-length commercials and Disney model (described below) during the same time period, Nickelodeon did begin to license products, such as green slime shampoo, in the late 1980s (Pecora, 1998). In addition, Nickelodeon used the public broadcasting underwriting model on some programs and product sponsorship on several of their programs, particularly live-action game shows (Pecora, 1998). The Disney Channel is another interesting case in children's television programming. Like Nickelodeon, Disney’s focus is on children, although 15-30% of its viewers are families without children (Pecora, 1998). The Disney Channel differs, however, in its shear reach throughout the children's television community. Although the channel is technically commercial-free, the entire set of programming, from regular programs to movies to interstitials, is “one long advertisement for the Walt Disney empire” (Pecora, 1998, p. 84). Considering the vast holdings o f the Walt Disney company, which has been expanded even further with the acquisition of ABC, and the expanse of products encompassed within this media conglomerate, this “advertisement” has a large effect in the licensing of products, from theme park tickets to plush dolls, related to the programming (Pecora, 1998). The 1990s to today The CTA is often considered to be a watershed event in children's television, although many, including its strongest advocate, do not believe that it actually had much effect on children’s programming, particularly educational programming (P. 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003). Instead, two organizational events fostered the change in children’s television in the first half of this decade. The first was PBS’s revamping of its educational programming line-up. In 1991, PBS responded to the doldrums of children’s programming by scheduling Barney & Friends, Shining Time Station, and Lamb Chop’ s Play-Along. Barney, in particular, was a huge success, and PBS took steps to add more programming. In 1992, through the Ready-to-Leam Act, PBS furthered its goal o f providing a significant amount of educational programming by implementing its Ready-To-Leam (RTL) programming block (S. Petroff, personal communication, April 7, 2003). PBS’s RTL combines 11 hours of educational programming throughout the day with community and parent outreach and resources, to address social and emotional development, physical well being and motor development, approaches to learning, language skills, cognitive skills, and the general knowledge of 2-8 year olds. In order for a program to be part of RTL, it must have curriculum goals, as well as a formative and summative research plan, either in- or out-of-house. In 1994, partly in response to RTL and partly out o f a recognition that preschool age children were still underserved, Nickelodeon made a major organizational change, deciding to invest $60 million and 6 hours a day in Nick Jr., a channel-within-a-channel focusing on educational programming for preschoolers (Andersen, 1998; Tracy, 2002). This foray into preschool educational programming got off to a stellar start, and B lue’ s Clues, the first in-house Nick Jr. production, was a financial coup for Nickelodeon. Nick Jr.’s successful model of educational 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. production, channel branding, and product licensing became the gold standard in children’s programming. The success of Nickelodeon spurred several other large media corporations to take the plunge into children's television. The Cartoon Network by Time-Wamer; Fox Kids Network by Fox; Noggin, a joint venture in educational television by CTW and Nickelodeon (which is now wholly owned by Nickelodeon); DiscoveryKids by Discovery Channel; and the Kids Channel by PBS are examples of the very recent boom in cable channels entering the population of children's television content programmers. This has fundamentally altered the content programming landscape. In 1997, for example, basic cable provided 40% o f children’s programming; PBS provided 22%; premium channels provided 19%; small networks (FOX, UPN, WB) provided 17%; and the Big Three only provided 2% (Jordan & Woodard, 1997) O f this programming, approximately 23% is targeted toward preschoolers (Jordan, 1998). In addition, the trend toward vertical integration has affected those organizations that program content for children. ABC, for example, is saturated with programming from its owner Disney and WB can program any Warner Brothers cartoons from its vast archive - and all at a huge profit margin. Moreover, CBS can use Nick Jr. programming to fulfill its E/I requirements; most recently NBC began using DiscoveryKids programming. The change in programming outlets has also changed with the viewing habits of children. Children now watch 15% o f their programming on Saturday mornings, 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33% on weekday afternoons, and the rest during prime-time (with programs not directly targeted to children) (H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003). The networks, therefore, have moved their E/I programming to three-hour Saturday morning blocks. In addition, Nickelodeon’s move into children’s programming, and the subsequent proliferation of channels providing programming for children, has changed the programming model from appointment programming, in which a child goes to a station to watch a particular program, to destination programming, in which a child goes to a station to see what is on that station (D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003). Content programmers no longer enter into the population on the basis of providing a few children’s programs as they did in the 1950s, but instead enter the population as full-time children’s content providers. Toy Tie-In Companies Toy tie-in companies are creators and manufacturers of toys that directly relate to children’s television programs, either through direct sponsorship of the programs, products placement or tie-in within the programming, or retail licensing of program-related products. Over the past five decades, the organizations within the toy tie-in population and their relationships to other populations within the children's television community have changed dramatically. Mattel, which began as Mattel Creations, was the first toy company to tie its products into national children's television programming (Mattel, 2003; Schneider, 1987). The company, which began in the early 1950s, began with products such as a Jack-in-the-Box that played “Pop Goes the Weasel” and eventually became most 77 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. famous for its Barbie™ doll (Mattel, 2003). In November 1955, Mattel’s Burp Gun became the first toy featured in a television commercial when it aired during The Mickey Mouse Club (Cross, 1997; Schneider, 1987). For the first season of The Mickey Mouse Club, the cost of sponsorship for the program was $500,000 per year (Schneider, 1987). At this time, there were no toy industry giants as we know them today (e.g., Hasbro, Fisher Price, Mattel), so this was a sizeable investment for a toy manufacturer. Such an investment, however, gave Mattel 15 minutes of sponsorship per hour with 3 commercials during that time. The wild success of the show proved to be worth the outrageous price tag. Sales of the Mattel Burp Gun, for example, doubled the company’s entire previous annual profit in the few weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas 1955 (Schneider, 1987). In 1958, Mattel introduced their first girl-directed toy, the Barbie doll. “Each commercial was treated as a mini-episode in Barbie’s glamorous life” and the advertising campaign was so successful that the television exposure of the doll had to be immediately cut back due to a demand for the doll that far outweighed the supply (Schneider, 1987, p. 30). The Barbie doll was soon followed by an array o f tie-in products, such as the Barbie Fan Club, Barbie newsletter, Barbie magazine, and Barbie books. These tie-ins were extremely successful, and the Barbie Fan Club became the second largest girl’s organization in the world (the first largest was the Girl Scouts) (Schneider, 1987). These early successes for Mattel solidified the notion that commercials within children’s programming were highly effective. By 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1962, Hanna-Barbera, following this new model, was making over a million dollars from tie-in products alone (Bamouw, 1970, qtd. in Melody, 1973). Another type of relationship between toy manufacturers and content creators and programmers also began with Mattel: the program based on a toy. The first children’s television program to be created around a specific toy was The Hot Wheels show, created in 1969 by Mattel and programmed on Saturday mornings on ABC (Schneider, 1987). Mattel was not allowed to advertise via commercial during the show, but the thirty-minutes devoted to the product through the storylines was enough to deem it a “half-hour commercial.” Although this blatant commercialization of children’s television was brought to the attention of the FCC, the Commission only addressed the issue with a “vague warning about future ventures of this sort” (Schneider, 1987, p.45). The program was short-lived and this type of programming stagnated until the 1980s. Although such barefaced toy tie-ins in entertainment programming were taboo in the 1970s, licensing of program-related products took off in the late 1970s (Pecora, 1998). In particular, licensing related to Sesame Street became an important archetype for providing for program longevity. When Sesame Street went on the air in 1969, it was funded by governmental bodies and philanthropic organizations. Beginning in 1971, however, CTW realized that such funding was not going to last forever, and in fact they began to quickly receive pressure from their funders to find alternative sources of revenue to support the exorbitant production costs of the program (J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003). They quickly 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. turned to licensing revenue, and partnered with the Jim Henson Production Company, which had created characters that were easily turned into plush, cuddly toys (Cross, 1997; J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003). CTW was not successful in the licensing arena for several years, but since the mid-1970s licensing revenue has been a major source of funding for the non-profit organization (Pecora, 1998; J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003). In addition, a few Sesame Street licensed products, in particular the Tickle-Me Elmo doll that was produced by Fisher-Price/Mattel in 1996, are legends in merchandising history (Byrne, 2003; Fisher Price, 2003). The 1980s saw a fundamental change in the way in which toys related to children's television (Schneider, 1987). Instead of characters being created through television or movies and then licensed to toy manufacturers, many of the most popular characters of this decade were created by toy companies and then turned into television shows (Cross, 1997). He-Man and Masters o f the Universe and She-Ra: Princess o f Power (Mattel); G.I. Joe and Tranformers (Hasbro); Gobots (Tonka); Thundercats (Rankin-Bass), Ghostbusters (Filmation), Strawberry Shortcake (General Mills/American Greetings/Those Characters from Cleveland, Inc.); Rainbow Brite (Mattel/Hallmark), and Care Bears (Bemie Loomis /Those Characters from Cleveland, Inc) are all examples of this type of character/program relationship (Pecora, 1998; Schneider, 1987). In the 1983-84 season alone, there were 14 program-length commercials on television (Cross, 1997). A few o f these characters (e.g., Strawberry Shortcake, Care Bears, and Rainbow Brite) are the 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. product of collaborative partnerships specifically focused on creating licensable characters (Schneider, 1987). Entertainment content creators, such as Filmation, Marvel, and DIC, entered into creative partnerships with toy companies to create these programs (Cross, 1997). DIC alone created 330 hours of toy-based programming on contract from toy manufacturers in 1987 (Cross, 1997). To highlight the extent of this trend toward toy-based programming, between 1980 and 1987 the percentage of toys sold in the U.S. that were based on licensed characters increased from 10% to 60% (Cross, 1997). The licensing frenzy of the 1980s also brought to light an important benefit to the mutual relationship between toy manufacturers, content creators, and content programmers - “by linking toys to television, the longevity of a product line can be enhanced” (Pecora, 1998, p. 51). In return, consumption of the licensed product reinforces demand for the television program, both in original and syndicated form. This cycle has been particularly productive for some of the licensed characters of the 1980s, such as Strawberry Shortcake and the Care Bears, both o f whom have very recently been acquired by new production companies, revamped for the new generation of television viewers, and re-released on television and in the toy marketplace (A. Heyward, personal communication, March 26,2003). In the 1990s, the relationship between toy manufacturers and entertainment content creators remained strong, as can be seen in programs such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, and Pokemon (Cross, 1997). In addition, however, since the early 1990s there has been an increase in successful 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. licensing relationships between toy manufacturers and educational content creators. Barney, Sesame Street, B lue’ s Clues, and most recently Dora the Explorer have all had phenomenally successful merchandising ventures (A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; Pecora, 1998; M. Williams, personal communication, March 31, 2003). In 1998, Teletubbies, generated $800 million in licensed product sales (Mifflin, 1999). In essence, toy licensing has become a major factor (if not the major factor) in measuring the success of any children's television program. Although the 1980s and 1990s was a triumphant time for the population of toy tie-in companies with regard to their position in the children's television community, these were also very turbulent times for the toy industry with regard to mergers and acquisitions. For example, in the 1980s, Hasbro merged with Milton Bradley and acquired Playskool, and Binney Smith was acquired by Hallmark (Cross, 1997; Pecora, 1998). The share of the market controlled by the top three toy manufacturers (which were Hasbro, Mattel, and Coleco) increased from 20% in 1980 to 35% in 1985 ("Battle of the fun factories," 1985). The trend continued in the 1990s, with the acquisition of Fisher Price and Tyco by Mattel as important examples of this movement (Fisher Price, 2003; Mattel, 2003). Currently, the three largest toy companies (Hasbro, Mattel, and LEGO) control 85% of the marketplace (T. Conley, personal communication, April 4, 2003; T. Bartlett, personal communication, April 3, 2003). This move toward consolidation has greatly affected the number of organizations within the toy tie-in population. Small players often get into the toy 82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. market through licensing, but the current trend is for larger companies to simply buy up any smaller companies that create a successful product (T. Conley, personal communication, April 4, 2003; Terri T. Bartlett, personal communication, April 3, 2003). The number o f organizations within this population, therefore, continues to dwindle. Advertisers The population of advertisers within the children's television community is composed of companies that advertise their child-targeted products during children’s programming. Although there are many different types of products advertised during children's television programming, the most common are cereals, candy, snack food, fast food, and, earlier in the history of children's television programming, vitamins (Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998). The advertising of these products to children has become so important that entire advertising agency departments, and more recently entire agencies such as the Geppetto Group, have been created to specialize in this media niche. Until the mid-1950s, almost half of children’s television programming had no advertiser sponsorship (Melody, 1973). As mentioned above, the purpose of children's television during this time was not to sell to children, but instead to sell to grown-ups watching with their children, so the products advertised during programming were mostly targeted toward adults. Even the mainstay o f children’s radio advertising, the cereal companies (e.g., General Mills and Kelloggs), entered the children’s television market very slowly (Schneider, 1987). Advertisers did not 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. begin to recognize children as consumers until Mattel’s advertising success in the mid-1950s, and even then entered the market gradually due in part to the high costs of advertising during that time (Schneider, 1987). The success of Walt Disney’s Disneyland, which was teeming with Disney products, and The Mickey Mouse Club, which aired the first children's television commercial, put advertisers of children’s products on their toes (Melody, 1973; Schneider, 1987). In addition, “by 1955, there were no nationally distributed radio programs scheduled for children” (Pecora, 1998, p. 14). If advertisers were going to sell their products, they were going to have to move to television. Although the Walt Disney programs were quality programs, what this model seemed to teach the networks and advertisers was not that programs should be created in the children’s interests, but instead that they should be created in the advertisers’ interest (Melody, 1973). The non-toy sponsors of the Mickey Mouse Club, however, were “Goodrich Tires, Proctor and Gamble, Gold Seal Wax, Minnesota Minings, Bristol Meyers, Armour, S.O.S. scouring pads, and Vicks” (Melody, 1973, p. 41). Advertisers were still focusing their efforts on advertising to a mass audience, and not for specialized audiences such as children. Advertising directed to children began to emerge en force in the mid-1960s. Products such as Cheerios, Twinkies, Karo Syrup, Tootsie Rolls, Fiddle Faddle, Cocoa Puffs, Hostess Ding Dongs, and Star Brite Toothpaste all found their place in children's television programming (Kid's Commercials, 2003). One o f the first, and most obvious, manifestations of this new advertising model was General Foods 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. creation of programs as vehicles for the spokescharacters for their cereals (Schneider, 1987). In 1964, CBS premiered Linus the Lionheared, which included shorts for Linus and for Sugar Bear (Kurer, 2003). The show was a co-production of Ed Graham Productions and General Foods (Kurer, 2003). During this period, advertising agencies began to specialize in the children’s market and to understand the relative economic status and buying-power of children within the household (Melody, 1973). Ogilvie and Mather, for example, represented products such as: Rolos (Hershey’s), Burger Chef (General Foods), Kool-Aid (General Foods), Cookie Crisp (Ralston), Aim toothpaste (Lever) (Schneider, 1987). In addition, the first advertising agencies specializing in the children’s market began to appear, with Helitzer, Waring, and Wayne opening in 1963 (Pecora, 1998). Those companies that produced children’s products continued to move heavily into children’s advertising, and by the early 1970s, Kellogg, Mattel, and General Mills accounted for 30% o f all advertising revenues on the networks (Pearce, 1972). In addition, the fast food wars, between Ronald McDonald and the Burger “King” had begun in full-force (McNeal, 1992). The relationship between governmental bodies and advocacy groups and the networks and advertisers were, for the most part, laissez faire from the early days of television until the early 1970s. After urging from Action for Children’s Television (ACT), however, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held hearings in 1973 to address the movement o f several large cereal manufacturers into toy manufacturing (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; Howard & Hulbert, 1973). 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACT also addressed the issue of vitamin commercials during children’s programming, and pressured vitamin manufacturers off the air (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003). Throughout the 1970s, ACT’s vigilance in petitioning the FTC and putting pressure on advertisers changed the face of advertising on children's television. By the end of the 1970s, advertising time allotments in children's television programming had been dramatically reduced, and advertisers were much more wary of the way in which they presented their products (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8,2003, Kaye, 1979; Melody, 1973). In the 1980s, advertising in children’s television remained a big business. In particular, the increase in outlets through new cable and independent broadcast channels created more airtime for children’s product advertising. In 1984 there were more than 75 corporations in the U.S. that provided services or products for children nationally, including: “General Foods, General Mills, Kelloggs, Quaker, and Ralston; Coleco, and Mattel; Hershey’s, Mars M&Ms, and Nabisco Brands; American Greetings and Hallmark; Walt Disney, Hanna-Barbera, and Warner Communications; Burger King and McDonalds” (Schneider, 1987, p. 7). These companies were spending over $500 million in advertising annually, most of which was concentrated on television advertisements. Moreover, the 1980s saw a move toward creating children’s versions of adult products. GapKids, WaldenKids, and S p o r t s I l l u s t r a t e d f o r K i d s are just a few examples of this move toward a niche model. 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The 1990s and the first years of this century have seen even further segmentation of the children’s market (McNeal, 1992). With this segmentation have come larger revenues for the advertisers. From 1996-1999, the amount of advertiser revenue increased “at a double-digit rate annually, and it exceeded $1 billion for the 1998-99 season” (Mifflin, 1999, para. 4). In addition, expenditures have also increased. In recent years, the food and drink industries have spent $13 billion a year marketing to children, with food advertising comprising almost one-half of all child- targeted advertising (Report, 2002). According to these statistics, the regulation of advertising in children's television passed along with the CTA of 1990, which limited advertising to 10.5 minutes/hour on weekdays and 12 minutes on weekends, has not had a negative effect on the influence of advertisers on children’s spending habits. Over the past five decades, the role of advertisers in children's television and their relationship to the other populations, as well as the children watching the television, has evolved. Looking back through the marketer’s eyes, the ‘50s provided children in large numbers, the ‘60s gave them increased incomes to spend, the ‘70s developed and produced many new products and services for children to want to buy, and the ‘80s gave children legitimacy, or equality of sorts with adult consumers. (McNeal, 1992, p. 6) The 1990s have continued the belief in kids as consumers. With the proliferation of channels, which provide the most important resource for the advertisers, airtime, the influence of advertisers within the children's television community is not likely to dissipate soon. 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Governmental bodies are Federal and State regulatory and legislative bodies that enact legislation to enable and control children’s television. They also create funding mechanisms for educational content creators. Key organizations within this population over the past 50 years have been Congress, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S. Department of Education, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Although governmental bodies, particularly Congress and the FCC, had great influence on the development of television in the 1940s and 1950s, they did not target children's television specifically until the late 1960s. The social climate of the late 1960s created an atmosphere in which the realization of a need for a national broadcasting public good and the effect of television violence on children became important topics within the government (S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; Melody, 1973; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003). In 1967, Congress created CPB, through the Public Broadcasting Act, as an organization focused on providing quality informational and educational programming for the greater public good (Jarvik, 1998). In 1968, the Eisenhower commission on “The Causes and Prevention of Violence” was established, and reported on the violence in children’s television shows at that time. The commission’s report focused attention on the current state of children's television programming. 88 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. During this time, the seeds of CTW and Sesame Street were being sowed. The newly formed PBS provided a vehicle to distribute this new educational program, and the U.S. Office of Education (later the U.S. Department of Education), in large part due to the friendship between CTW creator Lloyd Morrisett and Commissioner o f Education Harold “Doc” Howe, granted a substantial portion of the start-up funding for the venture (L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003). This began a public and governmental movement for educational programming for children. Much of this programming was supported by federal Equal Educational Opportunity funds and government public broadcasting money, with additional funding from private foundations (Kunkel, 1991). In addition, this public movement toward concern regarding children's television was spearheaded in the early 1970s by Action or Children’s Television and it’s director, Peggy Charren. The effect of ACT on the children's television community is discussed below, but with regard to governmental bodies it is important to note that ACT’s 1971 petition of the FTC to prohibit children’s vitamin advertisers effectively identified the FTC as an important organization with regard to children's television (Action for Children's Television, 1988). In 1978 ACT petitioned the FTC again, this time asking that they ban all advertising during children's television programming. During this period, the FCC was also active in promoting non-harmful programming for children. Under pressure from ACT, the FCC issued a Notice of Inquiry and Proposed Rulemaking on children's television programming and 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. advertising in 1971 (Action for Children's Television, 1988; Melody, 1973). Three years and 100,00 letters later, the FCC adopted the Children’ s Television Report and Policy Statement (Action for Children's Television, 1988; Federal Communications Commission, 1974). The overall tone of the mandate can be summarized in the following excerpt. We believe.. .that the broadcaster's public service obligation includes a responsibility to provide diversified programming designed to meet the varied needs and interests of the child audience.. ..In this regard, educational or informational programming for children is of particular importance. (Federal Communications Commission, 1974,2d 1,5) The mandate also established standards for advertising during children’s programming, focusing on the amount, scheduling, and age-specificity of the advertising (Action for Children's Television, 1988). This mandate did not have much effect on the state of children's television programming, and an FCC staff report in 1979 showed that broadcasters had not abided by the mandate and that there had been no change in children’s educational programming (Action for Children's Television, 1988; Kunkel, 1998). The 1980s saw a very different FCC response to children's television and its advocates. By 1982, Captain Kangaroo went off the air leaving no regularly scheduled children’s programs on network television. In 1982, in response to the subsequent outcry by advocacy groups, Commissioner Mark Fowler said, Frankly, I don't see how you could possibly mandate more children's television. I believe commercial broadcasters alone should decide what they shall broadcast, because they have the Constitutional right of free speech. It's too bad 'Captain Kangaroo' is gone, but the Government should not be issuing directives about what should be on the air. (Holsendolph, 1982, p. 2 :21) 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This statement was the essence of the FCC throughout the 1980s. In 1984, the FCC acted on this deregulatory idea and eliminated all guidelines regarding commercial broadcasting (Action for Children's Television, 1988). Over the next several years, advocacy groups continued to petition the FCC, and the FCC continued to deny the petitions. Advocacy groups were successful, however, in getting Congress to take notice of the problem. Several members of Congress attempted to pass legislation regarding educational minimums or advertising maximums in children's television programming over the next several years. Neither the Children’s Television Education Act of 1985 nor the Children’s Television Advertising Practices Act of 1987 passed through Congress. In 1988, Congress first attempted to pass a revised version of the Children’s Television Advertising Practices Act. The Act would limit commercials within children’s programming and would require the FCC to consider the amount of educational programming provided by the broadcaster when deciding license renewals. There was bipartisan support for the bill, and even the broadcasting industry had agreed to the terms. On June 8, the bill passed in the House with a 328 to 78 vote; on October 19, it passed in the Senate. Then on the Saturday night just before the November election, President Reagan quietly killed the Children’s Television Act of 1988 with a pocket veto, saying the measure interfered with the First Amendment’s guarantee for free speech for broadcasters. (Granville, 1988, p. 1) 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Eventually, in 1990, the CTA was passed. The Act “mandate[d] that, as a public service condition for license renewal, broadcast television stations provide a minimal amount of educational and informative programming for children” (Andersen, 1998, p. 25). This Act renounced the deregulatory stance o f the FCC, stating that, in order for there to be adequate educational programming for children, a more hands-on approach must be taken by the Commission (Kunkel, 1998). Unsigned by President Bush, it became law with more than a two-thirds vote on October 17, 1990 (Kunkel, 1998). In 1992, Congress again addressed children's television, this time through CPB. In a strong step to address the educational needs of preschoolers, Congress passed the Ready-to-Leam Act, commissioning CPB to conduct a study to guide the formation of a national Ready-to-Leam network (S. Petroff, personal communication, April 7, 2003). Prompted by a report published by the Carnegie Foundation, the RTL Act was an attempt to remedy the situation in America’s kindergartens, where more than half the children entering were not prepared for formal education (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 1993). Instead of creating a new network, however, the report by CPB suggested (and Congress agreed) that the mission should be undertaken through PBS, and the RTL programming block on PBS was created (S. Petroff, personal communication, April 7, 2003). The mid-1990s brought a new political atmosphere reminiscent o f the governmental bodies of the 1970s. In 1996, reacting to a lack of broadcaster initiative in improving children’s educational programming since the CTA of 1990, 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the FCC released the “Policies and Rules Concerning Children’s Television Programming: Revision of Programming Policies for Television Broadcast Stations” (FCC, 1996). These new guidelines furthered outlined the CTA obligation of broadcasters to serve the educational and informational needs of children. According to the new rules, broadcasters are required to schedule at least three hours of core educational programming during the week. Since the end of the 1990s, governmental bodies have been rather laissez faire in addressing children's television, the major exception to this being the Department of Education, which still funds educational initiatives related to children's television, albeit on a much tighter budget (S. Petroff, personal communication, April 7, 2003). Many argue that the 1996 FCC mandate was useful only in the short term, and that the current political climate has fostered a return to broadcaster-centered policy and regulatory interpretations (A.Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; R.Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 21, 2003). Because governmental bodies have so much control over the political and financial resources available to the other populations within the community, the changes in this population greatly affect the relationships within the children's television community. The future role of governmental bodies, particularly in a media system in which broadcasters are only a tiny portion of the organizational players in distributing children's programming, is uncertain. 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy groups Television has always had its critics. From a religious association in the 1950s, who argued against leaving children alone in front of the television (Schneider, 1987); to the highly visible Action for Children’s Television during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s; to today’s Center for Media Education; there has always been an alternative voice from the corporate line on children's television. Advocacy groups provide that voice and are those organizations whose purpose is to monitor and advocate for improvements in children’s television Parent groups have had concerns about children's television since the 1950s, but large-scale, national concerns were not voiced until the late 1960s (Melody, 1973). The concerns brought to the forefront were based on an understanding of children as a special group with special needs and interests. The first group to raise concerns on a national level was ACT. 1968-1992: The AC T Years In 1968, ACT was conceived by a group of Massachusetts mothers in the living room of Peggy Charren. ACT’s mission was to address the poor state of children's television programming through actions targeted at national level regulatory and legislative bodies, particularly the FCC, FTC, and Congress (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003). For the next 25 years, ACT followed this mission. In 1969, ACT sent its first petition to the FCC (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; Kunkel, 1998). This petition asked the Commission 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to require broadcasters to provide daily programming for children and to eliminate host-selling on children’s television (Action for Children's Television, 1988). In 1971, ACT’s petition prompted the FCC to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry requesting input from concerned parties, the vast majority of which replied in favor o f the ACT proposals. In response, the FCC created the Children’s Television Unit to further investigate the problems of children's television (Melody, 1973). Over the next decade, ACT continued to put pressure on the governmental bodies to regulate advertising during children's television programs, as well as the overall amount of children's television programming. In addition, ACT took on broadcasters directly, pressuring the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) to limit the amount of advertising during children's television programming. In response to this pressure, the NAB incorporated guidelines for advertising during children’s programming that limited commercials to 9.5 minutes per hour in the NAB Television Code (Action for Children's Television, 1988). ACT’s relationship with governmental bodies was positive during the 1970s (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003). A change in leadership in the early 1980s altered that relationship, however. The deregulatory stance of the governmental bodies in the 1980s allowed broadcasters to shun children’s programming in favor of less-expensive programming. From 1979 to 1983, children’s programming on commercial stations plummeted from 11.3 hours a week 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to 4.4 hours (Engelhardt, 1986). In response, ACT filed a complaint with the FCC in 1983, and then a petition in 1984. The FCC rejected both. By the mid-1980s, 8,000 complaints had been filed by the public about the state of children’s programming, and 130 formal comments had been filed about proposed FCC rules (Shaw, 1983). ACT lead this charge, with a constant stream of petitions to the FCC, a case against the FCC in the U.S. Court o f Appeals, and coordination with members of Congress who were attempting to address the problem of over-commercialization in children's television (Action for Children's Television, 1988). Other groups such as the National PTA, the National Education Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, whose primary purpose had not been to focus on children's television, chimed in (Center for Media Education, no date). Finally, in 1990 the CTA was passed. For the next couple of years, ACT remained a vocal advocate for improving children's television and implementing the guidelines laid out in the CTA (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003). Finally, in 1992, Peggy Charren held press conferences in Washington, D.C. and Boston, MA and announced that ACT had fulfilled its mission and would be closing its doors (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003). Although Charren has remained very active in advocating for quality children's television programming, the organization created around her no longer exists. 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy after ACT The decade after ACT exited the children's television community, the population of advocacy groups dealing with children's television grew. When Peggy Charren announced the close of ACT, she said that there were several groups that would take up the work o f ACT. The Center for Media Education (CME), which was just beginning in 1991, felt that there was a definite need for a group succeeding ACT to represent the public interest, and not the industry interest (K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003). The day that Charren held her press conference in Boston, Kathryn Montgomery and Jeff Chester, the founders of CME, quickly went from the conference to the nearest Kinko’s and sent out a press release stating that CME would be the successor of ACT in advocating for children's television in the realm of governmental regulation and legislation (K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003). At the time of their announcement, CME was a relatively unknown advocacy organization, and had only aided ACT in submitting some of the final comments for the CTA (K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003). CME’s big break with regard to becoming a force in the children's television community came with their 1992 study, in conjunction with Dale Kunkel at the University of California - Santa Barbara, noting that broadcasters viewed shows like The Jetsons and The Flintstones as educational and that a majority of educational shows were on in the pre-dawn hours of the broadcasting day (K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003). The press quickly picked up on the story, with the 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. New York Times placing it on their front-page (K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003). CME became the key advocacy group for the 1996 addendums to the CTA, as well as for the introduction of television ratings and the V-Chip (K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003). Unlike ACT, however, CME’s purpose is more broadly defined as media policy and public interest law and “creating a quality electronic media culture for children and youth, their families and the community” and has therefore pursued policy issues outside the arena of children's television, such as privacy on the Internet and digital democracy (Center for Media Education, 2003, para. 1, P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003). This difference in scope has made a difference in the advocacy voice heard by the governmental bodies, content creators, and content programmers (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003). Without a specific mission of focusing on children's television, as CME has moved on to other issues the advocacy voice for children's television has gotten weaker (P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003). Other groups, such as ChildrenNow (discussed below) are voicing concerns, but not in the same press-intensive, fear- inducing, “shaming” manner that ACT and CME, in its earlier years, did. Moreover, as of Fall 2003, CME will be closing its doors (K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003). This will create an opening for a new advocacy group to follow in the large footsteps of ACT in advocating for children's television. 98 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Another advocacy group to recently address issues of children's television is ChildrenNow. Founded in 1996, ChildrenNow is broadly interested in “improving] children's lives while at the same time helping America build a sustained commitment to putting children first (ChildrenNow, 2003, para. 1). This organization has been active in the realm of children's television since its inception, and, recently, has moved to the forefront of advocacy regarding children's television, particularly in the reformulation o f the CTA and its 1996 addendum in response to digital cable (P. Miller, personal communication, March 25,2003). Specifically, ChildrenNow is advocating for a change in the “3-Hour Rule” to a “3% Rule,” so that over the set of digital and analog channels programmed by each broadcaster, 3% of all programming would be required to satisfy the E/I requirements set forth by the 1996 CTA addendum. Like CME, ChildrenNow has several other areas o f advocacy in addition to children's television, such as diversity in programming, V-chip technology, digital television, and interactive media. As CME is stepping down from their position as the leading voice on children's television, it will be interesting to see whether ChildrenNow picks up the torch. MediaScope, founded in 1992, is fundamentally different from the other two advocacy groups described above. Instead of acting in opposition to organizations within the content programmer and entertainment content creator population, MediaScope sees itself as a intermediary, or “translator,” between the entertainment industry professionals; journalists; researchers, policy makers, and social activists; and parents & educators (D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; 99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. MediaScope, 2003). Children’s television is only a portion of the larger scope of “issues of social relevance” covered by MediaScope, however (MediaScope, 2003). In addition, Media Scope also covers other media, including film, video games, music, advertising, and the Internet (MediaScope, 2003). As we move toward an era of digital media and convergence, there is no doubt that children’s media other that television will be important arenas for advocacy groups. Television, however, remains the media-of-choice for children (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2003). Without advocacy groups dealing with this issue, an important role in the children's television community would go unfilled. Philanthropic Organizations The population of philanthropic organizations includes those charitable organizations that have financially sponsored or aided children’s television programming. Throughout the past fifty years, philanthropic organizations have had the greatest impact on educational content creators and advocacy groups. For the most part, this impact is via funding provided through grants for individual projects that fall under larger programs within the organizations mission. One of the first philanthropic organizations to address children's television issues was the Carnegie Corporation. Founded in 1911 by Andrew Carnegie, the Carnegie Corporation began showing an interest in children and their intellectual development, as well as in public television, in the mid-1960s (Polsky, 1974). Their report on public television in 1965 played an important part in the passage of the 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 and the creation of CPB. It’s first foray into children's television came subsequently with their support to create CTW and Sesame Street (Polsky, 1974). Polsky goes so far as to call Carnegie the “Father of CTW,” claiming that “if any single organization can be said to have originated the Children’s Television Workshop, it is Carnegie Corporation (p.3). This support from Carnegie was mostly due to the fact that Lloyd Morrisett was Vice-President of that organization during this period. His vision of nationwide education for preschoolers via television provided for much of the $8 million in start up funds for CTW (L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003). The rest of the funding came from the U.S. Office o f Education, WNDT (New York City’s local educational channel), and the Ford Foundation, the next philanthropic organization to enter into the children's television community. With regard to educational content creators, philanthropic organizations tend to have the greatest impact in funding the launch of educational programs (L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003). They do not, however, tend to provide continuous funding for the maintenance of those programs. Although the philanthropic support for Sesame Street, which soon included the Markle Foundation, was substantial in the first few years, the financial support began to wane in the mid-1970s (J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003). Throughout the 1970s, philanthropic organizations continued their support for educational programming for children (Kunkel, 1991). The 1980s and 1990s have seen a decline in support for 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. children's television programming directly, as funding moved away from children's television production and sights have been set on computers and the Internet (L.Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003). This decline in funding has also been seen with regard to the other major recipient of philanthropic funding, the advocacy groups. The late 1960s, which provided the atmosphere of social change in which CTW could be created, also provided a similar climate for advocacy groups, particularly ACT. ACT’s initial funding came from the Markle Foundation, and over its 25-year history was supported by Markle, Carnegie, and the Ford Foundation, as well as other smaller local foundations. After ACT, the philanthropic support for advocacy groups targeting children's television programming began to wane. With regard to advocacy groups, philanthropic organizations provide funds mostly on the basis of specific projects. In the mid-1990s, for example, the Kaiser Family Foundation sponsored several studies on television ratings and the V-Chip. Kaiser continues to fund projects dealing with television, particularly in regard to issues of health, but these projects tend to focus less on children's television and more on general television programming (V. Rideout, personal communication, March 21, 2003) In addition, Carnegie Corporation has provided some of the funding for projects by CME and Children Now (V. Rideout, personal communication, March 21, 2003). In the past several years, however, this funding has been scarce, at best. 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ironically, directors at both advocacy groups and philanthropic organizations bemoan the current lack of funding by philanthropic organizations for children's television projects (A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March 24, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 21, 2003). From the perspective of the philanthropic organizations, advocacy groups have not been writing proposals for projects dealing with children’s television (A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003). From the perspective of the advocacy groups, philanthropic organizations have moved their focus away from funding for children’s television projects, so they have had to move toward where the funding is, which is new media (P. Miller, personal communication, March 24, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7,2003). This interesting paradox of perspectives has created an environment in which the financial resources for advocacy work on children's television issues, as well as for the creation of educational children's television programming, is in short supply. Conclusion These eight populations create and share the resources vital to children's television. They also compete for these resources, especially in times where funding or political interest is scarce. In the early years of the children's television community, as the role of television within the family and society was just beginning to be determined, the community was relatively small. Content programmers, entertainment content creators, toy tie-in companies, and advertisers, which were all 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. holdovers from the age o f radio, were the only populations involved in children's television programming. The political and social climate of the 1960s, as well as the increased penetration of televisions sets into the home, created an atmosphere in which the effects of television, both beneficial and detrimental, became important issues on the public agenda. This change in the environment in which the children's television community was situated prompted governmental bodies and philanthropic organizations to join the community. These two populations proceeded to create the political, social, and economic resources necessary for the emergence o f the educational content creators and advocacy groups into the community. All eight of the populations within the children's television community are vital to the creation, programming, defense, and support of children’s television programming. As the community has evolved over the past 50 years, so have the relationships between these populations. In chapter 2, six propositions regarding the evoluion of an organizational community were put forth. In order to test these propositions, they are transcribed into hypotheses specific to the children's television community here. Hypothesis 1: Major environmental-level events (such as technological innovations, transformation of norms and values, and new regulatory regimes) initiated the first ties between populations in the children’s television community. 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hypothesis 2 : The first ties between populations in the children’s community were primarily mutual. Hypothesis 3: As the children’s television community entered a period of maintenance, the proportion of competitive to mutual ties increased. Hypothesis 4 : Major environmental events during the evolution of the children's television community caused the community to reorient, so that the communication network significantly changed. Hypothesis 5: When the children’s television community reached a point of self-sufficiency, there was a significantly greater number of mutual than competitive ties. Hypothesis 6: When the children’s television community reached a point of self-sufficiency, it was able to buffer its populations against major environmental changes, and therefore the communication network did not significantly alter. Each of these hypotheses will be tested in the following chapters. By using the children's television community as a case study of the evolution of an organizational community, this dissertation provides a first step to understanding how the communication relationships within a community foster both change and stability within the community. The following chapter attempts to highlight those changes in the relationships between the populations, as well as the changes in the community as a whole, through the use of network analysis. 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4 METHODS When undertaking community-level research there are several challenges that arise. The first challenge is defining the boundaries of the community under investigation (Ruef, 2000). In general, there are two approaches to demarcating an organizational community: (1) using spatial or geographic criteria, and (2) using functional criteria (Ruef, 2000; Scott, 1998). For the children’s television community, the geographic boundaries are less salient, since this is a nationally- defined (U.S.) group. Instead the function of the community is the basic criterion on which the boundaries around the community are defined. Because of the nature of content and programming for children, and the fact that the government has defined this as a “special needs” group, children’s television organizations are fundamentally different in function from other content, programming, or policy organizations. Therefore, the children’s television community functions are the creation, programming, defense, and support of children’s programming. The populations within this community are described in detail in the previous chapter. A second challenge for the study of organizational communities is the demanding data collection. In order to understand community evolution, one must gather in-depth, longitudinal data in all populations of a community. Moreover, in order to attempt to infer causality from history, researchers must collect both quantitative and qualitative data (Fombrun, 1988), or “narrative history must 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. complement statistical analysis” (DiMaggio, 1994, p. 446). To address this challenge, this project collected both quantitative network data and qualitative interview data. The third challenge for the study of organizational communities is finding analytical techniques to deal with the complexity inherent in a communication network— community ecology perspective. Unfortunately, the analytical tools currently available cannot handle theoretical models of dynamic network change in an organizational community, especially with regard to emergence of populations into a community and the evolution of multiplex relationships, such as partial mutualism and predatory competition. Therefore, the current project used the available network analysis tools to try to capture the changes that have occurred in the children's television community over the past fifty years. This is an area in which more improvement must be made in the future in order to further research in the area of community ecology. In general, the analysis of the data collected in this research was undertaken in three steps. The first step was the creation of a set of ten networks, each representing a 5-year time period in the history of the children's television community. The second step was the creation of an event set, representing the key environmental events in the children's television community over the past fifty years. The final step was analying the data using UCINet 6 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002b) in order to test the hypotheses set out in chapter 2. Each of these stages of analysis will be discussed in more detail in this chapter. 107 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Data Collection In order to gamer a complete picture of the evolution of the children’s television community, three forms of data collection were included in the research methodology: in-depth interviews, network data collection, and examination of historical records. The participants in the interviews were prominent citizens within the children’s television community over the past 50 years. The list includes both people who were integral to the foundings of the populations,4 as well as those who have been prominent figures throughout the past fifty years. The list of interview participants was gathered through “snowball” sampling. The first participants were identified as key players through both historical research on the community and recommendations by people currently within the children's television community. The second set o f participants was identified in interviews with the first set of participants. In total, 20 key players from all eight of the populations were interviewed. The three data collection methods focused on the 50-year period between 1953 and 2002. This time period was chosen for several reasons. First, and most importantly, the beginning of children’s television is generally considered to coincide with the first airing of Disneyland in 1954 (Melody, 1973) or the first airing of the Mickey Mouse Club in 1955 (Schneider, 1987). In order to understand the emergence of the community, it is important to begin data collection before these first seminal events, in order to capture any important environmental events that may 4 Unfortunately, since the time period for this research extends back 50 years, there are several key players from the early days of the community who could not participate in the research. 108 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. have spurred the emergence of populations and/or relationships between already existing populations. In addition, this allows the emergence o f the community and o f populations within the community to be examined. Moreover, the beginning date of 1953 was chosen in order to simplify data collection, so that the time periods to be used in the network data tool could be 10 five-year periods. In-Depth Interviews Wasserman and Faust (1994 /1998) argue that the utilization of interviews in collecting network data can be useful, particularly when gathering data via questionnaires is not feasible. (In the case of this research, questionnaires were also employed.) Each of the 20 interviews was conducted in person at either the office or home of the participant. Most of the interviews were an hour and a half long, with two interviews running under an hour and three running over three hours. Each interview was audio taped with a digital voice recorder and saved as a digital audio file. These interviews focused on two major topics: details regarding the major events affecting the children’s television community in the past 50 years and the changes in the relationships between the populations in the community during that time. Each interview began with the participant explaining his or her background in the children's television community (e.g., how they became interested in children's television, what their various positions within the community had been, what their current role within the community was). Then the participant was asked to think back over the past 50 years and recall which environmental events - explained by the 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. researcher as political, regulatory, social, or economic events - they believe to have been important in shaping children’s television. Depending upon their responses, the participant was then asked to elaborate on how they thought the events had altered relationships between the different organizational populations. In addition, the participant was asked to identify in which 5-year time period (1953-1957; 1958- 1963; 1962-1967; 1968-1972; 1973-1977; 1978-1982; 1983-1987; 1988-1992; 1993- 1997; 1998-2002) each of the eight populations entered into, or became a relevant actor in, the children’s television community. The answers to this question shaped the questionnaire they were given later, which is described below. Over the course of the interview, the participant was asked to comment on the relationships between different pairs of organizations over time. Due to time constraints the participants could not give narratives on every relationship, so the questions asked by the researcher in order to elicit narratives about the inter population relationships began with relationships involving the population(s) in which they were a key decision maker and evolved to cover other relationships. Network Data Questionnaire Either during the course of the interview or after the interview, each participant was asked to fill out a questionnaire designed to collect network data on the community over time. The questionnaire was comprised of a set of ten matrices with the eight populations in the children's television community listed as the rows and columns. Each of the matrices corresponded to a particular 5-year time period within the 50-year history of the children's television community. In each of the 110 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. matrices, the participant was asked to identify the type of relationships that occurred between the populations of children’s television organizations during that particular time period. Before the participant was given the questionnaire, however, the matrices were modified so that, for each time period, only those populations that the participant identified earlier in the interview as being relevant during that period were included in the network. For example, if they had said that advocacy groups did not enter the children’s television community until the period between 1972- 1977, the rows and columns containing the advocacy groups were crossed out in the matrices for the prior time periods, in this example, 1953-1957, 1958-1962, 1962- 1967, and 1968-1972. The participant then filled out the matrices, identifying which of four types of relationships each o f the populations had with every other population during that time period. In order to make the questionnaire clearer for the participants, none of whom were organizational scholars, the terms “negative” and “positive” were used instead of “competitive” and “mutual” for defining the valued network relationships. Therefore, the four possible relationships were: no relationship, negative relationship, neutral relationship, and positive relationship. The relationships in the matrices were directional, so that for each pair of populations the participant coded two relationships - Population A ’s relationship to Population B and Population B ’s relationship to Population A. The four types of relationships were defined as follows: 111 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. • Two sets of organizations have no relationship if they never interact with one another or never come in contact with one another. • Two sets of organizations have a negative relationship if they interact and the actions of one set negatively affect the other. • Two sets of organizations have a neutral relationship if they interact but the actions of one set do not affect the other. • Two sets of organizations have a positive relationship if they interact and the actions of one set positively affect the other. For a positive relationship, the participant put a “+” in the corresponding box within the matrix; for a neutral relationship they put a “0”; for a negative relationship they put a and for no relationship they left the box blank. If they did not know what the relationship was, they put “DK” in the box. Although each of the participants was given all ten of the matrices, they were told that they only had to fill in those matrices with which they felt comfortable. Any matrices that they did not fill out would simply be coded with “Don’t Know.” For those questionnaires completed during the interview, the participants were asked to narrate their responses to the questionnaire with anecdotes that illuminate the relationship they identified between two populations during a particular time period. According to Wasserman and Faust (1994 /1998), although questionnaires are most valuable when the actors within the network are individuals, “questionnaires can also be used when the actor in a study is a collective entity..., but an individual person representing the collective reports on the collective’s ties” (p. 45). Since the individuals reporting on the ties within the children's television community were all key players in the different populations of the community, the 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. use of a questionnaire in the research was constructive. However, because the participants were not reporting on direct personal relationships, the use of interviews and historical records in order to validate the responses to the network data questionnaire were important. As mentioned in the section above, however, it is very difficult to gather questionnaire data from high-level corporate executives. In this research, of the 20 participants (all of whom were high-level executives), only 10 completed the questionnaire. In addition, because there were very few participants from the early years of the community, and therefore fewer people who felt comfortable supplying data for the early relationships within the community, there was more complete data collected from the most recent years. The number of questionnaires completed by time period were: 1953-1957, 2 responses; 1958-1962, 2 responses; 1963-1967,2 responses; 1968-1972, 4 responses; 1973-1977, 4 responses; 1978-1982, 4 responses; 1983-1987, 6 responses; 1988-1992, 7 responses; 1993-1997, 10 responses; 1998- 2002, 10 responses. This variation was managed by combining the findings from the questionnaire with the data from the other two methods. Historical records In addition to in-depth interviews and the network data questionnaire, several important historical texts regarding the history of the children's television community, and particular populations within the community, were examined for information regarding relationships between the populations. The texts used in the data collection either focused on the history of children's television in general 113 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Calabro, 1992; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; Schneider, 1987; Turow, 1981), or focused on a particular population of organizations within children's television (e.g., Action for Children's Television, 1988; Cross, 1997; Jarvik, 1998; McNeal, 1992; Polsky, 1974). As described in the section below, the information garnered from these texts was particularly important for the earliest time periods of the community. Wasserman and Faust (1994 /1998) and Burt and Lin (1977) argue that the use of archival records can be particularly helpful when trying to reconstruct longitudinal network relations. In the case of this research, historical records were particularly important in reconstructing the network relationships in the first few time periods. Due to mortality issues, none of the participants had been active in the children's television community before the mid-1960s. Therefore, histories of the children's television community or particular populations within the community, particularly those published soon after the time periods they cover, were seminal in coding the network data. Data Coding As mentioned above, each of the three forms of network data collection has its benefits and shortcomings. In order to create a set of network data corresponding to each 5-year period, therefore, a combination of all three data collection methods was used. By triangulating the three types of data, a more rich, complete picture of the evolution of the children's television community network was created. The creation of the ten over-time networks was completed in two steps: the designation of an emergence period for each population and the identification of each of the 560 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. network relationships. Finally, a set of environmental events affecting the children's television community was created before the data were analyzed. Network Data The emergence of the populations into the community was derived by looking at: the participants’ opinions about when each population entered into the community, gathered during the interviews; and historical accounts of the community and of the individual populations. From these data, each population was assigned an “emergence” time period, in which they entered the community network. For example, the data indicated that educational content creators did not become a part of the children's television community until the creation of CTW in 1968. Therefore, the period of emergence for educational content creators was set as 1968- 1972. The time period of emergence for each population and the supporting references can be found in Appendix A. The second step in coding the data gathered in this research was to create a set of over-time matrices by triangulating the data collected. For each time period, those populations that had been identified in the first step as not yet entering the community and their corresponding relationships were coded as “No Relationship.” Once these ties were coded, the rest of the ties were coded through triangulating three types of data: a consensus network derived from the network data collected from each participant, descriptions of the population relationships narrated in the interviews, and descriptions of the population relationships found in the historical records. 115 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The consensus networks used in coding the ties were created as follows. First, the networks created by the participants were imported into UCINet 6 and recoded so that Don’t Know and No Relationship responses were coded as missing values.5 Second, for each time period, consensus analysis was run using the Cognitive Social Structure averaging method of pooling the matrices (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002a). This consensus method created a single network for each time period by averaging the responses o f each participant for each relationship in the matrix. This created a single matrix for each time period with values from -1 to 1 for each tie. Third, this consensus matrix was recoded so that ties from value -1 to -0.334 were coded as -1 (competitive); -0.333 to 0.333 were coded as 0 (neutral); and 0.334 to 1 were coded as 1 (mutual). This averaging method has one important limitation, however, with regard to the type of network data gathered in this research - it does not recognize “No Relationship” between populations. Averaging across the matrices creates values for every tie, even if only one respondent thought that a tie existed. Since non-existent ties are particularly important in this research, forcing ties creates full networks. Therefore, in order to address this problem, the original network data from the participants were reexamined, and if a majority of the respondents had said that there was no relationship between the two populations during a particular time period, that tie was recoded as “No Relationship” in the final network data. Although this method of creating consensus networks has limitations, 5 In order to code data as “missing” and still retain a full matrix in UCINet, “na” or must be entered in the recode function. 116 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. by triangulating the three forms of data for every tie those limitations are minimized in the final network output. The second type of data was gathered from the interviews. For each relationship, all 20 interviews were reviewed and all narrative evidence for each of the network ties was noted (in Appendix B). In addition, data on the community relationships were collected from 10 historical records and noted. The researcher then assigned each relationship and the rationale and process for each tie was included in Appendix B. If, for any relationship, the data from the three data sources did not provide a clear picture of the relationship, a statement explaining the reasoning behind the value assigned to that tie was included in Appendix B. In addition, the final full matrices were listed in Appendix C. Intercoder reliability was assessed for the data garnered from the interviews and the historical records. Two coders coded a representative sample o f the interviews and historical records (coding one interview and one chapter from a historical record) for evidence of the 560 network relationships over the 50-year period. One coder was the researcher for this project, and the second coder was another graduate student who was familiar with the theoretical underpinnings o f this research, but had no familiarity with the children's television community. Each coder reviewed the material and then coded each piece of evidence for a network tie with regard to: which two populations were involved, what was the relationship (competitive, neutral, or mutual), and in which time period did this relationship occur. Intercoder reliability was then run separately for the two types of data 117 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (interviews, historical records) in order to identify any issues inherent to a particular type of data. The reliability was tested for agreement on the presence o f a tie, the pair of populations involved, their relationship, and the time period using Cohen’s kappa (1960; 1968). Cohen's kappa evaluates the agreement between two coders when they are coding from the same information. The value of the kappa ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating perfect agreement, any value greater than .75 indicating excellent agreement, and values between .40 and .75 indicating fair to good agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977). The intercoder reliability for the evidence coded from the interviews was excellent on all four components of the network tie: presence of the tie, (kappa = 0.95), the pair of populations involved (kappa = 1.00), their relationship (kappa = 1.00) and the time period (kappa = 1.00). The intercoder reliability for the data coded from the historical record was also excellent: presence of the tie, (kappa = 0.91), the pair of populations involved (kappa = 1.00), and the time period (kappa = 1.00). The only component, which fell slightly below the level of excellent agreement, was the agreement on the type o f relationship (kappa = .73), but this value was still acceptable. The final step in coding the network data was to create a set of binary matrices. In order to run the analyses necessary to test the hypotheses in this research, four binary matrices were created for each time period: three separate matrices identifying the competitive, neutral, and positive relationships within the network and one full network. In order to parse out the different relationships 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (competitive, neutral, mutual), a multigraph analysis was run in UCINet, creating three binary relationship networks per time period, with presence of the type of relationship coded as a 1. Each relationship network was then saved as a separate network file using the UCINet spreadsheet editor. For the full relationship network, a dichotomization analysis was run, with any tie (competitive, neutral, or mutual) between two populations coded as 1 (and any tie that was “no relationship” was coded as 0). These networks were later analyzed with regard to their link density, or “the total number of ties divided by the total number of possible ties” (Borgatti et al., 2002a, p. 218). Environmental Events In addition to the network data, a list of community-level environmental events important in the history of the children's television community was also created in order to conduct the analyses necessary to test the hypotheses. In each of the interviews the researcher asked the participants to identify the major community- level environmental events that affected children's television community. They were told that an environmental event was a political, economic, social, or technological event. This definition was in keeping with the understanding of environmental events or pressures put forth by Aldrich (1999) and Baum (1996). In creating the list of key environmental events, the researcher reviewed each of the interviews and created a list of events mentioned by the participants. From this list, the researcher took the events that were mentioned most often by the participants (the other events were mentioned two or fewer times throughout the 20 interviews). The list of 119 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. environmental events, the time period in which the event occurred, as well as the number of participants mentioning the event, is listed in Table 1. Table 1 Environmental Events in the History o f the Children’s Television Community Environmental Event Time Period Number of Participants Mentioning Event Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 1963-1967 5 Penetration of Cable 1983-1987 11 Children’s Television Act of 1990 1988-1992 9 Three-Hour Rule (Addendum to CTAin 1996) 1993-1997 4 With regard to events, although participants were asked only about community-level environmental events, three population-level events were also often mentioned during the interviews. The first was the creation of Action for Children’s Television in 1968. The second was the creation of Children’s Television Workshop and the first airing of Sesame Street in 1968-9. And the third was the creation of Nickelodeon in 1979. The hypotheses in this dissertation focus on community-level environmental events, so these three events are not included in the analyses. The importance of the first two events, however, is captured in part in the data coded regarding population emergence. The emergence of the population of advocacy groups is based on the entrance o f ACT into the children's television community; and 120 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the emergence of educational content creators is based on the creation of Sesame Street by CTW. For future analysis on the community, however, it may be important to include such population-level events that are generally accepted as crucial turning points by members of all populations in the community. The Community Evolution Stage Model One last conceptual issue that had to be dealt with before analyzing the data in conjunction with the hypotheses involved defining the stages of the community evolution stage model a priori. Since the stage model described in this dissertation is exploratory, and no other community ecology, population ecology, or communication networks research deals with such a model, quantitatively defining the movement of the community between stages was challenging. The stage model follows a modified s-shaped curve, with critical density values within the network as the defining junctures between the stages. A minimal density lies between emergence and maintenance, and a critical mass lies between maintenance and self- sufficiency. For the purpose of testing the hypotheses in this dissertation, the point of minimal density within the community was set at 0.50, or one-half of the total possible ties within the community had been forged. Therefore, once the community reached this minimal density, it was considered to be in the maintenance stage. This minimal density was selected for several reasons. First, a fundamental proposition of community ecology is that the creation of a community shelters the individual populations from the effects of changes in the environment (Barnett, 1994; Hawley, 121 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1950, 1986). The protection provided by the community is a function of the sharing of resources between the populations. Therefore, in order for a community to move past the period of emergence and into a period of maintenance, in which there are substantial resources flowing between the populations, there must enough relationships between the populations through which the resources can flow. This should not suggest that during the emergence period the community does not “exist,” but instead that the amount of resources flowing between the populations is not sufficient to buffer from environmental effects. In addition, Aldrich (1999) argues that in order for a newly formed community to gamer legitimacy, the populations within the community must create common interests and standards through mutual relationships. In order to gamer some sort of consensus with regard to these interests and standards, at least half of the communication channels between the populations should be active. Finally, if we define a community along functional lines, as is the case in this dissertation, then different populations within the community fulfill different functions within the community. Defining a community in this way assumes a relatively high level of coordination between the populations. With this understanding of community, a minimal density of 0.50 is appropriate. Once a community enters the maintenance stage, increases in the density of the community communication network move the community toward a point of self- sufficiency. Because the point of self-sufficiency is a precarious state that requires a high-proportion of actual to possible ties within the network, but not too many ties or 122 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the community may dissolve due to network complexity, the critical mass for this stage model was set at 0.75. Once the density of the overall community communication network reached that level, the community was considered to be in the self-sufficiency stage. This critical mass was selected for the following reasons. First, the role of the community is to shield populations from the environment, and the exchange of resources is the vehicle for the creation of a resistant community. In order for the community to free its populations from the resource constraints of the environment, there must be sufficient resources flowing over the community networks. This increased need for resources to be passed between populations should not suggest that every population must have a relationship with every other population, but instead that the number of relationships within the community as a whole will increase as the level of resource need increases. In addition, once a community has passed from a period of emergence to a period of maintenance, competitive ties between the populations increase. Although some of the mutual ties that existed during the emergence of the community may change to competitive ties, it is unlikely that the only way a competitive tie will be formed is through this transformation from a mutual tie. Therefore, new competitive ties will form between populations that previously did not have a relationship, or with new populations that enter into the community. The number of competitive ties cannot greatly outnumber the mutual ties, or the legitimacy and cohesion of the community could be jeopardized (Aldrich, 1999; Barnett, 1994). As the number of ties between the populations increase, so does the network density. 123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. By setting the minimal density at 0.50 and the critical mass at 0.75, this stage model takes into consideration the need for increased network ties in order for the community to buffer against environmental pressures, as well as the reality that organizational networks are rarely fully connected. Because the adherence of the community evolution to the stage model is important to the analysis of the hypotheses, the first analysis conducted was in response the following research question. Research Question 1: To what extent does the evolution of the children's television community adhere to the exploratory stage model? This analysis was conducted using the density measurements of the time-period networks. After the density of each network was obtained, it was compared to the critical density levels defined above. The assignment of time periods into stages was then completed, and those stages were used in testing the hypotheses. This stage model analysis and the results are given in the next chapter. Data Analysis Network analysis focuses on relationships among a set o f entities (Monge & Contractor, 2003; Wasserman & Faust, 1994 /1998). These relationships can be viewed on many levels (e.g., dyad, triad, clique, network), and each o f the relationships have properties which aid in understanding the structure of the relationships (e.g., reciprocity, transitivity, symmetry) (see Wasserman & Faust, 1994 /1998 for a complete description of network concepts). In this research, the 124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. network being investigated was at the level of the community, and the nodes of the network were populations. Network density, “the proportion of possible lines that are present in the graph” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994 /1998, p. 101), was the main variable used in testing the hypotheses of this dissertation. Network density analyses were run on the full networks for each time period as well as each of the three relationship specific (competitive, neutral, mutual) networks. In addition, the three environmental events identified during data coding were used. The only hypothesis that could not be addressed using those two types of data was the first hypothesis focusing on the emergence of the children's television community. In order to reject the null hypothesis for Hypothesis 1, major environmental-level events (such as technological innovations, transformation of norms and values, and new regulatory regimes) must have been shown to initiate the first ties between populations in the children’s community. Because the network data and the event data did not address this hypothesis, two other forms of qualitative data analysis were used, the interview narratives and historical records. Both data sources were explored for substantial data supporting this hypothesis. Major environmental events occurring before 1953 were identified as technological, social, or regulatory in nature. In addition, because the network ties before 1953 were not coded, information on those relationships between populations was also gathered. The other five hypotheses were tested using network density and environmental event data. The second hypothesis, also focusing on the emergence 125 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stage of the community, focused on the relational value of the network ties. To test this hypothesis, a paired samples /-test was run comparing the density of mutual ties to the density o f competitive ties during each of the time periods in the emergence stage. To reject the null hypothesis, there must have been significantly more mutual ties than competitive ties during those time periods. The third and fourth hypotheses focused on the time periods in the maintenance stage of the community evolution. Hypothesis 3 focuses on whether the proportion of competitive to mutual ties increases from the emergence period to the maintenance period. Because this hypothesis does not suggest that there must be a significant change between the two periods, a simple comparison o f the average ratio of competitive to mutual ties between the two periods was made. To reject the null hypothesis, there must have been a higher ratio of competitive to mutual ties in the maintenance period than in the emergence period. For Hypothesis 4, both network data and event data were used, in order to find whether environmental events during the evolution of the children's television community caused the community to reorient. For this analysis, those events that occurred during the maintenance stage of the community evolution were identified. Then paired sample /-tests were run comparing the overall network density between the time periods in which the event occurred and the following time period. In order to reject the null hypothesis, there must have been a significant difference in the network densities of the two time periods. This analysis was run for each of the events that occurred during the maintenance stage. 126 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The final two hypotheses are relevant to the stage of self-sufficiency in the community’s evolution. To test Hypothesis 5, a paired samples i-test was run comparing the density o f mutual ties to the density of competitive ties during each of the time periods in the self-sufficiency stage. To reject the null hypothesis, there must have been a significant difference between the mutual and competitive ties during those time periods. For Hypothesis 6, those events that occurred during the self-sufficiency stage of the community evolution were identified. Then a / 2 goodness-of-fit test was run comparing the overall network density between the time periods in which the event occurred and the following time period. In order to reject the null hypothesis, the network densities of the two time periods should have been significantly similar. This analysis was run for each of the events that occurred during the self-sufficiency stage. If the null hypothesis was rejected, then when the children’s television community reached a point of self-sufficiency, it was able to buffer its populations against major environmental changes. Each of the paired Mests run for Hypotheses 2,4, and 5 used bootstrapped sampling. Because this is an exploratory study, the general change in the community’s communication network over the 50-year period is of great interest. Therefore, in addition to testing the specific hypotheses above, all of the network measures were plotted over time. This will hopefully be able to give some ideas for future research. 127 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS In this chapter, the network data created for the ten time periods in the history of the children's television community are analyzed in two stages. First, an exploratory analysis of the fit between the theoretical stage model and the actual over-time network data is undertaken. After the stages of the evolution of the community are identified, the hypotheses put forth in chapter 2 are analyzed. Finally, the results of these analyses and their impact on the theory-building embarked upon in chapter 2 are discussed. Stage Model Analysis The first step in analyzing the fit between the stage model proposed in Chapter 2 and the data was to compare the density of ties in the data collected for each time period with the densities proposed in chapter 4. For each time period, the density of the full network was generated, where the densities are represented by the symbol A. Table 2 lists the results of this analysis. This analysis quickly identified an important issue with regard to the use of full network density in trying to establish a sense of community evolution. Because of the high interrelation of a functional community, such as the children's television community, in which most pairs of populations have some form of interaction, the density of network ties quickly reaches a very high level. In the example of the children's television community, the full network densities for the time periods were: 1953-1957, A = 0.214; 1958-1962, 128 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A = 0.214; 1963-1967 A = 0.393; 1968-1972, A = 0.786; 1973-1977, A = 0.929; 1978-1982, A = 0.929; 1983-1987, A = 0.929; 1988-1992, A = 0.929; 1993-1997, A = 0.929; 1998-2002, A = 0.929. As evident in this development of the full network density, the community quickly reached a very high level of density in the 1968- 1972 time period (A = 0.786) and in the following period reached its peak density (A = 0.929), where it remained for the rest of the time periods. A preliminary glance at the changes in mutual, neutral, and competitive ties within the community over the 50-year period (also in Table 2) shows considerable change in the types of relationships over time. This model of community network density, therefore, does not allow for a full-faceted perspective on the change in the relationships. In order to gamer a more thorough perspective on the changes in the children's television community, the researcher revised the network density analysis to exclude neutral ties between the populations. According to Aldrich (1999), ‘Neutrality’ is the most likely inter-population relation across the spectrum of all the populations, but authors would exhaust themselves, and their readers, were they to catalog all the inter-population relations that are of little or no consequence, (p. 304) Aldrich goes on to say that although these ties are important in highlighting the overall community structure, they are not evidence of influence of one population on another. Neutral ties, therefore, are less illustrative with regard to the evolutionary mechanisms underlying community evolution than competitive and mutual ties. 129 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2: Network Density Measures by Time Period & Between Time Period T-Test Results 1953- 1957 t 1958- 1962 t 1963- 1967 t 1968- 1972 t 1973- 1977 t 1978- 1982 (X) 0.214 (12) 0.0000 0.214 (12) 1.6366 0.393 (22) 2.7385* 0.786 (44) 2.1778* 0.929 (52) 0.0000 0.929 (52) n e u tr a l (X) 0.214 (12) 0.0000 0.214 (12) 0.9418 0.286 (16) 2.5724* 0.643 (36) 0.5773 0.696 (39) -0.9807 0.625 (35) m u tu a l (X) 0.214 (12) 0.0000 0.214 (12) 0.7467 0.250 (14) 2.6552* 0.518 (29) 0.3085 0.536 (30) -0.9434 0.482 (27) c o m p e titiv e (X) 0.000 (0) 0.0000 0.000 (0) 1.0342 0.036 (2) 1.2014 0.125 (7) 0.7491 0.161 (9) -0.8047 0.143 (8) EVENT X * t (5000), p < 0.05 [with bootstrap sample] : overall network density (mutual, neutral, and competitive ties) n eu tra l: overall network density (mutual and competitive ties only) : density o f mutual ties c o m p e titiv e ' • density o f competitive ties EVENT : occurrence of environmental event Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2: (continued) 1978- 1982 t 1983- 1987 t 1988- 1992 t 1993- 1997 t 1998- 2002 V0 0.929 (52) 0.0000 0.929 (52) 0.0000 0.929 (52) 0.0000 0.929 (52) 0.0000 0.929 (52) n e u tr a l V0 0.625 (35) 0.1927 0.643 (36) 0.0000 0.643 (36) 1.0555 0.750 (42) -2.4642* 0.500 (28) m u t u a l (X) 0.482 (27) 0.5229 0.446 (25) 0.2997 0.464 (26) 1.1615 0.536 (30) -1.8182 0.429 (24) c o m p e titiv e VO 0.143 (8) 1.3847 0.196 (11) -0.3571 0.179 (10) 0.6359 0.214 (12) -2.3462* 0.071 (4) EVENT X X X * t (5000), p < 0.05 [with bootstrap sample] : overall network density (mutual, neutral, and competitive ties) n eu tra l: overall network density (mutual and competitive ties only) m rtu a i: density o f mutual ties c o m p e titiv e ; density o f competitive ties EVENT : occurrence o f environmental event After recoding the networks for each time period, so that neutral ties were coded as missing, the full network densities for each time period were generated. The results are listed in Table 2. This revised set of densities gives a more detailed perspective on the changes in the children's television community over the 50-years: 1953-1957, A = 0.214; 1958-1962, A = 0.214; 1963-1967 A = 0.286; 1968-1972, A = 0.643; 1973-1977, A = 0.696; 1978-1982, A = 0.625; 1983-1987, A = 0.643; 1988- 1992, A = 0.643; 1993-1997, A = 0.750; 1998-2002, A = 0.500. These results were then compared to the theoretical parameters set forth by the community evolution stage model. Figure 2 is a graphic representation of these results. Using the minimal density and critical mass parameters set forth in the last chapter (0.50 and 0.75, respectively), the children's television community entered the maintenance stage during the 1968-1972 time period and then became self-sufficient during the 1993-1997 period. The period between 1998 and 2002, however, saw a dramatic decrease in the community’s network density, so that the community returned to a period of maintenance. Therefore, in testing the hypotheses proposed in this dissertation, the following stages were used: 1952-1967 Emergence 1968-1992 Maintenance 1993-1997 Self-Sufficiency 1998-2002 Maintenance 132 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 2 Network Densities by Time Period 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1953- 1958- 1963- 1968- 1973- 1978- 1983- 1988- 1993- 1998 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 Time Period D ensity fall ties') — ♦— D ensity tno neutral) - -ir - D ensity (m utual) — • — D ensity (com petitive) Tests of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 predicted that major environmental-level events (such as technological innovations, transformation of norms and values, and new regulatory regimes) would have initiated the first ties between populations in the children’s television community. The qualitative data gathered through the interviews and historical records only partially supports this hypothesis. The only major pre- environmental event identified by these sources was the introduction and rapid penetration of television sets into the American home in the late 1940s and early 133 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1950s (A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; Calabro, 1992; Melody, 1973; Schneider, 1987). Although this technological event and the subsequent emergence of the children's television community seem to support this hypothesis, data regarding the relationships between the first populations within the community question this support. The children's television community emerged based on the relationships between entertainment content creators, content programmers, toy tie- in companies, and advertisers. Those four populations had already established strong mutual ties in the broadcasting arena during the earlier days of radio (Cross, 1997; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; Schneider, 1987). As these populations created the children's television community, they retained the same fundamental relationships they had during the earlier era. By 1955, the children's television community had subsumed the resources of the children’s radio community, and there were no children’s radio programs (Pecora, 1998). Therefore, although the change in nomenclature to the children's television community was due to the technological event, the children’s broadcasting community had already been established. In sum, although there was a technological event, the emergence of television, that prompted the children’s television community, the narrative data suggesting that the ties between the populations were not novel ties means that this hypothesis is only partially supported. The other four hypotheses were tested by comparing network densities within and between time periods. Hypotheses 2 and 5 compared mutual and competitive ties within time periods. These results can be found in Table 3. Hypotheses 4 and 6 134 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. compared full network densities between time periods. These results can be found in Table 2 above. Hypothesis 3 compared the average ratio of competitive to mutual ties between the emergence period and the maintenance period. Hypothesis 2 predicted that the ties during the emergence stage o f children's television community were primarily mutual. During the 15-year emergence period, the number of mutual ties was significantly greater than the number o f competitive ties: 1953-1957, *(5000) = 2.4039,/? < 0.05; 1958-1962, *(5000) = 2.4039,/? < 0.05; and 1963-1967, *(5000) = 2.3342,/? < 0.05. Hypothesis 2 was therefore supported. Hypothesis 3 predicted that as the children’s television community entered a period of maintenance, the proportion of competitive to mutual ties would increase. Therefore, in order to support this hypothesis, the ratio of competitive to mutual ties should have increased between the emergence period and the maintenance period. During the 15-year emergence period (1953-1967), there were only two competitive ties (both between 1963 and 1967), and the average ratio of competitive to mutual ties was 0.048. During the subsequent 25-year maintenance period (1968-1992), the ratio of competitive to mutual ties increased, with an average ratio over the 5 time periods of 0.332. Because there was an increase in the competitive-mutual tie ratio, Hypothesis 3 was supported. 135 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 3 Results of T-Test Comparison of Mutual and Competitive Ties by Time Period Time Period m u tu a l (A) c o m p e titiv e (X) t 1953-1957 0.214(12) 0 (0 ) 2.4039* 1958-1962 0.214(12) 0 (0) 2.4039* 1963-1967 0.25 (14) 0.036 (2) 2.3342* 1968-1972 0.518(29) 0.125 (7) 3.5866* 1973-1977 0.536 (30) 0.161 (9) 3.1099* 1978-1982 0.482 (27) 0.143 (8) 2.8155* 1983-1987 0.446 (25) 0.196(11) 1.9325 1988-1992 0.464 (26) 0.179(10) 2.5458* 1993-1997 0.536 (30) 0.214(12) 2.1965* 1998-2002 0.429 (24) 0.071 (4) 2.8402* (5000),/? < 0.05 [with bootstrap sample] m ,,),,,,!: density of mutual ties c o m p e titiv e ' ■ density o f competitive ties Hypothesis 4 predicted that environmental events during the evolution of the children's television community caused the community to reorient, so that the communication network significantly changed. There were four environmental events identified in the previous chapter. These events occurred in time periods 1963-1967, 1983-1987, 1988-1992, and 1993-1997. A comparison of the full 136 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. network densities (excluding neutral ties) of these time periods with subsequent time periods generated two statistically significant differences and two non-significant differences. From 1963-1967 to 1968-72, the number of ties within the community more than doubled (from 16 to 36), yielding a significant difference in network density (r(5000) = 2.5724, p > 0.05). From 1983-1987 to 1988-1992, there was no change in the number of ties within the network (t(5000) = 0.00). From 1988-1992 to 1993-1997, there was not a significant change in the network density (i(5000) = 1.0555). From 1993-1997, the number of tie decreased significantly, from 42 to 28 (t(5000) = -2.4642,/? < 0.05). Hence, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported. Hypothesis 5 predicted that when the children’s television community reached a point of self-sufficiency, there would be a significantly greater number of mutual than competitive ties. In the 1993-1997 time period, there was a significantly greater proportion of mutual than competitive ties (t(5000) = 2.1965, p < 0.05). Hypothesis 5 was therefore supported. Hypothesis 6 predicted that when the children’s television community reached a point of self-sufficiency, it would be able to buffer its populations against major environmental changes, and therefore the communication network would not significantly alter. During the period of self-sufficiency (1993-1997), there was an environmental event. A / 2 test of the goodness-of-fit between the two time periods showed that the densities were not significantly similar (1) = 2.80), Therefore, Hypothesis 6 was not supported. 137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4 Summary of Results Hypothesis Results 1. Major environmental-level events (such as technological innovations, transformation of norms and values, and new regulatory regimes) initiated the first ties between populations in the children’s television community. PARTIALLY SUPPORTED 2. The first ties between populations in the children’s community were primarily mutual. SUPPORTED 3. As the children’s television community entered a period of maintenance, the proportion of competitive to mutual ties increased. SUPPORTED 4. Major environmental events during the evolution of the children's television community caused the community to reorient, so that the communication network significantly changed. PARTIALLY SUPPORTED 5. When the children’s television community reached a point of self-sufficiency, there was a significantly greater number of mutual than competitive ties. SUPPORTED 6 . When the children’s television community reached a point of self-sufficiency, it was able to buffer its populations against major environmental changes, and therefore the communication network did not significantly alter. NOT SUPPORTED Discussion The results of this study provide both interesting evidence for a community networks approach to community ecology, as well as exceptions to the proposed theoretical framework to be taken under consideration. Figure 3 below compares the 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. theoretical stage model proposed in chapter 2 with the results from the data analysis above. With regard to the emergence stage of community evolution, both the need for an environmental trigger and for primarily mutual ties seems to be supported by this study. As mentioned above, the emergence of the children's television community was, in part, a response to the penetration of televisions in American households. This supports Aldrich’s (1999) argument that social, technological, or regulatory events in the environment create the possibility for community emergence. The special circumstances surrounding the emergence of the children's television community, with its strong historical and organizational dependence on the radio community, differs slightly from other types of communities that have been examined, such as the biotech communities (Van de Ven & Garud, 1994) and health care communities (Ruef et al., 1998). 139 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure 3: Comparison of Proposed Stage Model with Actual Results Emergence Maintenance j Sdf- Trans- j Suffi- tor- 0.7 Density 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 1953- 1958- 1963- 1968- 1973 1983 1993 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 Time Period = community communication network density = density o f mutual ties = density o f competitive ties Actual Results “♦ = network density (no neutral ties) ■ A “ - = density of mutual ties ■ • — = density o f competitive ties 140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In the case of the children's television community, however, it is perhaps this experience in a related community that fostered the quick formation of ties between the earliest four populations (entertainment content creators, content programmers, toy tie-in companies, and advertisers). The rapid growth in television’s popularity fostered an economic environment that was flush with resources and short on competition. Although these four populations created the basis for the children's television community, it was not until the political and social environment of the 1960s, and the corresponding “transformation of norms and values,” that the children's television community had the resources to support the emergence or entrance of the other four populations (Aldrich, 1999). In punctuated equilibrium terms, the sudden change in environment forced the community to reorient (Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). In this case, the community changed from a strictly commercial community focused on children as consumers to a community that recognized children as a special audience, not only with regard to niche advertising, but also with regard to developmental needs and susceptibilities. In addition, the findings with regard to mutual ties during emergence support Aldrich’s (1999) supposition that early ties within an organizational community must be primarily mutual. Aldrich argues that this tendency toward mutual ties grows out of the desire of the collective community to gamer both cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacy. In the case of the children's television community, the first 15 years were characterized by legitimacy based upon the economic legitimacy of the larger 141 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. broadcasting community. Children’s television was considered a legitimate enterprise because it could gamer advertising revenues during time slots that had been considered “ghettos,” when adults would not be watching (Melody, 1973). In the mid- to late 1960s, as the political and social environment altered and the children's television community changed its focus, the goal of economic legitimacy became less central. In its place, sociopolitical and cognitive legitimacy moved to the forefront of the community. The vision of television as educator for children, especially disadvantaged children, became widespread (L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; Polsky, 1974). The actions of the educational content creators, advocacy groups, governmental bodies, and philanthropic organizations reframed the perception of children's television, so that the need for television specifically created for children became, as Aldrich (1999) puts it “accepted as a part of the sociocultural and organizational landscape” (p. 30), and therefore gained cognitive legitimacy. This refraining of the perception of children's television and its alignment with the political and social climate of the time also fostered moral and regulatory acceptance of the community on the part of “key stakeholders, the general public, key opinion leaders, and governmental officials” (Aldrich, 1999, p. 30). This acceptance is the key to sociopolitical legitimacy (Aldrich, 1999). A large proportion of mutual ties fosters this attainment of legitimacy by an emerging community. In addition, although the results of Hypothesis 5 seems to support the proposition that a community needs a significantly greater portion of mutual to 142 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. competitive ties once self-sufficiency is reached, closer examination o f comparison of mutual to competitive ties over time shows that the proportion actually decreased from 1988-1992 to 1993-1997 (the period of self-sufficiency) (^1988-1992 — 2.5458, ^ 1988-1992= 2.1965). Moreover, since the density levels used to define the stages in this analysis were exploratory, it is possible that 0.75 is not a sufficiently high density for the critical mass necessary for self-sufficiency. This possibility is reinforced by the sharp decrease in the community network density between 1993- 1997 and 1998-2002. In 1996, the addendum to the CTA, one of the four major environmental events examined in this analysis, occurred. Using the theoretical framework set out in chapter 2 with regard to self- sufficiency, there are two possibilities with regard to this dramatic decrease in network density. The first possibility is that, as mentioned earlier, 0.750 is not a sufficient level of density, and therefore the community was still in a period of maintenance when the event occurred and could not buffer itself from the changes in the environment. In addition, it should be noted that the density o f the community network during this time period was very close to the critical mass chosen for this analysis (A1993.1997 = 0.750). The second possibility is that the changes brought about by the 1996 addendum fundamentally altered the resources o f the children's television community, causing a period of reorientation even though the community had reached a point of self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, the narrative and historical data gathered do not support either of these possibilities. According to this data, this regulatory event is not the reason 143 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for the sudden density shift. Instead, the narrative data suggests that the children's television community is entering a recreation period similar to that of the early 1950s. Just as the increase in television penetration created the opportunity for the children's television community, and repositioned the first populations from the radio community to the children's television community, the recent increase in adoption of digital media and the Internet is creating a “new” children’s media community (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2003). Resources, both economic and political, that were formerly earmarked for children's television have been reappropriated for new media endeavors (A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March 24,2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 21,2003). If this fundamental change in the children's television community is accurate, then this sharp decrease in network density may be a sign o f community transformation. As mentioned in chapter 2, in translating the punctuated equilibrium into a communication network perspective, recreation of a community indicates the potential transformation of the community network. An example of this transformation and recreation can be seen in the transformation of the children’s radio community in the mid-1950s and the movement of those populations to create a new community. If the next several years see the transformation o f the children's television community, this study will have data for a complete model of community evolution. 144 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. If this sharp decrease in the network density of the children's television community is not due to transformation, however, then the results of this study suggest that a model of community evolution must allow for nonlinear movement between stages. As mentioned above, after the density within the community communication network reached the critical mass (1993-1997), it immediately decreased dramatically, stopping just before reentering a stage of emergence (Aiggg. 2002 = 0.50). In addition, it is possible that a community may evolve so rapidly that it moves from emergence to self-sufficiency without passing through a maintenance period. Finally, the other three environmental events had varied correspondence with changes in the density o f the community communication network. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which was the first environmental event, had a significant corresponding change in network density ( ^ 1963-1967 -> 1968-1972 = 2.5724, p < 0.05). As mentioned in chapter 3, this Act was the culmination of political action by governmental bodies, financial backing by philanthropic organizations, and the general social climate of public advocacy. For that reason, it is difficult to parse out whether the dramatic increase in density is due to the singular event, or the general environment within which the community was situated. The second event, the penetration of cable in the mid-1980s, did not have a corresponding significant change in network density. In fact, there was no change at all in the network density (0983-1987 -> 1988-1992 = 0.0000, p < 0.05). This finding was particularly surprising, since the penetration of cable was the most cited 145 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. environmental event in the interviews. One possible explanation for this lack of change is that although the penetration of cable is seen as becoming substantial (>50%) in the mid-1980s, the diffusion of cable has been an ongoing process from the mid-1970s until today. In addition, closer examination o f the analyses suggests that, although the number of ties did not change, the type of relationships between the populations altered greatly during this time period. The time period from 1983 to 1987 was the only period in which there was not a significantly greater number of mutual to competitive ties (fi983-i987 = 1.9325, p > 0.05). This change in the nature of the ties is supported by the narrative and historical accounts of this time period, which highlight the deregulatory nature of the Reagan administration, the increasing competition in the marketplace due to Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel, and general doldrums of children’s television programming in the 1980s. The final environmental event is the passage o f the Children’s Television Act in 1990. There was not a significant change in the density of the community communication network between the period in which the Act was passed (1988- 1992) and the subsequent period (1993-1997) (t = 1.0555). This finding was not particularly surprising because, although many participants mentioned the CTA as an important event in the history of children’s television, very few actually believe that it had any impact on either the children's television content that was created or the relationships between the organizations and populations of organizations. The most striking example of this comes from the head of the advocacy group oft touted as being primarily responsible for passage of the Act, Action for Children’s Television. 146 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. According to Peggy Charren, “the law exists, but it’s relatively meaningless” (personal communication, April 8, 2003). This discussion o f the findings of this study highlights both the promise of this stage model for community evolution and the important work still to be done in collecting data to test the various propositions put forth by this theoretical framework. Further research, discussed in the following chapter, needs to elaborate on this theoretical model and provide more powerful methodologies to deal with the dynamics of a coevolving community communication network. 147 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION The changes in the children’s television community over the past five decades can be seen through the lens of the relationships between the populations within the community. Although the findings in this study only partially support the research question and hypotheses presented, as discussed in the previous chapter, there is sufficient support to continue future research in this area. This chapter will discuss the limitations to this study and suggestions for future research. Limitations The limitations of this study arise in two main areas: data collection and data analysis. With regard to data collection, the first limitation of this study is the low response rate for the network data questionnaire. Previous research has shown that corporate executives do not have a high response rate for questionnaires. Galaskiewicz (1985) found that when collecting data from CEOs, that interviews are more useful than questionnaires, since most greatly preferred the interview to the impersonal questionnaire. This was also the experience of the researcher in this study. When trying to gather data from high-level entertainment executives, attempts at scheduling interviews had a 100% positive response rate. The response rate for questionnaires was much lower, with only 55% of the participants completing any portion of the questionnaire and only two participants completing the entire questionnaire. This low response rate was due to participant’s difficulty in 148 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. responding to the matrices for all ten time periods. Unless people were active within the community during a particular point in time, they usually simply skipped those time periods. This was positive in that the data collected tends to avoid problems of memory-related accuracy. However, this made collecting data on early time periods very difficult, and created a large discrepancy in the amount of questionnaire data collected for earlier periods versus later periods. Perhaps more important than the memory factor with regard to the low response rate, however, was the amount of time it took to complete the questionnaire. Each matrix in the questionnaire took approximately 5-15 minutes to complete. In order to complete the entire questionnaire, therefore, it would have taken 50 minutes to 2 Vi hours. Most participants tired after doing 3 matrices. With only 1 Vi hours allotted for most of the interviews, there was never time to complete both the interview and the complete questionnaire. In addition to the network data, participants in this study also found it difficult to identify community-level environmental events (other than technological events). Moreover, they tended to focus on industry or population events instead of environmental events, even after the researcher gave them a definition and several examples of environmental events. Because most of these participants do not operate or conceptualize relationships or events at this macro-level on a daily basis, they found discussing and identifying events at this level challenging. From a methodological perspective, one o f the limitations of this study is dealing with the lags that come between technological innovation and widespread 149 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. adoption. In particular, the majority of participants in this research mentioned that the introduction of cable and proliferation of cable channels deeply affected children's television. Pinpointing the particular point at which the penetration of cable or the number of stations available to consumers was sufficient to use as an event, however, is a relatively subjective matter on the part of the researcher. For this study, a penetration level of 50% was used, making the 1983-1987 time period the point of interruption. This level was relatively high, considering that cable penetration is still only 67% nationally (National Cable and Telecommunications Association, 2003). Statistics gathered by Nielsen Research, however, show that penetration rates rose from 19.9% in 1980 to 42.7% in 1985, finally reaching 50% in 1987 (Calabro, 1992; Television Bureau of Advertising, 2003). After 1987, the rate of adoption decreased dramatically. A final limitation to this study is that, because there are not network analysis programs that can handle the emergence and exit of populations in a community, this analysis uses the total possible number of ties to analyze the data at all points in time. This is problematic because it creates a situation in which the initial increases in density are based in part on the entrance of new populations into the community. On the other hand, however, if we are dealing with a functional community, as is the case in this dissertation, it is assumed that each population performs a particular function within the community, and the exit (or nonexistence) of a population will decrease the viability of the community. For example, as recounted in the history of the populations in the children's television community in chapter 3, each of the eight 150 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. populations was vital in shaping the emergence o f children's television. The absence of any one of those players is likely to have significantly endangered the viability of children’s television. Using this perspective, the point of self-sufficiency within a community cannot be reached unless all of the functions of the community are being fulfilled. Suggestions for Future Research In order to continue the lines of inquiry opened in this dissertation, several future areas of research need to be addressed. First, in order to increase the strength of the data in this study, more network and narrative data need to be collected from key players within the children's television community. In addition, because it is likely that participants from different populations tend to have different perspectives on how the community evolution occurred, future analysis of the network data needs to compare the network data between these different perspectives by using organizational population as an attribute in network analysis. Furthermore, the data collected from the interviews and the results of the analyses suggest that the children's television community is on the cusp of a major environmental change, the penetration of digital cable and convergence of televisions and PCs. In addition to the examples outlined earlier, WGBH educational programs have shown this trend, with kids spending as much time on the website as with the shows (B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 9, 2003). One of the WGBH shows, ZOOM, receives 30,000 submissions a week for “ZOOM ideas” via email and the Internet (B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 9, 2003). These 151 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. fundamental changes in the technological core on which the community rests could cause a recreation of the community communication network similar to what was seen in the move from radio to television. Therefore, continuing data collection within the children's television community may yield empirical evidence of a community transformation or recreation. In addition, further data collection will provide further evidence in support of or in contradiction to the stage model of community evolution. Moreover, an interesting project for future research would be the collection and analysis of ego network data from these key players within the history o f the children's television community. Many of the early events in children's television were only accomplished through interpersonal networks. For example, the formation of CTW through the efforts of Joan Ganz Cooney and Lloyd Morrisett would never have occurred had Cooney’s cousin not introduced them (L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003). In addition, the funding for the Workshop would never have been granted by the U.S. Office of Education and the Carnegie Corporation if Lloyd Morrisett had not been good friends with the head o f the former and the vice president of the latter (L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003). From this type of social network data, one could ascertain the relative power and centrality o f decision makers within the community over time. The feasibility of such a study, however, remains uncertain. On the one hand, the individual members of the children's television community seem to be able to identify themselves rather easily. According to more than one participant in this 152 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. study, the children’s television community is a very small social network o f fewer than 100 key decision makers (A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31,2003; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27,2003). One participant went so far as to say: “It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to go to any children’s media entity now and find someone who was not trained in some way at [Children’s Television Workshop]” (A.Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003). On the other hand, the experience of the researcher is that it is very difficult to identify only a few key players when dealing with 8 populations over a 50-year period. Almost every participant in this study suggested at least 3 other people to contact, and several participants listed more than a dozen other participants. In order to gather reasonably complete data for a community of this size over a fifty year period, therefore, it seems that it would take at least 250 participants to gamer a complete picture of the network, even when using ego networks. This is especially true since people from different organizational populations have differing perspectives on the history of the community and the key participants within the community. In addition to more network analysis in the same vein as this study, event analysis focusing on the creation, modification, and dissolution of ties needs to be conducted. Such analysis would not only allow for more graded level of relational analysis, since changes in network ties could be coded on an annual (or even monthly) basis, but would also serve as verification of the accuracy o f the relational data collected from the recollections of the participants and the accounts in the 153 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. historical records. Several issues are important to note with regard to conducting a relational event analysis. First, since event data on the interpopulation level is not available, relational event data must be collected on the interorganizational level and then aggregated to the interpopulation level using population as an attribute of the organizations in the event. Unless the total number of organizations within the community is manageable, however, the researcher must identify the most important organizations within each population (and be able to support their reasoning). For example, because toy licensing with children's television programs is one of the key ways in which independent toy companies enter into the toy marketplace, the number of toy tie-in companies in the children's television community over the past fifty years is very large (T. Conley, personal communication, April 4, 2003). Interviews with two officials at the Toy Industry Association, however, yielded three toy tie-in manufacturers that currently capture 85% of the toy market (T. Bartlett, personal communication, 2003; T. Conley, personal communication, April 4, 2003). Two histories of children’s television add a few more companies (Cross, 1997; Schneider, 1987).6 By choosing only the key organizations within a population it is likely that the data collection for the relational ties will be more manageable and complete, especially considering the second issue of event data collection - collection of data from multiple sources. 6 One major issue that arises in this example, which is elaborated upon later in this chapter, is that over the fifty-year history o f the children's television community there have been several cases of mergers and acquisitions between toy tie-in companies. 154 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The second issue with regard to conducting a relational event analysis is that data needs to be collected from several different types of sources (Poole et al., 2000; Van de Ven & Grazman, 1999). Media accounts o f relational events, archival records, interviews, public records, and academic work on a community are all useful sources of event data. The more types of sources used, the more likely it is that the event data will be comprehensive. Two major concerns arise in coding event data from these sources. The first is to make sure that events are not coded more than once. The second is that for communities with a long history, such as the children's television community, access to information about early events will be scarcer and less accessible than information regarding more recent or current events. This is especially the case for organizations that are no longer in existence. A final issue with regard to relational event analysis is how to code organizations with regard to their population, because in some cases an organization may fall into more than one population. Two examples of this issue are Nickelodeon, which creates both educational and entertainment programming and also distributes the programming through its cable channel, and WBGH (Boston), which both creates educational content and distributes the content through its public broadcasting channel. As a set of general notes for future research, when designing and conducting research on different organizational communities, several factors should be considered. First, choosing communities with few organizational populations is preferable, due to the exponential nature of adding additional populations with 155 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. regard to data collection. Second, choosing communities that have relatively short histories is ideal, since people tend to only be able to recollect relatively recent events in any detail. In addition, by using communities with shorter histories, shorter time intervals can be used. Third, longitudinal data would be best collected using communities that are forming at the present, and then conducting annual assessments of the network ties in the future. Unfortunately, it may be very difficult to anticipate community formation, particularly with regard to making sure that all relevant organizational populations are included. Finally, ease-of-use with regard to data collection is very important in order to collect complete and accurate data. Interactive online data collection is ideal for communities in which all of the participants in the data collection are very familiar and comfortable with using such technology. For communities with participants who are not comfortable with such technology it is important to modify the data collection techniques to suit the participant preferences (e.g., pen and paper data collection). Finally, there are currently no analytical tools that allow for the emergence of a population into a community, the exit of a population from a community, the merger of two populations, the split of a single population into multiple populations, or changes in the number of nodes within a community in general. Current analytical tools allow for such community-level changes only through “fixes” such as coding populations that are not in the community as 0. In addition, relational events such as mergers and acquisitions between organizations are not easily dealt with in network analysis. In order to continue research on dynamic community 156 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. communication networks, these analytical techniques to deal with these issues need to be created. Conclusion This dissertation presents a multitheoretical, multilevel framework for the study of organizational communities. This framework integrates theoretical premises and empirical evidence from coevolutionary theory, complexity theory, community ecology and communication networks. In addition, this dissertation uses the children's television community as a case study in understanding the evolution of an organizational community. The results of this study support the fundamental argument put forth in the introductory chapter: children's television programming is the product of the macro-level coevolution of the communication networks within the children's television community. Populations within the community do not create, distribute, defend, or support children’s television as insular entities. The changes in the relationships between the populations over the past fifty years have had significant effects on what was put on the screen in American households. This dissertation addresses only a small part of the theoretical and analytical advances needed in the fields of organizational communication and organizational change. In addition, this study is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg with regard to understanding that the phenomena that children and media scholars call “media effects” are actually multilevel, multifaceted phenomena with variables ranging from the psychological development of the child to the multimedia conglomerate merger to the community or society-level event. The goal of this work has been to raise 157 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. many questions in these regards, provided a few tentative answers, and blur the boundaries between these disciplines. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY Action for Children's Television. (1988). ACT: The first 20 years. Cambridge, MA: Action for Children's Television. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455. Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Aldrich, H. E. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Aldrich, H. E., Zimmer, C. R., Staber, U. H., & Beggs, J. H. (1994). Minimalism, mutualism, and maturity: The evolution of the American trade association population in the 20th century. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics o f organizations (pp. 223-239). New York: Oxford University Press. Andersen, D. R. (1998). Educational television is not an oxymoron. Annals o f the American Academy o f Political and Social Science, 557, 24-38. Astley, W. G. (1985). The two ecologies: Population and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 224-241. Barnett, W. P. (1994). The liability of collective action: Growth and change among early American telephone companies. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics o f organizations (pp. 337-354). New York: Oxford University Press. Barnett, W. P., & Carroll, G. R. (1987). Competition and mutualism among early telephone companies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 400-421. Barnett, W. P., Mischke, G. A., & Ocasio, W. (2000). The evolution of collective strategies among organizations. Organization Studies, 21(2), 325-354. Bamouw, E. (1970). A history o f broadcasting in the United States (Vol. 3:The Image Empire). New York: Oxford University Press. Barron, D. N. (1999). The Structuring of Organizational Populations. American Sociological Review, 64, 421-445. Battle of the fun factories. (1985, December 16). Time, 44-46. 159 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Baum, J. A. C. (1996), Organizational ecology. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook o f organization studies (pp. 77-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baum, J. A. C., & Korn, H. J. (1994). The community ecology o f large Canadian companies, 1984-1991. Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L Administration-Canadian Journal o f Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 277- 294. Baum, J. A. C., & McKelvey, B. (Eds.). (1999). Variations in organization science: In honor o f Donald T. Campbell. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 187-218. Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1992). Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational populations. American Sociological Review, 57(4), 540-559. Baum, J. A. C., & Singh, J. V. (1994a). Evolutionary dynamics o f organizations. New York: Oxford University Press. Baum, J. A. C., & Singh, J. V. (1994b). Organizational niches and the dynamics of organizational founding. Organization Science, 5(4), 483-501. Baum, J. A. C., & Singh, J. V. (1994c). Organization-environment coevolution. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics o f organizations (pp. 379-401). New York: Oxford University Press. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002a). Ucinet 6 reference guide. Harvard: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002b). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis (Version 6.15). Harvard: Analytic Technologies. Brittain, J. W. (1994). Density-independent selection and community evolution. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics o f organizations (pp. 355-378). New York: Oxford University Press. Brittain, J. W., & Wholey, D. H. (1988). Competition and coexistence in organizational communities: population dynamics in electronics components manufacturing. In Carroll (Ed.), Ecological models o f organizations (pp. 195- 222). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. 160 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Budros, A. (1994). Analyzing unexpected density-dependence effects on organizational births in New-York life-insurance industry, 1842-1904. Organization Science, 5(4), 541-553. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure o f competition. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Burt, R. S., & Lin, N. (1977). Network time series from archival records. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 224-254). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Byrne, C. (2003). Toys: Celebrating 100 years o f the power ofplay. New York: Toy Industry Association. Calabro, M. (1992). Zap!: A brief history o f television. New York: Four Winds Press. Campbell, D. T. (1965). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. In H. R. Barringer, G. I. Blanksten & R. W. Mack (Eds.), Social change in developing areas: A reinterprtation o f evolutionary theory (pp. 19-48). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Campbell, D. T. (1974). Evolutionary epistemology. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy o f Karl Popper (Vol. 14, pp. 431-463). La Salle, IL: Open Court. Campbell, D. T. (1990). Levels of organization, downward causation, and the selective theory approach to evolutionary epistemology. In G. Greenberg & E. Tobach (Eds.), Theories o f the evolution o f knowing (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NC: Lawerence Erlbaum. Cantor, M. (1971). The role of producer in choosing children's television content. In E. A. Rubinstien (Ed.), Television and social behavior (Vol. 1: Content and Control). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Carroll, G. R. (1985). Concentration and specialization: Dynamics o f niche width in populations of organizations. American Journal o f Sociology, 90, 1262-1283. Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1989a). Density delay in the evolution of organizational populations: A model and 5 empirical tests. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3), 411-430. Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1989b). Density dependence in the evolution of populations of newspaper organizations. American Sociological Review, 54(4), 524-541. Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1999). The demography o f corporations and industries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 161 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Carroll, G. R., & Swaminathan, A. (1992). The organizational ecology o f strategic groups in the American brewing industry from 1975-1990. Corporate and Industrial Change, 1, 65-97. Carroll, T. N., & Burton, R. (1999). Exploring "complex" organizational designs. Paper presented at the INFORMS CMOT Workshop, Cincinatti, OH. Center for Media Education, (no date). A field guide to the Children's Television Act. Washington, D.C.: Center for Media Education. Center for Media Education. (2003). About the Center fo r Media Education. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from http://www.cme.org/about.html. ChildrenNow. (2003). About ChildrenNow. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from http://www.childrennow.org/aboutcn.html. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 213-220. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (2003). Connected to the future: A report on children's Internet usage from the Corporation fo r Public Broadcasting. Washington, DC: Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Cross, G. (1997). Kids' stuff: Toys and the changing world o f American childhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Delacroix, J., & Carroll, G. R. (1983). Organizational foundings: An ecological study of the newspaper industries of Argentina and Ireland. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 631-661. Delacroix, J., Swaminathan, A., & Solt, M. E. (1989). Density dependence versus population dynamics: An ecological study of failings in the California wine industry. American Sociological Review, 54(2), 245-262. DiMaggio, P. J. (1994). The challenge of community evolution. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics o f organizations (pp. 444-450). New York: Oxford University Press. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited - Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. 162 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dobrev, S. D., Kim, T. Y., & Hannan, M. T. (2001). Dynamics of niche width and resource partitioning. American Journal o f Sociology, 106(5), 1299-1337. Eisenberg, E. M., Farace, R. V., Monge, P. R., Bettinghaus, E. P., Kurchner- Hawkins, R., Miller, K., et al. (1985). Communication linkages in interorganizational systems. In B. Dervin & M. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 6, pp. 210-266). Norwood, NJ:: Ablex. Eldridge, N., & Gould, S. J. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative phyletic gradualism. In T. J. M. Schopf (Ed.), Models in Paleobiology (pp. 82-115). San Francisco: Freeman Cooper. Engelhardt, T. (1986). The Shortcake strategy. In T. Gitlin (Ed.), Watching television. New York: Pantheon. Federal Communications Commission. (1971). Notice o f inquiry and notice o f proposed rulemaking. Washington, DC. Federal Communications Commission. (1974). Children's television report and policy statement. Washington, DC. Fisch, S. M., Truglio, R. T., & Cole, C. F. (1999). The impact of Sesame Street on preschool children: A review and synthesis of 30 years' research. Media Psychology(l), 165-190. Fisher Price. (2003). About us. Retrieved April 15, 2003, from http://www.fisher- price.com/us/hr/aboutus. asp#story Fombrun, C. J. (1988). Crafting an institutionally informed ecology o f organizations. In Carroll (Ed.), Ecological models o f organizations (pp. 223-239). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). The liability o f newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48, 692-710. Freeman, J., & Lomi, A. (1994). Resource partitioning and foundings of banking cooperatives in Italy. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics o f organizations (pp. 269-293). New York: Oxford University Press. Fulk, J., Flanagin, A. J., Kalman, M. E., Monge, P. R., & Ryan, T. (1996). Connective and communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theory, 6, 60-87. 163 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Exchange networks and community politics. New York: Academic Press. Granville, K. (1988, December 27). Activists renew efforts for kids' TV legislation. Los Angeles Times, 1. Greene, R., & Spragins, E. (1982, November 8). Smurfy to the max. Forbes, 67-70. Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal o f Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493. Hage, J., & Hollingsworth, J. R. (2000). A strategy for the analysis of idea innovation networks and institutions. Organization Studies, 21(5), 971-1004. Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics o f organizational populations: Density, competition, and legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1995). An introduction to organizational ecology. In Carroll & M. T. Hannan (Eds.), Organizations in industry: Strategy, structure, and selection (pp. 17-31). New York: Oxford University Press. Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1997). Dynamics o f organizational populations: Density, Legitimation, and Competition. London: Oxford University Press. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. T. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal o f Sociology, 55(5), 929-964. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. T. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149-164. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. T. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Haveman, H. A. (1994). The ecological dynamics of organizational change: Density and mass dependence in rates of entry into new markets. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics o f organizations (pp. 152-166). New York: Oxford University Press. Hawley, A. H. (1950). Human ecology: A theory o f community structure. New York: Ronald Press Company. Hawley, A. H. (1982). Ecology and human ecology. In G. A. Theodorson (Ed.), Urban patterns: Studies in human ecology (revised edition ed.). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. 164 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hawley, A. H. (1986). Human ecology: A theoretical essay. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hollis, T. (2001). Hi there boys and girls! America's local children's TV programs. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. Holsendolph, E. (1982, July 25). Are children no longer in the programming picture? The New York Times, 21. How they keep the Smurfs under control. (1983, December 5). Sales and Market Management, 63-64. Howard, J. A., & Hulbert, J. (1973). Advertising and the public interest (staff report). Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission. Jarvik, L. (1998). PBS: Behind the screen. Rocklin, CA: Prima/Forum. Jordan, A. B., & Woodard, E. H. (1997). The 1997 state o f children's television report: Programming fo r children over broadcast and cable television (No. 14). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg Public Policy Center. Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins o f life: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe : the search fo r laws o f self organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press. Kaye, E. (1979). The AC T guide to children's television (or...How to treat TV with T.L.C.). Boston: Beacon Press. Kid's Commercials. (2003). Retrieved April 16, 2003, from http://www.tvdays.com/KIDSCOMM.HTM. Kontopoulos, K. M. (1993). The logics o f social structure. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Korn, H. J., & Baum, J. A. C. (1994). Community ecology and employment dynamics - a study of large Canadian Organizations, 1985-1992. Social Forces, 73(1), 1-31. Kunkel, D. (1991). Crafting media policy. American Behavioral Scientist, 35, 181- 202. 165 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kunkel, D. (1998). Policy battles over defining children's educational television. In A. B. Jordan & K. H. Jamison (Eds.), The annals o f The American Academy o f Political and Social Science (Vol. 557: Children and Television, pp. 39- 53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Periodicals Press. Kurer, R. (2003). Linus the Lionhearted. Retrieved April 16, 2003, from http://www.toontracker.com/linus/linus.htm Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. Lomi, A. (2000). Density dependence and spatial duality in organizational founding rates: Danish commercial banks, 1846-1989. Organization Studies, 21(2), 433-461. Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. E. (1993). The critical mass in collective action: A micro social theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Marwell, G., Oliver, P. E., & Prahl, R. (1988). Social networks and collective action: A theory of the critical mass. III. American Journal o f Sociology, 94(3), 502- 534. Mattel. (1984). Annual report. El Segundo, CA. Mattel. (2003). Mattel history. Retrieved April 15, 2003, from http://www.mattel.com/about_us/history/ McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational systematics: Taxonomy, evolution, classification. Berkely, CA: University of California Press. McKelvey, B. (1999). Toward a Campbellian realist organization science. In J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science: In honor o f Donald T. Campbell (pp. 383-411). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McKelvey, B., & Baum, J. A. C. (1999). Donald T. Campbell's evolving influence on organization science. In J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science: In honor o f Donald T. Campbell (pp. 1-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McNeal, J. U. (1992). Kids as customers: A handbook o f marketing to children. NewYork: Lexington Books. MediaScope. (2003). What we do. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from http://www.mediascope.org/whtwedo/index.htm. 166 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Melody, W. (1973). Children's television: The economics o f exploitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structures as myth and ceremony. American Journal o f Sociology, 7977(83), 340-363. Mifflin, L. (1999, April 19). A growth spurt is transforming TV for children. The New York Times. Miner, A. S., & Haunschild, P. R. (1995). Population Level Learning. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 115-166). Geenwich, CT: JAI Press. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In L. L. Putnam (Ed.), The New Handbook o f Organizational Communication (pp. 440-502). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories o f Communication Networks. New York: Oxford University Press. Monge, P. R., Fulk, J., Kalman, M. E., Flanagin, A., Pamassa, C., & Rumsey, S. (1998). Production of Collective Action in Alliance-Based Interorganizational Communication and Information Systems. Organization Science, 9(3), 411-433. Morrisett, L. (1989). Challenges Met and to Be Met. Paper presented at the Sesame Street 20th Anniversary Research Symposium, New York. National Cable and Telecommunications Association. (2003, April, 2003). Industry Statistics. Retrieved April 27, 2003, from http://www.ncta.com/industry_overview/indStat.cfm?indOverviewID=2. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic o f Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory o f Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Park, R. E. (1982). Human Ecology. In G. A. Theodorson (Ed.), Urban Patterns: Studies in Human Ecology (revised edition ed.). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1925/1984). The city: Suggestions fo r investigation o f human behavior in the urban environment. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pearce, A. (1972). The economics o f network children's television programming (staff report). Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission. 167 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pecora, N. O. (1998). The business o f children's entertainment. New York: The Guilford Press. Pentland, B. T. (1999). Organizations as networks of actions. In J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science: In honor o f Donald T. Campbell (pp. 237-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Podolny, J. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal o f Sociology, 107(1), 33-60. Polsky, R. M. (1974). Getting to Sesame Street: Origins o f the Children's Television Workshop. New York: Praeger. Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. E. (2000). Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods fo r research. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosenkopf, L., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). The coevolution of technology and organization. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics o f organizations (pp. 403-424). New York: Oxford University Press. Ruef, M. (1999). Social ontology and the dynamics of organizational forms: Creating market actors in the healthcare field, 1966-94. Social Forces, 77,1403-1432. Ruef, M. (2000). The emergence of organizational forms: A community ecology approach. American Journal o f Sociology, 106(3), 658-714. Ruef, M., Mendel, P., & Scott, W. R. (1998). An organizational field approach to resource environments in health care: A comparison of hospital and home health agency entries in the San Francisco Bay region. Health Services Research, 32, 777-805. Schneider, C. (1987). Children's television: The art, the business, and how it works. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books. Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural and open Systems (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P., & Caronna, C. A. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shaw, S. (1983, December 14). FCC expected to act soon on proposals to control children's TV programs. United Press International. 168 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Smurfs now bartered for '86; only Taft stations get first dibs. (1984, March 21). Variety. Sorenson, O., & Stuart, T. E. (2001). Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. American Journal o f Sociology, 106(6), 1546-1588. Spending on marketing to kids up $5 billion in last decade. (2002). The Food Institute Report. Elmwood Park, NJ: The Food Institute. Stanley, S. (1981). The New evolutionary timetable: Fossils, genes, and the origin o f species. New York: Basic Books. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook o f organizations (pp. 153-193). Chicago: Rand McNally. Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy o f Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. Swaminathan, A. (1995). The proliferation of specialist organizations in the American wine industry, 1941-1990. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 653-680. Swaminathan, A. (2001). Resource partitioning and the evolution of specialist organizations: The role o f location and identity in the US wine industry. Academy o f Management Journal, 44(6), 1169-1185. Television Bureau of Advertising. (2003). Media trends track (TV basics: Cable & VCR households). Retrieved April 27, 2003, from http ://www.tvb ,org/rcentral/mediatrendstrack/tvbasics/04_Cable_and_V CR_ HH.asp. Tracy, D. (2002). Blue's Clues fo r success: The 8 secrets behind a phenomenal business. Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing. Turow, J. (1981). Entertainment, education, and the hard sell: Three decades o f network children's television. New York: Praeger. Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439- 465. Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171-222. 169 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Van de Ven, A. H., & Garud, R. (1994). The coevolution of technical and institutional events in the development of an innovation. In J. A. C. Baum & J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics o f organizations (pp. 425-443). New York: Oxford University Press. Van de Ven, A. H., & Grazman, D. N. (1999). Evolution in a nested hierarchy : A genealogy of twin cities health care organizations, 1853-1995. In J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations in organization science: In honor o f Donald T. Campbell (pp. 185-209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994 /1998). Social network analysis: Methods and application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 170 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A POPULATION EMERGENCE BY PERIOD Population Emergence Period References Educational Content 1968-1972 Polsky, 1974; Schneider, 1987; Creators Calabro, 1992; Jarvik, 1998; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March 24, 2003; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; D.F. Meir, personal communication, March 28, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 4, 2003; S. Petroff, personal communication, April 7, 2003 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Before 1953 Melody, 1973; Turow, 1981; Schneider, 1987; Calabro, 1992; Pecora, 1998; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; D.F. Meir, personal communication, March 28, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 4, 2003 Content Programmers Before 1953 Melody, 1973; Turow, 1981; Schneider, 1987; Calabro, 1992; Pecora, 1998; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27,2003; D.F. Meir, personal communication, March 28, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 4, 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies 1953-1957 Melody, 1973; Schneider, 1987; McNeal, 1992; Cross, 1997; Pecora, 1998; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27,2003; D.F. Meir, personal communication, March 28, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 -j N > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Before 1953 Melody, 1973; Turow, 1981; Schneider, 1987; McNeal, 1992; Pecora, 1998; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; D.F. Meir, personal communication, March 28, 2003; M. Williams, personal communication, March 31, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 4, 2003 Governmental Bodies 1963-1967 Polsky, 1974; Melody, 1973; Turow, 1981; Schneider, 1987; Jarvik, 1998; Pecora, 1998; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication. April 1, 2003; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 4, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 -J Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups 'j ■ fe . 1968-1972 Melody, 1973; Turow, 1981; Schneider, 1987; Jarvik, 1998; Pecora, 1998; P. Miller, personal communication, March 24, 2003; D.F. Meir, personal communication, March 28, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1,2003; R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003; R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2, 2003; J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 4, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups < 1 1963-1967 Polsky, 1974; Schneider, 1987; Jarvik, 1998; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; M. Williams, personal communication, March 31, 2003 L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 4, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B NETWORK DATA BY YEAR & RELATIONSHIP Relationships area coded as No Relationship = NR Competitive Relationship = Neutral Relationship = 0 Mutual Relationship = + 1953-1957 Network Tie Relationship References Exceptions Comments Educational Content Creators Entertainment Content Creators NR Educational Content Creators Content Programmers NR o\ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies NR Educational Content Creators Advertisers NR Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies NR Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups NR Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups NR Entertainment Content Creators Educational Content Creators NR Entertainment Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; Calabro, 1992; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1,2003 -j Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; Cross, 1997; McNeal, 1992; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies NR Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups NR < 1 00 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups NR Content Programmers Educational Content Creators NR Content Programmers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; Calabro, 1992; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Content Programmers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; Cross, 1997 Content Programmers Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; McNeal, 1992; Pecora, 1998 Content Programmers Governmental Bodies NR < 1 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Advocacy Groups NR Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups NR Toy Tie-In Companies Educational Content Creators NR Toy Tie-In Companies Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; Cross, 1997; McNeal, 1992; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; Cross, 1997; McNeal, 1992; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Advertisers + Network Data 00 o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies NR Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups NR Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups NR Advertisers Educational Content Creators NR Advertisers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 00 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Advertisers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Advertisers Governmental Bodies NR Advertisers Advocacy Groups NR Advertisers Philanthropic Groups NR Governmental Bodies Educational Content Creators NR Governmental Bodies Entertainment Content Creators NR 00 to Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Content Programmers Governmental Bodies Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies Advertisers Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups Advocacy Groups Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups Content Programmers Advocacy Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups Advertisers Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Groups NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR OO U > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups Advertisers Philanthropic Groups Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups Advocacy Groups NR NR NR NR NR NR NR O O 4^ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1958-1962 Network Tie Relationship References Exceptions Comments Educational Content Creators Entertainment Content Creators NR Educational Content Creators Content Programmers NR Educational Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies NR Educational Content Creators Advertisers NR Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies NR Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups NR 00 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups NR Entertainment Content Creators Educational Content Creators NR Entertainment Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; Calabro, 1992; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; Cross, 1997; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 00 Os Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; McNeal, 1992; Pecora, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies NR Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups NR Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups NR Content Programmers Educational Content Creators NR 00 < 1 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; Calabro, 1992; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Content Programmers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; McNeal, 1992; Pecora, 1998; Cross, 1997 Content Programmers Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992 Content Programmers Governmental Bodies NR Content Programmers Advocacy Groups NR Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups NR 00 oo Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Educational Content Creators NR Toy Tie-In Companies Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; McNeal, 1992; Pecora, 1998; Cross, 1997; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; Cross, 1997; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Advertisers + Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies NR Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups NR 00 VO Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups NR Advertisers Educational Content Creators NR Advertisers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Advertisers Content Programmers + Network Data; Melody, 1973; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Advertisers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 VO o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Governmental Bodies Advertisers Advocacy Groups Advertisers Philanthropic Groups Governmental Bodies Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies Content Programmers Governmental Bodies Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies Advertisers Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups Advocacy Groups Educational Content Creators NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR V O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups Content Programmers Advocacy Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups Advertisers Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Groups Philanthropic Groups Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups Advertisers NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR V O N > m 73 § < § < § 2 O o a > " > 1 8 l l 1 5 P h R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1963-1967 Network Tie Relationship References Exceptions Comments Educational Content Creators Entertainment Content Creators NR Educational Content Creators Content Programmers NR Educational Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies NR Educational Content Creators Advertisers NR Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies NR Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups NR V O 4^ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups NR Entertainment Content Creators Educational Content Creators NR Entertainment Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Calabro, 1992 Entertainment Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Cross, 1997; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 VO U \ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Advertisers + Network Data;; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups NR Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups NR Content Programmers Educational Content Creators NR VO o\ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Entertainment Content Creators 0 L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003, only Captain Kangaroo on by 1966; Pecora, 1998, no children's television programs on prime time - networks banned prog, to Saturday morning +: Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973 Overall, there networks were neutral in their actions toward children's television programming. They essentially dropped children's television programming midway through this time period. Content Programmers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Cross, 1997; McNeal, 1992; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 VO Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; McNeal, 1992; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Content Programmers Governmental Bodies Network Data Content Programmers Advocacy Groups NR Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups NR Toy Tie-In Companies Educational Content Creators NR Toy Tie-In Companies Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Cross, 1997; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003 V O 00 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; Cross, 1997; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Advertisers + Network Data; Melody, 1973 vo vo Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data ( ) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that this was a negative relationship. Although the two interacted, it was a laissez faire relationship during this time. (The network data for the inverse relationship is +) Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups NR Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups NR Advertisers Educational Content Creators NR to o o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1,2003 Advertisers Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973; McNeal, 1992; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Advertisers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Melody, 1973 N > o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to o to Advertisers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data ( ) Pecora (1998) argues that the close watch on the advertisers by the governmental bodies was in response to the consumerist movement, not any particular actions on the part o f the advertisers Advertisers Advocacy Groups NR Advertisers Philanthropic Groups NR Governmental Bodies Educational Content Creators NR Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Entertainment Content Creators 0 Turow, 1981 Network Data ( ) According to Turow (1981), the government essentially ignored ent. content creators, which could either be viewed as a + or 0 relationship. Since the network data suggested a relationship, the tie was coded as 0. Governmental Bodies Content Programmers + Network Data; Jarvik, 1998; Polsky, 1974; M. Williams, personal communication, March 31, 2003; Turow, 1981 N > o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Toy Tie-In Companies 0 Network Data (+) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that this was a negative relationship. Although the two interacted, it was a laissez faire relationship during this time. (The network data for the inverse relationship is - •) Governmental Bodies Advertisers 0 McNeal, 1987 Pecora, 1998 (-) FTC response to consumer movement; Network Data (+) Governmental bodies were keeping a close watch on advertisers, but they did not take any action. to o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups NR Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; Polsky, 1974 Advocacy Groups Educational Content Creators NR Advocacy Groups Entertainment Content Creators NR Advocacy Groups Content Programmers NR Advocacy Groups Toy Tie-In Companies NR Advocacy Groups Advertisers NR Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies NR Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Groups NR Philanthropic Groups Educational Content Creators NR K > o c* Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups Entertainment Content Creators NR Philanthropic Groups Content Programmers NR Network Data (0) No evidence of a tie. Inverse relationship was NR in network analysis. Philanthropic Groups Toy Tie-In Companies NR Philanthropic Groups Advertisers NR Philanthropic Groups Governmental Bodies + Network Data; Jarvik, 1998; Polsky, 1974; Pecora, 1998 Philanthropic Groups Advocacy Groups NR K > O a\ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1968-1972 Network Tie Relationship References Exceptions Comments Educational Content Creators Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data Educational Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; Jarvik, 1998; Polsky, 1974 Educational Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies NR Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, April 2, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Educational Content Creators Advertisers NR Network Data N > o -o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies + Network Data; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; Jarvik, 1998; Polsky, 1974; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups + Network Data; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; Polsky, 1974; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; Jarvik, 1998; Polsky, 1974; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Is) o oo Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Educational Content Creators + S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Network Data (0) People being recruited from entertainment organizations to create the new educational programs. Entertainment Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 Entertainment Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Cross, 1997; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies to t— k o Network Data ( ) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that this was a negative relationship. The actions of entertainment content creators did not spark governmental action until the next time period. (The network data for the inverse relationship is 0) Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups 0 Network Data ( ) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that this was a negative relationship. An argument can be made that without the actions of entertainment content creators, advocacy groups would not have been formed (+). (The network data for the inverse relationship is ) Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups NR K J t — * K ) Network Data (+) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. (Network data for the inverse relationship is NR.) Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Educational Content Creators + Network Data; Jarvik, 1998; Polsky, 1974; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 (-) commercial networks wouldn’t take Sesame Street Although the commercial broadcasters did not pick up Sesame Street, the strong movement of PBS into educational programming (and the example it set) makes this a + relationship. Content Programmers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 Content Programmers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 Content Programmers Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 K > H -4 u > Content Programmers Governmental Bodies Jarvik, 1998; Polsky, 1974 Network Data ( ) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that this was a negative relationship. The very positive results o f PBS shed a positive light on the governmental move toward public broadcasting. Content Programmers Advocacy Groups Network Data ( ) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that this was a negative relationship. An argument can be made that without the actions of content programmers, advocacy groups would not have been formed (+). (The network data for the inverse relationship is ) Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. (The network data for the inverse relationship is NR.) Toy Tie-In Companies Educational Content Creators NR Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, April 2, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Cross, 1997; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003 to i — ^ O s Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Cross, 1997; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3,2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Advertisers + Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies Network Data; Cross, 1997 Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data Advertisers Educational Content Creators NR Network Data (0) Educational programs were not yet accepting commercial sponsorship (Pecora, 1998). (The network data for the inverse relationship is NR.) to ► — » Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 Advertisers Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 Advertisers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data Advertisers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Advertisers Advocacy Groups Network Data Advertisers Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data Governmental Bodies Educational Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Jarvik, 1998; Pecora, 1998; Polsky, 1974; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 K > t — » 00 Governmental Bodies Entertainment Content Creators Network Data; Melody, 1973 ; Action for Children’s Television, 1988 Melody (1973) Melody, 1973 ; and Action for Children’s Action for Television, 1988 Children’s Television (1988) say that although there were governmental inquiries and rulemaking, they did not make much of a difference. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Content Programmers 0 Melody, 1973 ; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Schneider + : Network Data; Jarvik, 1998; Polsky, 1974 Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Schneider, 1987; Melody, 1973 PBS had positive governmental support, while the commercial broadcasters had uneventful, but annoying governmental inquiries and rulemaking. The relationship is overall neutral. Governmental Bodies Toy Tie-In Companies 0 Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Cross, 1997 Network Data (+); Action for Children’s Television, 1988 ( ); Cross, 1997 ( ) The toy industry was just beginning to come under fire, but had not really been affected yet. to to o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Advertisers 0 Action for Children’s Television, 1988 Network Data (+) Action for Children’s Television, 1988 ( ); Pecora, 1998 ( ) FTC response to consumer movement The advertising industry was just beginning to come under fire, but had not really been affected yet. Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Jarvik, 1998; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Turow, 1981 A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003 (0) Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups + Network Data Advocacy Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; Jarvik, 1998; Polsky, 1974; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 N > to Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Entertainment Content Creators Network Data; Melody, 1973; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Jarvik, 1998; Schneider, 1987; Turow, 1981; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Advocacy Groups Content Programmers Network Data; Melody, 1973; Schneider, 1987; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Turow, 1981; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8,2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 to to to Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Turow, 1981; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; Cross, 1997 Advocacy Groups Advertisers Network Data; Melody, 1973; Jarvik, 1998; Schneider, 1987; Turow, 1981; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 to to to Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies + Network Data; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Melody, 1973; Jarvik, 1998; Turow, 1981; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003 (-) Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Groups + Action for Children’s Television, 1988; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Network Data (NR) ACT had a positive relationship with several philanthropic organizations. ro -i^ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to to O l Philanthropic Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; Jarvik, 1998; Polsky, 1974; Schneider, 1987; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3,2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Philanthropic Groups Entertainment Content Creators NR Network Data Philanthropic Groups Content Programmers NR Network Data Philanthropic Groups Toy Tie-In Companies NR Network Data Philanthropic Groups Advertisers NR Network Data Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups Governmental Bodies + Network Data; Jarvik, 1998; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; Polsky, 1974 Philanthropic Groups Advocacy Groups + Network Data; Jarvik, 1998; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 N > to o\ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1973-1977 Network Tie Relationship References Exceptions Comments Educational Content Creators Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data Educational Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Educational Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Schneider, 1987; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Network Data (0) From this period on, licensing became the most important revenue generator for Sesame Street, and created the model for toy licensing with educational content. Educational Content Creators Advertisers 0 Network Data to to -o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies + Network Data Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups + Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Educational Content Creators 0 Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 Entertainment Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Cross, 1997; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 N > N > 00 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to to o Entertainment Content Creators Advertisers + Schneider, 1987; Network Data; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups Network Data P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 (0) didn’t really effect them, except to give them a reason to exist In the governmental proceedings, the entertainment content creators had to compete against the advocacy groups for political and social legitimacy. Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups + Network Data Content Programmers Educational Content Creators + Network Data; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 Content Programmers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Cross, 1997; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Content Programmers Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Content Programmers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Content Programmers Advocacy Groups Network Data P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 (0) In the governmental proceedings, the Content programmers had to compete against the advocacy groups for political and social legitimacy. ro O J o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Educational Content Creators + Schneider, 1987; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Network Data (0) From this period on, licensing became the most important revenue generator for the toy companies who partnered with Sesame Street and other educational content creators. Toy Tie-In Companies Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Cross, 1997; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; Schneider, 1987; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 u > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Cross, 1997; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3,2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Advertisers + Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies 0 Cross, 1997 Cross, 1997 (+); Network Data ( ) The toy companies created CARU, which took some of the pressure off o f the governmental bodies, although the actions o f the toy companies still caused ACT to petition the government. Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data N > u > to Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Educational Content Creators 0 Network Data; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Pecora, 1998 (+) Although corporate underwriting of educational programs had begun (Pecora, 1998), it not yet a strong relationship Advertisers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Advertisers Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Advertisers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data Advertisers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Advertisers Advocacy Groups Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8,2003; Action for Children’s Television, 1988 U > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data Governmental Bodies Educational Content Creators + Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Governmental Bodies Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Turow, 1981 Action for Children’s Television, 1988 (-) FCC rulemaking in ACT’s favor Overall, the actions (and inactions) of governmental bodies had little to no effect on entertainment content creators. Governmental Bodies Content Programmers 0 Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; Turow, 1981 Action for Children’s Television, 1988 (-) FCC rulemaking in ACT’s favor Overall, the actions (and inactions) of governmental bodies had little to no effect on content programmers. K > u > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Toy Tie-In Companies Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Turow, 1981; Cross, 1997; R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Network Data (0); Schneider, 1987; McNeal, 1992 The governmental actions against toy companies had a detrimental, albeit very small, effect on the social and political legitimacy o f the toy compamies. Governmental Bodies Advertisers 0 Network Data; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; Schneider, 1987; Cross, 1997; McNeal, 1992 R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2, 2003; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Turow, 1981; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 The governmental actions against advertisers had less effect than the actions against toy manufacturers, because they were not involved in licensing and toy tie-in practices. K > U > C /i Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups + Schneider, 1987; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Turow, 1981; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Network Data (0) Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data Advocacy Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Advocacy Groups Entertainment Content Creators Network Data; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Turow, 1981; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8,2003 ro u > O n Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Content Programmers Network Data; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Turow, 1981; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Advocacy Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Cross, 1997; Turow, 1981; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 K ) u > -j Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Advertisers to oo Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Cross, 1997; Turow, 1981; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies + Action for Children’s Television, 1988 (+); Turow, 1981 0 : Network Data; Schneider, 1987 With the social and political climate o f the times, the advocacy groups gave the government ammunition to look effective, and like they were looking after the American consumer. Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Philanthropic Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003 Philanthropic Groups Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data Philanthropic Groups Content Programmers + Network Data; Pecora, 1998 K > u > V O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups Toy Tie-In Companies NR Network Data ( ) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. (The network data for the inverse relationship is NR.) Philanthropic Groups Advertisers NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. (The network data for the inverse relationship is NR.) Philanthropic Groups Governmental Bodies + Network Data; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 to o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; Advocacy Groups P. Charren, personal communication,April 8, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 N > 4^ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1978-1982 Network Tie Relationship References Exceptions Comments Educational Content Creators Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data Educational Content Creators Content Programmers 0 Network Data H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 (+) SSRAP/NBC, but more the other way around Although NBC had a + partnership that was an exception to this neutral relationship, overall this relationship was neutral. to N > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Schneider, 1987; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Network Data ( ) Licensing was an important revenue generator for Sesame Street, which was by far the most popular educational program. Other educational programs (such as 3-2-1 Contact) had a neutral relationship. Educational Content Creators Advertisers 0 Network Data Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies + Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003 Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups + Network Data N > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertaimnent Content Creators Educational Content Creators 0 Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 Entertainment Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; Entertainment Content Creators Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data to 4^ -fc. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data Content Programmers Educational Content Creators + Network Data; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Content Programmers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987 Content Programmers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Content Programmers Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Content Programmers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data N > C h Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Advocacy Groups Network Data Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Educational Content Creators + Schneider, 1987; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Network Data ( ) Licensing was an important revenue generator for the toy companies with Sesame Street products. The companies had neutral or no relationship with most other educational programs (such as 3-2-1 Contact). Toy Tie-In Companies Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; Cross, 1997; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 N > -i^ O s Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; Cross, 1997; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Advertisers + Network Data; Cross, 1997 Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies + Cross, 1997 Network Data (0) Pressure from the toy industry pressured Congress repeal all previous FTC advertising rulings. Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups Network Data; Cross, 1997 Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data Advertisers Educational Content Creators 0 Network Data; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1,2003 to -O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Advertisers Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Advertisers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data Advertisers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Advertisers Advocacy Groups Network Data Advertisers Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data Governmental Bodies Educational Content Creators + Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003 Governmental Bodies Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data to oo Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Content Programmers 0 Network Data Governmental Bodies Toy Tie-In Companies 0 Network Data Cross, 1997 (+); Action for Children’s Television, 1988 ( ) Congress repealed all advertising bans, and the FTC still had ACT-initiated inquiries open. This was a period o f mixed relationships between the gov’t and toy companies, but overall was neutral. N > 4^ M 3 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Advertisers 0 Network Data Cross, 1997 (+); Action for Children’s Television, 1988 ( ) Congress repealed all advertising bans, and the FTC still had ACT-initiated inquiries open. This was a period o f mixed relationships between the gov’t and toy companies, but overall was neutral. Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups 0 Network Data; Cross, 1997 Action for Children’s Television, 1988 (+) negative relationship not until 1983; Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups + Network Data Advocacy Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 to o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Entertainment Content Creators Network Data; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Cross, 1997; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Advocacy Groups Content Programmers Network Data; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Cross, 1997; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Advocacy Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Cross, 1997 (0) the Congress repealed all advertising bans, so ACT had no effect ACT continued to attack the toy companies. C /i Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Advertisers Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Cross, 1997; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies + Network Data; Action for Children’s Television, 1988 Cross, 1997 (0) Congress repealed all advertising bans Although Congress had repealed the FTC advertising bans, ACT still had influence on the FTC and on certain members of Congress Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; Action for Children’s Television, 1988 to toi to Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1,2003 (0); J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003 (0) Although philanthropic organizations were providing less funding for Sesame Street, they were funding start-up costs for other programs. Philanthropic Groups Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that this was a + relationship. (The network data for the inverse relationship is 0.) Philanthropic Groups Content Programmers 0 Pecora, 1998 (+) PBS; Network Data (NR) Philanthropic groups were providing funding to PBS, but overall was a neutral relationship. tsJ u > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups Toy Tie-In Companies NR Network Data Philanthropic Groups Advertisers NR Network Data Philanthropic Groups Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Philanthropic Groups Advocacy Groups + Network Data; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1983-1987 Network Tie Relationship References Exceptions Comments Educational Content Creators Entertainment Content Creators Network Data Educational Content Creators Content Programmers 0 Network Data C /l U \ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Schneider, 1987; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Network Data (0) Licensing was an important revenue generator for Sesame Street, which was by far the most popular educational program. Other educational programs (such as Long Ago and Far Away) had a neutral relationship. Educational Content Creators Advertisers 0 Network Data Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups + Network Data N > U j O n Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Educational Content Creators 0 Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; A. Heyward, personal communication, March 25, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; Calabro, 1992; Cross, 1997; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2, 2003 < - / ! <i Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data Content Programmers Educational Content Creators 0 Network Data Content Programmers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 LTi 00 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; Cross, 1997; McNeal, 1992; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2, 2003 Content Programmers Advertisers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 (0) for broadcasters, advertisers used independents as bargaining tools Overall, strongly positive relationship. Content Programmers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Content Programmers Advocacy Groups Network Data Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data to O l V O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Educational Content Creators + Schneider, 1987; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Network Data (0) Licensing was an important revenue generator for the toy companies with Sesame Street products. The companies had neutral or no relationship with most other educational programs. Toy Tie-In Companies Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; Calabro, 1992; Cross, 1997; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; R. WeisskofF, personal communication, April 2, 2003 O s O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Content Programmers + Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; Cross, 1997; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2, 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Advertisers + Schneider, 1987; Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies + Cross, 1997 Network Data (0) Under pressure from commercial enterprises, such as toy companies, government held to strict deregulatory stance. Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups Network Data; Cross, 1997 to o\ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to O n to Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data ( ) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. (The network data for the inverse relationship is 0.) Advertisers Educational Content Creators 0 Network Data Advertisers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Advertisers Content Programmers + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Advertisers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Governmental Bodies + Cross, 1997 Network Data ( ) Under pressure from commercial enterprises, such as advertisers, government held to strict deregulatory stance. Advertisers Advocacy Groups Network Data Advertisers Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data Governmental Bodies Educational Content Creators P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; Action for Children’s Television, 1988 Network Data (0); S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 The deregulatory stance o f the administration created a negative regulatory environment and very few resources for educational content creators. to O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Entertainment Content Creators + P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Cross, 1997 Network Data (0) The deregulatory stance o f the administration created a free-for- all for entertainment content creators. Governmental Bodies Content Programmers + P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Cross, 1997 Network Data (0); Schneider, 1987 The deregulatory stance o f the administration created a free-for- all for content programmers. Governmental Bodies Toy Tie-In Companies + Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Cross, 1997; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; Network Data ( ); Schneider, 1987 (0) just not paying attention to the issue; Government’s laissez faire attitude toward program-length commercials greatly benefited toy companies. to os 4^ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Advertisers 0 Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups Action for Children’s Television, 1988; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; Cross, 1997 0 : Network Data; Schneider, 1987 (FCC just ignored); During this time period, governmental bodies either ignored advocacy groups or overturned earlier rulings in their favor, making this a relationship. Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups + Network Data Advocacy Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Advocacy Groups Entertainment Content Creators Network Data; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003 N > O N cn Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Content Programmers Network Data; Action for Children’s Television, 1988 Advocacy Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Network Data; Schneider, 1987; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Cross, 1997 Advocacy Groups Advertisers Network Data; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; Schneider, 1987; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies 0 Schneider, 1987; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; Cross, 1997 Network Data (+) With the exception of a couple of supporters in Congress, ACT was ignored by the government. to 0\ Os Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8,2003 Philanthropic Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Philanthropic Groups Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data Philanthropic Groups Content Programmers 0 Network Data Pecora, 1998 (+) PBS; Overall neutral relationship. Philanthropic Groups Toy Tie-In Companies NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. Philanthropic Groups Advertisers NR Network Data Philanthropic Groups Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data N > O N -J Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; Advocacy Groups Action for Children’s Television, 1988; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 O n oo Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1988-1992 Network Tie Relationship References Exceptions Comments Educational Content Creators Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data Educational Content Creators Content Programmers 0 Network Data Educational Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Jarvik, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Network Data (0) Educational Content Creators Advertisers 0 Network Data to o\ VO Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies + Network Data Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups + Network Data Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups + Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Educational Content Creators 0 Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Advertisers + Network Data; Pecora, 1998 Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data to o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data Content Programmers Educational Content Creators 0 Network Data Content Programmers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data Content Programmers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Pecora, 1998 McNeal, 1992 Content Programmers Advertisers + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992 Content Programmers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Content Programmers Advocacy Groups Network Data Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data N > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Educational Content Creators + Jarvik, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003 Network Data (0) Toy Tie-In Companies Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Pecora, 1998 Toy Tie-In Companies Content Programmers + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992 Toy Tie-In Companies Advertisers + Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. to to Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Educational Content Creators 0 Network Data Advertisers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Pecora, 1998 Advertisers Content Programmers + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; McNeal, 1992 Advertisers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data Advertisers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Advertisers Advocacy Groups Network Data Advertisers Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. to O J Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Educational Content Creators + Network Data; Action for Children’s Television, 1988; A. Heyward, personal communication, March 25, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Governmental Bodies Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003 (-) Although the CTA was passed during this time, it had no effect for several years. Governmental Bodies Content Programmers 0 Network Data Governmental Bodies Toy Tie-In Companies 0 Cross, 1997 Network Data ( ) CTA didn’t have much affect on toy creators - PLCs were already going out o f fashion, and those were the only thing really dealt with by CTA. to 4^ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Advertisers Network Data Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups + Network Data Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups + Network Data Advocacy Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; Action for Children’s Television, 1988 Advocacy Groups Entertainment Content Creators Network Data; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Advocacy Groups Content Programmers Network Data; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Advocacy Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Network Data Advocacy Groups Advertisers Network Data to O l Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies + Network Data; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; Action for Children’s Television, 1988 Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 9, 2003 Philanthropic Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2, 2003 Philanthropic Groups Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data Philanthropic Groups Content Programmers 0 Network Data Pecora, 1998 (+) PBS; Overall, neutral relationship Philanthropic Groups Toy Tie-In Companies N R Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. N > -j O n Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups Advertisers NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. Philanthropic Groups Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Philanthropic Groups Advocacy Groups + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 to -j 'j Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1993-1997 Network Tie Relationship References Exceptions Comments Educational Content Creators Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Educational Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8,2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April, 1, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 to oo Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, April 3, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1,2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Educational Content Creators Advertisers 0 Network Data Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies + Network Data Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups + Network Data Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups + Network Data to -j V O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Educational Content Creators + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003 S. Petroff, personal communication, April 7, 2003 ( ) competition from entertainment programmers Overall, this is a positive relationship. Entertainment Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Pecora, 1998 Entertainment Content Creators Advertisers + Network Data; Pecora, 1998 Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups 0 Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data N > 00 o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Educational Content Creators + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003; H. Stipp, personal communication, April, 1, 2003 Content Programmers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Pecora, 1998 Content Programmers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Pecora, 1998 Content Programmers Advertisers + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003 Content Programmers Governmental Bodies Network Data Content Programmers Advocacy Groups Network Data; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003 Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data to 00 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Educational Content Creators + Pecora, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3,2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1,2003; R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2,2003 Network Data (0) Toy Tie-In Companies Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Content Programmers + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3,2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Advertisers + Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups Network Data to oo K > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. Advertisers Educational Content Creators + Pecora, 1998 Network Data (0) With Nick’s success and the Barney phenomenon, this relationship became more positive. Advertisers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Pecora, 1998 Advertisers Content Programmers + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003 Advertisers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data Advertisers Governmental Bodies Network Data K ) 00 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Advocacy Groups Network Data Advertisers Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. Governmental Bodies Educational Content Creators + Network Data; A. Heyward, personal communication, March 26, 2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; S. Petroff, personal communication, April 7,2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003 (0) to oo Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 Governmental Bodies Content Programmers Network Data; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 P. Charren, personal communication, April 8,2003 (0) no real effect of CTA; Pecora, 1998; (0) took 5 years to get standards Although some argue that the CTA did not have much effect until 1996, it did constrain content programmers to an extent, and from 1996 on put serious pressure on them. Governmental Bodies Toy Tie-In Companies Network Data P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 (0) no real effect of CTA; CTA provided first limits on advertising since 1970s. Governmental Bodies Advertisers Network Data P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003 (0) no real effect of CTA; CTA provided first limits on advertising since 1970s. 0 0 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups + K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Network Data (0) This administration was very supportive of children's television advocacy groups. The FCC reopened inquiry and passed 1996 addendum Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups + Network Data Advocacy Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 N > 00 O N Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Entertainment Content Creators Network Data; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Advocacy Groups Content Programmers Network Data; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Advocacy Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Network Data; Cross, 1997 Advocacy Groups Advertisers Network Data to 00 - J Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies + Network Data; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; P. Charren, personal communication, April 8, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March 24, 2003 Philanthropic Groups Educational Content Creators + Network Data; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; Philanthropic Groups Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data Philanthropic Groups Content Programmers 0 Network Data K > 00 00 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups Toy Tie-In Companies NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. Philanthropic Groups Advertisers NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. Philanthropic Groups Governmental Bodies + Network Data; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 (+) funding another voice for them to hear, but not as recently K > oo o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; Advocacy Groups K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20,2003 1998-2002 Network Tie Relationship References Exceptions Comments to V O O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Entertainment Content Creators t-o VO Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Content Programmers to V O to Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; A. Heyward, personal communication, March 26, 2003; R. Weisskoff, personal communication, April 2, 2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; Pecora, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Educational Content Creators Advertisers 0 Network Data to oj Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Educational Content Creators Governmental Bodies + Network Data K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003 (0) no real relationship Although relationships between the two have waned, there was still a positive relationship, and gov’t bodies still support educational programs financially Educational Content Creators Advocacy Groups + Network Data K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003 (0); V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003, (0) Although relationships between the two have waned, there was still a positive relationship. Educational Content Creators Philanthropic Groups + Network Data; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 K J V O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Educational Content Creators + Network Data; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 ( ) competitive There was a surge in partnerships between the two. Entertainment Content Creators Content Programmers + Network Data; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Entertainment Content Creators Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 K ) V O U l Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Entertainment Content Creators Advertisers + Network Data Entertainment Content Creators Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 (+) campaign contributions Overall, this was a neutral relationship. Entertainment Content Creators Advocacy Groups 0 K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003 Network Data ( ); V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 (+) reason to exist Overall, this was a neutral relationship. Entertainment Content Creators Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Content Programmers Educational Content Creators + Network Data; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3,2003; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 H. Stipp, personal communication, April 1, 2003 ( ) NBC (and other broadcasters) getting out of children's television; The increase in the number of channels allows more possible airtime for educational programs. K > vo 0\ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Content Programmers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Content Programmers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Content Programmers Advertisers + Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Content Programmers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Content Programmers Advocacy Groups 0 Network Data V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 (+) reason to exist or ( ) criticize in the media Overall, this was a neutral relationship. Content Programmers Philanthropic Groups 0 Network Data to Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Educational Content Creators + Pecora, 1998; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; B. Sullivan, personal communication, April 8, 2003; J.G. Cooney, personal communication, April 2, 2003; L. Morrisett, personal communication, April 1, 2003; R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003 Network Data (0) Toy Tie-In Companies Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Content Programmers + Network Data; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003 Toy Tie-In Companies Advertisers + Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Toy Tie-In Companies Advocacy Groups Network Data to oo Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Toy Tie-In Companies Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. Advertisers Educational Content Creators + Pecora, 1998; R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Network Data (0) Increase in corporate sponsorship of educational programming. Advertisers Entertainment Content Creators + Network Data; Advertisers Content Programmers + Network Data; J. G. Cooney, personal communication, 2003 Advertisers Toy Tie-In Companies + Network Data Advertisers Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data Advertisers Advocacy Groups Network Data to VO V O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advertisers Philanthropic Groups NR Network Data ( ) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. Governmental Bodies Educational Content Creators + Network Data; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 R. Truglio, personal communication, April 2, 2003 (0) Bush’s administration not really paying attention; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003; Although current administration is essentially neutral toward educational programming, the previous administration was very positive and several gov’t bodies still provide funding. Governmental Bodies Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data; D.F. Meir, personal communication, March 28, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 (+) haven’t done anything to threaten them Overall this was a neutral relationship. u > o o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Content Programmers 0 Network Data; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 (+) haven’t done anything to threaten them Overall this was a neutral relationship. Governmental Bodies Toy Tie-In Companies 0 V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20,2003 (+); Network Data ( ); S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31,2003 ( ) The government’s laissez faire attitude made this a neutral relationship. Governmental Bodies Advertisers 0 S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Network Data ( ); S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31,2003 ( ); V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 (+) haven’t done anything to threaten them The government’s laissez faire attitude made this a neutral relationship. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Governmental Bodies Advocacy Groups 0 Network Data; A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 (+) “they love each other” Governmental bodies were not very receptive to advocacy arguments. Governmental Bodies Philanthropic Groups + Network Data Advocacy Groups Educational Content Creators 0 A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Network Data (+) Because the financial resources were not targeted toward children's television advocacy, the advocacy groups moved away from children's television as an issue, for the most part, and on to the Internet. Advocacy Groups Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; (+) For the most part, advocacy groups were not very critical o f educational content creators. u> o Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Advocacy Groups Content Programmers 0 K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Network Data; D. Mitroff, personal communication, March 27, 2003; For the most part, advocacy groups were not very critical o f content programmers. Advocacy Groups Toy Tie-In Companies Network Data Advocacy Groups Advertisers Network Data Advocacy Groups Governmental Bodies 0 V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Network Data (+) There was no strong voice for children's television targeted towards gov’t Advocacy Groups Philanthropic Groups 0 V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Network Data (+) Since they weren’t targeting children's television, they weren’t giving philanthropic groups anything to fund. Philanthropic Groups Educational Content Creators 0 A. Cahn, personal communication, April 3, 2003; K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003 Network Data (+) There was not much funding for educational programs during this time. U > o O J Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Philanthropic Groups Entertainment Content Creators 0 Network Data; S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 (+) Cyberchase With a few exceptions, philanthropic groups were not sponsoring entertainment programs Philanthropic Groups Content Programmers 0 V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Network Data (+) With exception of PBS, no funding of content programmers. Philanthropic Groups Toy Tie-In Companies NR S. Fisch, personal communication, March 31, 2003 Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. Philanthropic Groups Advertisers NR Network Data (0) There is no evidence in the interviews and historical records to suggest that these populations interacted. u> o Philanthropic Groups Governmental Bodies 0 Network Data V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 (+) Overall, this was a neutral relationship, because philanthropic groups were not funding many “alternative voice” for the gov’t to hear. Philanthropic Groups Advocacy Groups 0 K. Montgomery, personal communication, April 7, 2003; P. Miller, personal communication, March, 24 2003; V. Rideout, personal communication, March 20, 2003 Network Data (+) There was almost no philanthropic support for advocacy groups. APPENDIX C FINAL NETWORK DATA Relationships area coded as: No Relationship = -8 Competitive Relationship = -1 Neutral Relationship = 0 Mutual Relationship = 1 1953-1957 EdCC EntCC CP TTC A GB AG PO EdCC -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 EntCC -8 1 1 1 -8 -8 -8 CP -8 1 1 1 -8 -8 -8 TTC -8 1 1 1 -8 -8 -8 A -8 1 1 1 -8 -8 -8 GB -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 AG -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 PO -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 1958-1962 EdCC EntCC CP TTC A GB AG PO EdCC -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 EntCC -8 1 1 1 -8 -8 -8 CP -8 1 1 1 -8 -8 -8 TTC -8 1 1 1 -8 -8 -8 A -8 1 1 1 -8 -8 -8 GB -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 AG -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 PO -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1963-1967 EdCC EntCC CP TTC A GB AG PO EdCC -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 EntCC -8 1 1 1 -1 -8 -8 CP -8 0 1 1 -1 -8 -8 TTC -8 1 1 1 0 -8 -8 A -8 1 1 1 0 -8 -8 GB -8 0 1 0 0 -8 1 AG -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 PO -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 1 -8 1968-1972 EdCC EntCC CP TTC A GB AG PO EdCC 1 1 -8 -8 1 1 1 EntCC 1 1 1 1 0 0 -8 CP 1 1 1 1 1 0 -8 TTC -8 1 1 1 -1 -1 -8 A -8 1 1 1 0 -1 -8 GB 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 AG 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 PO 1 -8 -8 -8 -8 1 1 1973-1977 EdCC EntCC CP TTC A GB AG PO EdCC 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 EntCC 0 1 1 1 0 -1 1 CP 1 1 1 1 0 -1 0 TTC 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -8 A 0 1 1 1 0 -1 -8 GB 1 0 -1 0 1 0 AG 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 PO 1 1 1 -8 -8 1 1 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1978-1982 EdCC EntCC CP TTC A GB AG PO EdCC 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 EntCC 0 1 1 1 0 -1 0 CP 1 1 1 1 0 -1 0 TTC 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -8 A 0 1 1 1 0 -1 -8 GB 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 AG 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 PO 1 0 0 -8 -8 1 1 1983-1987 EdCC EntCC CP TTC A GB AG PO EdCC -1 0 1 0 0 1 1 EntCC 0 1 1 1 0 -1 0 CP 0 1 1 1 0 -1 0 TTC 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -8 A 0 1 1 1 0 -1 -8 GB -1 1 1 1 0 -1 1 AG 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 1 PO 1 0 0 -8 -8 0 1 1988-1992 EdCC EntCC CP TTC A GB AG PO EdCC 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 EntCC 0 1 1 1 0 -1 0 CP 0 1 1 1 0 -1 0 TTC 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -8 A 0 1 1 1 0 -1 -8 GB 1 0 0 0 -1 1 1 AG 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 PO 1 1 0 -8 -8 0 1 R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1993-1997 EdCC EntCC CP TTC A GB AG PO EdCC 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 EntCC 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 CP 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 0 TTC 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -8 A 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -8 GB 1 0 -1 -1 -1 1 1 AG 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 PO 1 0 0 -8 -8 0 1 1998-2002 EdCC EntCC CP TTC A GB AG PO EdCC 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 EntCC 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 CP 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 TTC 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -8 A 1 1 1 1 0 -1 -8 GB 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 AG 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 PO 0 0 0 -8 -8 0 0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Information sharing in work groups: A transactive memory approach

PDF

The patterns, effects and evolution of player social networks in online gaming communities

PDF

Defining the advice -seeking request in electronic solicitations in boundary spanning environments

PDF

Knowledge sharing in Chinese surgical teams

PDF

A system of participation and allocation preferences in organizations

PDF

California charter schools: Including students with disabilities

PDF

Diagnosing communication connections: Reaching underserved communities through existing communication ecologies

PDF

Biopharmaceutical strategic alliances: Interorganizational dynamics and factors influencing FDA regulatory outcomes

PDF

IT -enabled dynamic capabilities in new product development: Building a competitive advantage in turbulent environments

PDF

Gender differences in motivation for sexual intercourse: Implications for risky sexual behavior and substance use in a university and community sample

PDF

Children's judgments of the similarity of television series and the similarity of gratifications associated with television series

PDF

"Rotten with perfection": myth and transcendence in the decision to bomb Hiroshima

PDF

Comparative study of organizational commitment in the public and private sectors: The case of transportation agencies in Thailand

PDF

Communication and community -building: The role of ethnic media in the Chinese immigrant community of Los Angeles

PDF

Demographic diversity, team process, and team performance: Assessing moderator effects of cognitive conflict management practices and task interdependence

PDF

Childbirth customs as women's culture: A jurisprudential argument for protection under international and American legal norms

PDF

Children in transition: Popular children's magazines in late imperial and early Soviet Russia

PDF

Internet connectedness and its social origins: An ecological approach to communication media and social inequality

PDF

Androgyny and transformational leadership: Effects of gender and sex -role identity in the collectivistic context of Taiwan, R.O.C.

PDF

Feeling good about control: Design considerations for accountability systems in schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Bryant, Jennifer Alison (author)

Core Title From networks to Nickelodeon to Noggin: A communication networks perspective on the evolution of the children's television community

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag language, rhetoric and composition,mass communications,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Vorderer, Peter (committee chair), Fulk, Janet (committee member), Robertson, Peter J. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-637484

Unique identifier UC11335007

Identifier 3116672.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-637484 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3116672.pdf

Dmrecord 637484

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bryant, Jennifer Alison

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA