University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s television: a qualitative research study

(USC Thesis Other)

LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s television: a qualitative research study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

LGBTQ+ Representation in Young Children’s Television: A Qualitative Research Study
by
Jennifer Ann Berry

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Jennifer Ann Berry 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jennifer Ann Berry certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Mary Andres
Larry Gross
Corinne Hyde, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
There is an underrepresentation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus (LGBTQ+)
characters in young children's television. Although television networks established diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) representation goals and are making considerable strides in DEI
character representation, they are significantly underperforming in LGBTQ+ character
representation in programming for children aged 2 to 7. The literature review identified that
children consume much television during that age range and that television contributes to
identity formation and social acceptance. This study centered on identity formation in
relationship to social cognitive theory, cultivation theory, and minority stress theory. LGBTQ+
teens have higher rates of mental health issues, self-harm, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and
behavior, and peer bullying and victimization as compared to their heterosexual peers; therefore,
LGBTQ+ character representation in young children's programming for positive identity
formation and social acceptance is critical to mitigating the problem. This study consisted of a
gap analysis to evaluate whether young children's television networks’ content creators and
decision-makers have the knowledge, motivation, and operational organizational (KMO) factors
to support decisions regarding LGBTQ+ character choices in programming. The study used a
qualitative, case study methodological design approach. Findings from various data sources
suggested increased knowledge, motivation, and operational processes will facilitate the adoption
of training, education, and best practices to improve LGBTQ+ representation. Multiple
recommendations were identified concerning the findings. The recommendations were designed
as mitigation tactics to support fundamental changes in content creators' and decision-makers
awareness, abilities, and support mechanisms in creating and green-lighting LGBTQ+ characters.
v
Keywords: representation, identity formation, heteronormative, television, social cognitive
theory, cultivation theory, minority stress theory, symbolic annihilation, validation,
normalization, green-lighting, content creators, network decision-makers, diversity
representation, diversity goals, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), behind-the-scenes
representation, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus (LGBTQ+), dominant and
nondominant identity, LGBTQ+ characters

vi
Dedication
To the five women in my life; my why—my past, present, and future.

To my grandmothers watching over me, Edna Estelle Essex O’Shaughnessy and Ardelle
Genevieve Webb Larimer Berry. You both showed me what fierce fighting for a woman’s worth
looked like and modeled what life-long learning truly meant.

To my mother, Judith Ann O’Shaughnessy Berry. Your passion for exploration and learning
about what makes us human is the motivation I needed. Your humble approach to discovering
what makes all of us different while finding the shared experiences via storytelling has driven me
to have a constant desire to accept what we do not know and to use learning to connect.

To my partner, Jualeah “Y” Lenette Woods. I could not have achieved this without your love,
support, and relentlessness in never letting me give up. I promise this is it.

To my daughter, Jyla Lux Berry-Woods. You got me through. On one of the most challenging
days of my research and writing process, your incredible 7-year-old words, which I wrote down
as you spoke, drove me to preserve, “Effort is about hardworking people, and when you put lots
of effort in, it can make a big change. And when you put in lots of hard work, sometimes it can
make you happy and change your whole life in a very good way (Berry-Woods, 2021). Thank
you for your motivation and words of daily affirmation and wisdom.

vii
Acknowledgements
Thank you to LGBTQ+ children, adults, and families for inspiring me to conduct this
study and supporting my journey in a more substantial understanding, value, and
acknowledgment of my identity. Thank you to my professors, who persevered with dignity and
grace through one of the most challenging times in our known history. I am grateful to my
dissertation committee for their expertise, insightfulness, time, and hearts. They made this study
and me better. I am forever grateful to Dr. Corinne Hyde, my dissertation chair, for her ability to
provide deep, meaningful, and encouraging feedback while reminding me about the importance
of this work. Thank you for her relentless belief in me; I now feel validated and enough. I am
profoundly grateful to Dr. Larry Gross for serving on my dissertation committee and for his
guidance in the research and input regarding the past and future of media and its influences on
LGBTQ+ identity. I hope I have contributed to his lifetime of work positively. I am deeply
appreciative of the valuable input of Dr. Mary Andres for serving on my dissertation committee
and for her expertise on LGBTQ+ identity formation and passion and push for current and
relevant research and stakeholders. I am committed to continuing to “make some noise.” I am
eternally grateful to Dr. Adam Kho, my Inquiry Methods professor, for encouraging me not to
shy away from this problem of practice and providing insightful feedback on my first attempt at
creating a research design against it. His encouragement and early-stage direction motivated me
to pursue it. Finally, I am indebted to Dr. Guadalupe Garcia Montano for keeping me on track
during the grueling months of the editing process.
Thank you to my fellow cohort fifteen members for this journey of a lifetime that we did
together. There is no more incredible bond than our shared experience over these last few years.
A special acknowledgment to Dr. Desiree Del-Zio and Anthony Alejandre, fellow cohort
viii
members, friends, and now considered family, for the needed bond in our pursuit of academic
excellence. I appreciate the sisterhood and brotherhood that will be forever cemented. I am
grateful and could not have made it without our laughs, late-night support, GIFs, exemplars, and
the purity of looking out for each other. Thank you to Sylvia Bugg for supporting my early
questionnaire role-plays and getting me up-to-speed on the world of television, including
pointing me in great research directions. Thank you to my study participants for their openness to
being vulnerable and authentic. It was necessary and appreciated to capture significant data to
support the work. Thank you to my work colleagues at After-School All-Stars and
PresenceLearning for giving me the resources, space, and encouragement to conduct the study.
Lastly, thank you to my family and my friends for the many days and nights of accepting
my tears and supporting my efforts throughout this process. Thank you, Jon Berry, my dad, for
coining the phrase, “study hard, and you’ll go far” that has come true. His passion for life and
learning is contagious, and I caught the bug. Thank you, Judy Berry, my mom, for her words of
constant encouragement and for doing what was needed to support this effort despite all the
challenges. You are my rock. Thank you, Justin Berry, my brother, for the consistent belief in me
and the motivational phone calls that were what I needed many times during this process. Thank
you, Jualeah Woods, my partner that never let me give up. Our family is worth it. Thank you to
my best friends, Aimee Goglia, Tonya Alleyne, Stephanie Grigsby, Nicky Petrova, Christine
Wyeth, Nikki Brigante, Ana Contreras, all my Moxie sisters, and my trainer Crystal Hejazi for
the supportive sisterhood. Lastly, thank you to Jyla Berry-Woods, my daughter, the light who
guides the way. She is a seven-year-old scholar, and I do not doubt that she and her generation
will break down the walls and prove that love truly is love.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem .............................................................................2
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................5
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ...................................................................7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................8
Definitions..........................................................................................................................10
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................12
Chapter Two: Literature Review ....................................................................................................14
Television and Youth ..........................................................................................................14
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................38
Summary ............................................................................................................................41
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................43
Research Questions ............................................................................................................44
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................44
Research Setting.................................................................................................................45
The Researcher...................................................................................................................45
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................46
Participants .........................................................................................................................47
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................48
x
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................49
Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................51
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................53
Ethics..................................................................................................................................54
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................56
Participants .........................................................................................................................57
Results for Research Question 1 ........................................................................................59
Results for Research Question 2 ........................................................................................80
Results for Research Question 3 ........................................................................................84
Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................89
Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................90
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................95
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................104
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................106
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................107
References .................................................................................................................................... 111
Appendix A: Decision-Maker Interview Guide ...........................................................................141
Appendix B: Content Creator Interview Guide ...........................................................................145

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Details 58
Table A1: Decision-Maker Interview Protocol 142
Table B1: Content Creator Interview Protocol 146

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 41

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
There is a lack of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, plus (LGBTQ+)
representation in young children’s television programming (Klein & Shiffman, 2009).
Representation in television media is a component that specifically influences identity formation
and socialization during a child’s development (Richert et al., 2011). Therefore, this community’s
underrepresentation negatively affects children’s identity formation and social acceptance
(Gross, 2012). This study examines how content creators and decision-makers at television
networks make choices regarding LGBTQ+ representation. Content creators and content
developers are used interchangeably throughout the study.
LGBTQ+ individuals and families are a growing demographic in the United States and,
although considered a minority, are significant global consumers (LGBT Capital, n.d.).
Researchers have estimated that there are 10.7 million adults and between 2 million and 3.5
million children identifying as LGBTQ+ in the United States (Jones, 2017; Romero, 2017). The
2020 United States census reported family data of 980,000 same-sex households and 181,000
children living in same-sex households (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020; Walker & Taylor, 2021).
The backdrop for this study is the role television plays in a child’s development via
identity formation. There is evidence that diverse representation on television supports healthy
identity formation through fostering self-affirmation, family acceptance, social acceptance,
cultural understanding, and empathy (Kellner, 2003). However, the lack of LGBTQ+
representation in television programming for children younger than fifth grade indicates the
absence of supportive identity formation examples for LGBTQ+ individuals (Klein & Shiffman,
2009; Schachter & Ventura, 2008). This lack of representation continues the heteronormative
narrative and leads to children’s feelings of otherness or out-group affirmation (Klein &
2

Shiffman, 2009). Klein and Shiffman (2009) defined “otherness” or “out-group” as a socially
disenfranchised group. Accurate and frequent LGBTQ+ representation can support
normalization, which is important for positive self-affirmation, family affirmation, and social
acceptance (Gross, 2001). The problem of underrepresentation, in turn, is important to address
because television plays a role in a child’s development. Young children’s television content
developers and network decision-makers’ choices in producing content without LGBTQ+
representation preserve the dominant heteronormative culture and narrative and, therefore,
contribute to LGBTQ+ youth being in the high-risk group for depression, drug use, peer
victimization, and suicide (Espelage et al., 2018; Robinson & Espelage, 2013).
Context and Background of the Problem
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an agency overseen by Congress
(FCC, n.d.), regulates United States broadcast television and cable stations per the Children’s
Television Act of 1990. The Children’s Television Act mandates limited advertising during
children’s programming and requires “airing of a certain amount of children’s programming that
serves the educational and informational needs of children 16 years of age and under, including
the child’s intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs” (FCC, n.d., para. 3).
Large television networks, usually owned by large organizational conglomerates,
distribute television program content to television stations or pay television providers (Goldstein,
1991; Turow; 2016). Some American basic cable and satellite television networks also have
children’s programming channels by age category (Bryant, 2007). As a researcher and parent of a
young child, it is my observation that many young children’s channels use “Jr.” as the
demarcation of programming for children under 7 years old. The networks for 2-to-7-year-olds
are considered young children’s networks. The networks dedicated to providing programming for
3

young children between the ages of 2 and 7 are owned by large conglomerates (Pecora et al.,
2009). The process of airing television shows is complicated (Bryant, 2007). Broadcast
television is produced and owned by the networks but bought by local stations to fill airtime to
local audiences. Cable networks also purchase channels and content and air it to their
subscribers. Television shows can be originally produced or brought over from other networks or
earlier periods. In addition, the consumer can receive television through streaming, which is
television delivered through the internet (Carruthers, 2016). According to news outlets (Whitley-
Berry, 2021) and my observation as a parent, some streaming networks and older children
programming are taking more risks with diverse character choices and storylines; however, the
main networks still lack LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s television programming.
A search on network websites and discussions with various network employees revealed
that content creators develop the characters and story lines and pitch to the networks to get
greenlit for production. Depending on the network, there is a green-lighting process that involves
one or more decision-makers. The decision-makers approve the content and characters developed
and ultimately shown on the air. A team supporting the content developers that comprises
multiple stakeholders, such as writers, producers, advocacy groups and educators, weighs in, but
ultimately decision-making executives make the final decision (Goldstein, 1991; Turow, 2016).
In some cases, the chief executive officer or president of the network or channel will provide
final green-lighting approval, but generally, the decision-making executives can make the final
call (Goldstein, 1991; Turow, 2016). Representation on television in its various forms and
specifically related to educational and informational programming has been studied and
addressed over the years (Garretson, 2015). The networks broadcast first-run television series
and select third-party programming, exclusive movies, and shows (Goldstein, 1991). The
4

networks examined in this study are available via satellite, cable, and streaming outlets. The
content creators at these networks are both in-house employees and independent contractors
hired to develop programming. The networks designate decision-makers as the ultimate decision-
maker or part of the decision-making team. The decision-makers at these networks have various
titles and sit alone or are on teams of decision-makers. The networks in the study all have
mission and vision statements that value allowing kids to be themselves, have an open mind,
celebrate aspects of themselves and others, focus on inspiration, and be at the forefront of the
conversation. All the networks addressed in this study have broadcasted an LGBTQ+ character
and received compliments and criticism for doing so, yet still lack consistent LGBTQ+
representation.
Advocacy groups, such as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD),
conduct annual studies on LGBTQ+ representation in film and television (GLAAD, n.d.-b).
GLAAD (2017) tracks LGBTQ+ character inclusion. For the 2020–2021 television season,
GLAAD reported LGBTQ+ representation of 9.1% of regular series characters, which was a
decline from the prior year on cable networks and streaming services. The organization also
distributes annual awards at the GLAAD Media Awards to honor outstanding LGBTQ+
programming for young audiences and general kids and family programming to encourage,
celebrate, and recognize efforts to represent the LGBTQ+ community on television (Bahr, 2021).
Although GLAAD reported finding identified LGBTQ+ characters on television, they were
primarily on shows aimed at children 12 years old and older.
Multiple news outlets (Barber, 2015; CBN News, 2021; GLAAD, n.d.-a; Italie, 2019;
Whitley-Berry, 2021) indicate that there are also advocacy groups against LGBTQ+
representation in television programming that continue to polarize the discussion around
5

inclusive representation. Furthermore, the associated controversy resides within the divided
United States political system. During the Trump presidency, the administration did not
recognize the annual LGBTQ+ Pride celebration, and there were rollbacks of LGTBQ+
protections, including those against discrimination in health care based on one’s gender identity
(Biden, 2021). The Biden administration restored those protections, and Biden publicly
announced June as LGBTQ+ Pride month. The proclamation stated that “Pride is both a jubilant
communal celebration of visibility and a personal celebration of self-worth and dignity” (Biden,
2021, para. 3).
Some young children’s television networks use the current climate of support for the
LGBTQ+ community to educate viewers on LGTBQ+ individuals and celebrate their stories. For
example, in February 2021, Nick Jr. aired a song on its YouTube channel, though not on its
television broadcast station, teaching kids about the alphabet connecting the letter P to Pride: “P
is full of Pride” (Nickelodeon, 2021, 1:36)—with various LGBTQ+ flags as part of the imagery.
This display of LGBTQ+ support caused a stir on social media, both positively and negatively.
The core subjects of this study are television programming’s organization, the networks’
missions and visions, the content creators who develop the characters, who the ultimate decision-
maker is, and the various advocacy groups and controversy surrounding LGBTQ+ representation
in television.
Importance of the Study
The underrepresentation of LGBTQ+ characters on television is an important problem to
solve for various reasons. Family, school, community, and media—especially television—
influence children’s development (Rodgers, 2016). Studies have demonstrated that representation
6

can influence self-validation, self-worth, and socialization norms (Phinney et al., 2001; Reed,
2018; Rodgers, 2016).
LGBTQ+ youth are more vulnerable to drug and alcohol abuse, peer victimization,
mental health issues, and suicide than their heterosexual peers (Haas et al., 2010). Many
LGBTQ+ youth do not have real-life examples and role models from the LGBTQ+ community.
In addition, many LGTBQ+ youth experience religious pressure from their family and
community, which provides a further stressor in their identity formation (Williams et al., 2005).
Lack of LGBTQ+ representation on television can contribute to developmental stress on a young
person, leading to higher levels of self-harm and peer victimization (Robinson & Espelage,
2013).
A national study released in 2016 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) focused on the health risks for LGBTQ+ high school students in the United States and
found disproportionate rates of homelessness from family rejection, peer victimization,
depression, and suicide (CDC, 2021). Another national study found that LGBTQ+ youth are
twice as likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers (Russell & Joyner, 2001). A
further nationwide study of 7,800 LGBTQ+ youth found that 55.5% felt unsafe at school (Gay,
Lesbian & Straight Education Network, 2014).
Supportive, inclusive environments and education lower the rates of unhealthy stressors
(Rodgers, 2016). Many factors contribute to stressors LGBTQ+ youth face during their
developmental years, and media, through accurate representation, can provide a source of
normalization and a path of intervention to change their current trajectory. To remain relevant
and responsive to these significant developmental stressors, television networks must be
sufficiently and accurately representative of LGBTQ+ individuals and lifestyles. Television
7

networks that reflect optimized representation will facilitate meaningful change for these youth
and their families. Although young children’s networks claim diversity and inclusion in their core
principles, LGBTQ+ underrepresentation persists. Failure to improve in this area will perpetuate
the heteronormative narrative and continue to negatively impact these youth.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation, and operational (KMO) influences that facilitate or impede content creators and
decision-makers’ development or green-lighting of shows with LGBTQ+ characters on young
children’s television networks. While a complete gap analysis would theoretically address all
stakeholders in children’s television production, the content creators and network decision-
makers were chosen as the primary focus of this analysis for practical purposes because the
content creator starts the process by developing the characters, and the decision-makers end the
process by green-lighting shows for production and final airing. The analysis began with a
systematic examination to generate a list of assumed causes. As such, the questions that guided
this study were the following:
1. How do content creators and network decision-makers report that knowledge, motivation,
and operational factors are related to the development and decision to include LGBTQ+
character representation in young children’s television shows?
2. What are the criteria or barriers reported by content creators and network decision-
makers that facilitate or limit LGBTQ+ characters represented in young children’s
television shows?
3. To what extent are child development considerations investigated when producing young
children’s television shows?
8

Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis will be the methodological approach for this
qualitative research study. The interfering components associated with the lack of LGBTQ+
representation in young children’s television programming will be evaluated based on
knowledge, motivational, operational (KMO) influences, and related literature (Maxwell, 2013).
Clark and Estes (2008) outlined the necessity of identifying performance gaps to identify
what is needed to drive and achieve goals. Many young children’s network mission statements
outline the importance of diverse, inspirational, and innovative programming. Essential to this
study is understanding how knowledge motivates decisions to green-light shows with diverse
characters and inspirational and innovative program choices, specifically LGBTQ+ characters
and storylines. Clark and Estes stated that one aspect of assessing knowledge gaps is whether a
person pursues innovative and unique solutions to achieve goals by anticipating future
challenges. The study sought to understand whether content creators and decision-makers at
young children’s networks understand how to achieve LGBTQ+ representation in the character
choices they green-light. It starts by seeking to understand if content creators and decision-
makers focus on this representation as part of the mission goal and then assess if they lack
knowledge or skill regarding why and what they do about it. The analysis used the four
knowledge types: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). Examining how their knowledge impacts their decisions and how these connect to their
anticipation of current and future challenges and unique solutions will be critical to
understanding.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation in the workplace drives work,
persistence, and mental effort to achieve goals. Assessing the content creators' and decision-
9

makers’ motivation around their choices to pursue the goal will be the essential first step of
evaluating their motivation. Moreover, this study will assess how persistent they are over
competing goals as they relate to impeding or facilitating motivation. Lastly, this study will
evaluate their mental effort to invest in pursuing the goal. Their decision-making process for
achieving LGBTQ+ representation in character choices will focus on understanding their
motivation and action to achieve the goal.
Organizational, operational processes that do not allow choices to support the actions to
achieve goals challenge knowledge and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). This study also
evaluated the operational processes that hinder or facilitate achieving the goal to assess if there
are efficient and effective organizational work processes and tools to support the efforts. The
organization’s and the individual’s culture are critical to understand because these impacts
decision behavior.
Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that an organizational gap analysis, as it relates to the
leader and individuals working in the organization, will support identifying areas that need
attention for goal achievement. The gap analysis theoretical framework used to support the study
will help evaluate whether the content creators and decision-makers have the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors to support decisions regarding LGBTQ+ character choices
in programming they green-light. The nature of understanding all three inform the analysis and
the recommendations later in the study.
Since content creators develop the characters and the network executives drive
organizational strategy and culture and are the ultimate decision-makers for green-lighting
character choices for programming that goes to development and production, KMO influences
and processes were evaluated through a triangulated analysis of interviews, document/artifact
10

review, programming content analysis, and literature review. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated
that multiple data collection methods and triangulating data limit potential biases. Qualitative
methods are the most relevant approach for theory generation and inductive analysis of the
decision-makers’ particularized, personal, and subjective factors (Creswell, 2014). Using
qualitative methods to explore meaning and experience supports understanding if, how, and why
content creators and decision-makers (McEwan & McEwan, 2003) are not developing and green-
lighting more LGBTQ+ characters on young children’s television shows. The goal was to
maximize flexibility in exploring the problem of practice and emerging themes through
purposeful interviews and document, artifact, and programming content analysis (Creswell,
2014; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). An in-depth evaluation of the content creators and decision-
makers’ self-contained environments are particularly effective with a qualitative approach (Clark
& Estes, 2008; McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Through the empirical findings, this study produced
research-based solutions, recommendations, and potential interventions.
Definitions
Below are key terms that shape the study. Each term and its definition are central to the
study design and research framework.
• Green-Lighting: A film and television industry insider term referring to granting
permission to move a project forward (Encyclopedia.com, 2020). To greenlight a show, a
network decision-maker formally approves its financial plan and overall concept for
production (Lang & Shaw, 2013). A network decision-maker or decision-making team
has the final judgement rights for green-lighting a show for production. Sometimes a
chief executive officer or president of the network will also be part of the process and
then has ultimate green-lighting ability (HBO, n.d.; Lang & Shaw, 2013).
11

• Heteronormative: Heteronormative refers to a socially constructed belief that
heterosexual, opposite-sex attraction and behaviors are the normal or socially acceptable
standard and practices of sexual orientation (Crouch et al., 2017). Heteronormative
opinions and behaviors have manifested into systemic institutional, legal,
communication, and belief systems that have become pervasive cultural norms and
socially acceptable ways of viewing and behaving in the world and romantic relationships
(Lamont, 2017).
• Identity Formation: Identity formation is a process by which an individual combines
natural characteristics and prior experiences during their developmental stages from birth
through adulthood to form an individual identity (Erikson, 1968). Psychology and
sociology theorists have competing interests related to the journey of identity formation
but generally agree that childhood influences ultimately impact identity (Schachter &
Ventura, 2008).
• Normalization: Normalization, according to many dictionary definitions, is the bringing
of something that is not traditionally seen as normal to a standard or common condition,
acceptance level, or understanding (Dictionary.com, n.d.-a; Merriam-Webster, n.d.-a;
Wikimedia Foundation, n.d.-a). The frequency of seeing, experiencing, and learning
about others who are different from a person or to whom a person does not have exposure
can normalize those characteristics, attitudes, behaviors, or social norms and roles
(Murrar et al., 2020).
• Representation: Various dictionary definitions describe representation as the exposure or
portrayal of various demographic identities and stories, especially diverse marginalized
individuals (Cambridge University Press, n.d.-a; Merriam-Webster, n.d.-b).
12

Representation in television programming refers to how television constructs and
presents individuals, social groups, ideas, and events to the audience (Gerbner & Gross,
1976; Panis et al., 2019).
• Symbolic Annihilation: Lack of representation, or symbolic annihilation, in media is the
absence of representation of diverse groups of people (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). Tuchman
(2000; Tuchman et al., 1978) defined symbolic annihilation as making individuals or
groups not socially valued invisible through omission, trivialization, and condemnation in
mass media. Merskin (1998) then enhanced the term by defining it as a process by which
mass media ignores, excludes, marginalizes, or trivializes individuals who belong to
specific groups.
• Validation: Various dictionaries define validation as the validity, recognition, and
affirmation of various aspects of an individual (Cambridge University Press, n.d.-b;
Dictionary.com, n.d.-b; Merriam-Webster, n.d.-c; Wikimedia Foundation, n.d.-b).
Validation concerns a person’s diversity and identity as it relates to belonging as well as
recognition and affirmation of self and social acceptance (Verkuyten, 2014).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One presented key concepts and
terminology important to LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s television programming.
This chapter also discussed the context and background of the lack of this representation in
young children’s television, including who develops the characters and storylines and who
ultimately makes the decisions and why it is important to study, and an initial review of the gap
analysis methodology. Chapter Two outlines previous research on the pertinent concepts related
to the study. It explores television consumption, television’s impact on identity formation and
13

social roles, how and why representation matters in television, the challenges LGBTQ+ youth
face, and television’s role in a child’s development. Chapter Three then details the research
framework and KMO factors examined and evaluated in this study. This chapter describes the
participant selection, data collection, and other methods employed in this research. Chapter Four
subsequently analyzes the content creators and decision-maker interviews, documents/artifacts,
programming content analysis, and literature review. Finally, Chapter Five offers solutions and
recommendations for change, as well as a future research proposal.
14

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter provides a comprehensive examination of the literature related to the lack of
LGBTQ+ representation in television programming for young children. The literature review
begins with a brief history of television culture and an introduction to how child developmental
concerns infiltrated the conversation about television for youth. The chapter then journeys from
how much television children consume to a discussion about television’s impact on identity
formation and social roles. From there, the chapter discusses representation on television from
many demographic perspectives, followed by LGBTQ+ trauma statistics and an evaluation of
LGBTQ+ validation and representation in young children’s television programming. The chapter
then explores the structure of television and the television networks’ role and choices regarding
LGBTQ+ characters and storylines. The chapter concludes by outlining how the theoretical
framework of organizational KMO gap analysis, primarily focused on content developers and
network decision-makers, guides the study.
Television and Youth
Introduced in 1927, television by the 1940s was in over two million American homes
(Goldstein, 1991; Turow, 2016). By the 1950s, watching television together was a family activity
between parents and children (Goldstein, 1991; Turow, 2016). In 1969, 95% of American
households had at least one television set in their home, and by 2000, this percentage had
increased to 99% (The Nielsen Company, n.d.-a). As television became commonplace, the
United States Census Bureau (2004) reported an average of 2.4 televisions per American
household. At the same time, there was a rise in children watching television alone and networks
scheduling simultaneous programming for adults and children to facilitate families watching
television separately (Goldstein, 1991; Turow, 2016). Television is now part of mainstream
15

culture; television viewership via public networks, private networks, cable, or digital platforms
has evolved, but its place in children’s lives has only increased (Goldstein, 1991; Hilmes et al.,
2012; Turow, 1981, 2016). Over the years, there have been many efforts to assess television’s
impact on a child’s development, including academic studies, advocacy group efforts, regulatory
campaigns, laws, and political debate (Bryant & Zillman, 2002; Goldstein, 1991; Turow, 1981,
2016). The subjects of interest in this literature review are how much television a child
consumes, television’s impact on development, diverse representation’s influence on identity and
socialization, where LGBTQ+ representation fits into the narrative, and the role of television
networks, content developers, and decision-makers.
Television Consumption
Watching television is an integral part of a young child’s life. Preschoolers, for example,
consume a significant amount of television, and their watching increases when parents feel there
is a perceived benefit for learning (Njoroge et al., 2013). Njoroge et al. (2013) conducted a study
of 596 parents of 3- to 5-year-olds from March 2009 to April 2010 in two metropolitan pediatric
clinics in Seattle and diverse academic practice networks. They found that preschoolers watch an
average of 7.7 hours of television per week. They also noted that when parents perceived a
positive educational outcome from watching television, the child watched 1.5 hours more than a
child whose parents did not see the educational benefit (Njoroge et al., 2013).
Many studies have found a correlation between television consumption of youth and
academic performance including a meta-analysis of 30 cross-sectional studies from 1958 to 2018
totaling 106,653 participants aged 4 to 18 from 23 countries assessed the frequency of media
time and academic performance (Adelantado-Renau et al., 2019). This meta-analysis found that
children watched between 1.8 and 2.8 hours of television per day and more than 28% watched
16

over 4 hours per day. Furthermore, the assessment indicated that the more television a child
watched, the lower the academic outcomes; however, the study noted that the impacts of
television consumption on academic, cognitive, and behavioral development depend on age,
amount watched, and other factors, such as parent and school involvement (Adelantado-Renau et
al., 2019; Kostyrka-Allchorne et al., 2017).
A systematic review of 539 independent studies conducted between 1949 and 2004 found
that children from 0 to 18 years old consistently viewed an average of 1.8 to 2.8 hours of
television per day, and 28% watched more than 4 hours per day (Marshall et al., 2006). While the
report acknowledged that age-related viewing trends varied across studies, it concluded that
children between 0 and 6 years old watch approximately 111 minutes per day, and children
between 7 and 12 watch about 126 minutes per day. It was also clear that if a child watched
much television at a young age, they were likely to continue to watch much television at older
ages (Marshall et al., 2006). The study further evaluated the effects of extended periods of media
use on children’s physical and mental health (Marshall et al., 2006). The lack of change in
average television consumption hours for children over those 50 years can be applied to children
and television consumption today. Moreover, research has shown that the rise of digital media
consumption, in combination with television consumption, has increased total time with media,
with adverse impacts on psychological and social development (Lissak, 2018; Marshall et al.,
2006). Young children watching television is a cultural norm in the United States, and television
networks contribute to this norm (Richert et al., 2011). Young children watch significant amounts
of television, and research has found that this practice impacts their emotional well-being, world
views, and role in society.
17

Television’s Impact on Identity Formation and Social Roles
Television has an impact on children’s development, especially their identity formation.
Television can contribute to children’s self-affirmation, family affirmation, and acceptance of
others by showcasing characters and storylines that represent their own identities, family
identities, or validation of others (Ellithorpe & Bleakley, 2016; Oliver et al., 2020). Various
identity development theories are rooted in developmental psychology (Lerner et al., 2015).
Psychology and sociology theorists claim that influences such as parents and television have a
role in identity formation (Schachter & Ventura, 2008).
Bronfenbrenner (1977) claimed that identity development incorporates the individual and
multiple levels of influences. Parents and the larger culture are aspects of the constructed levels
of influence on a child’s development (Super & Harkness, 2002). Erikson (1968) described
children’s identity formation through the psychological approach as a continuum of the cognitive
development process that incorporates navigation of self through self-awareness, self-realization,
crisis, uncertainty, self-reflection, and negotiation of relationships with others. Sociologists differ
slightly in their perspective of identity formation as a child’s development into adulthood
through the socialization of adults and outside influences rather than self-development processes
(Daniel, 2002). However, both perspectives recognize the importance of outside influences to
personal development and social relationships (Buckingham, 2008). Media, and specifically
television, are an outside influence and part of the larger culture. Media contribute to a child’s
sense of self, sense of family, and acceptance of others (Dines & Humez, 2011).
Watching television is a component of childhood culture, norms, and development
(Calvert et al., 2002; Richert et al., 2011). Connecting with on-screen characters impacts a child’s
social learning (Richert et al., 2011). Bandura’s (1977, 1989, 1998, 2001; Bussey & Bandura,
18

1999) social cognitive theory asserts that observation of others, such as in watching television,
yields learning. Bandura’s (2001) social cognitive theory posits that television exposure
influences observational learning. The media can influence attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
through symbolic communication (Bandura, 2001). Social cognitive theory refers to vicarious
symbolic experiences, like digesting television, as impacting learning (Bandura, 2001). The
symbolic environment of television can become the viewers’ social reality, through which they
learn what is acceptable and not acceptable. Television exposure can also inform the learner
about socially valued and not socially valued groups (Bandura, 1977). Bandura (2001) asserted
that television consumption can teach beliefs, perspectives, attitudes, and behaviors.
Researchers have studied television and its impact on children from both a cognitive and
social learning standpoint for over 50 years and found variable learning and social outcomes
(Schmidt & Anderson, 2009). Rice et al. (1990), for example, found that preschoolers watching
Sesame Street exhibited developmental gains in vocabulary, gender identification, and
relationships with siblings. Anderson et al. (2000) similarly tracked Blue’s Clues, a public
broadcasting television show for preschoolers, which also supported development in prosocial
behavior and various other educational goals. As children get older and spend more time
watching television, their knowledge and comprehension of programs increase (Lemish, 2011,
2015). As an example of adapting to what is socially acceptable, one meta-analysis found a
strong correlation between aggressive behavior and frequent viewing of violent television
targeted at boys (Bushman & Anderson, 2001).
Martin et al. (2002) claimed that identity formation begins with gender identification and
connection as early as preschool. Kahlenberg et al. (2010) conducted a content analysis on over
455 commercials on the Nickelodeon network. The analysis demonstrated that commercials
19

often portrayed girls indoors and boys outdoors, an example of gender stereotyping that aims to
increase sales and impacts how girls and boys interpret what their desires should be. Welch et al.
(2021) also found that advertisers used learning concepts to manipulate boys and girls into
wanting their products through gender stereotype cues, such as loud sound effects for boys and
soft sound effects for girls.
Many theories have emerged and about identity formation and identity development, such
as social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), social cognitive theory (Bussey & Bandura, 1999),
cognitive development theory (Ruble, 1994), and gender schema theory (Medin, 1989).
Bandura’s (2001) social cognitive theory concludes that exposure to something creates a model
and that, when exposed to undesirable behavior that is rewarded, preschoolers mimic that
behavior. Frequent exposure to television influences positive and negative normative beliefs
about groups and social situations (Wilson, 2008). A study that assessed 486 mass media
scholars’ perceptions on the effects of television on children found that they validated a causal
relationship between television viewing of children to their views of the world. However, the
study also formed ambiguous relationships between long-term viewing and children’s alienation
and social values and attributed the uncertainty to a need for developing theories of society
confirmation (Turow, 1985).
Cultivation theory, introduced by Gerbner and Gross (1976), is unique in that it focuses
on a macro system approach to media internalization through long-term television exposure.
According to the theory, through long-term exposure, children form a symbolic environment that
orients their attitudes, behavior, and societal realities (Gerbner, 1970; Gerbner et al., 2002;
Potter, 2014). In this way, extensive and cumulative exposure to specific characters on television
can impact an individual’s social reality (Bryant & Zillman, 2002; Gerbner & Gross, 1976;
20

Signorielli & Morgan, 1990; Signorielli et al., 2019). The theory further posits that short-term
television watching does little, but long-term viewing affects how individuals view others and
society (Lemish, 2006).
According to cultivation theory, a person who watches much television perceives the real
world through association in similar and consistent ways (Gerbner et al., 2002). Cultivation
theory suggests that the frequency and length of time watching television can cultivate positive
and negative perceptions and attitudes of groups of people and their characteristics (Gerbner et
al., 1994). Gross (2012) stated that long-term television viewing and the messages sent shape a
person’s concept of reality, general attitude, and beliefs. One 30-year study on television
portrayals found that social tolerance of marginalized individuals is more likely when such
individuals are frequently, positively, and accurately represented on television (Garretson, 2015).
Cultivation theory asserts that LGBTQ+ representation on television cultivates views associated
with LGBTQ+ individuals and lifestyles, and when television portrays stereotypes, viewers’
attitudes follow suit (Calzo & Ward, 2009; Netzley, 2010). Therefore, hours and years in front of
the television can lead children to extend stereotypical characters into real-life beliefs about
individuals’ attributes and roles in society (Gerbner, 1998; Signorielli, 2012). Character
representation also influences self-validation, specifically around race, gender, and sexual
orientation (Lind, 2013; Martin, 2008; Signorielli & Kahlenberg, 2010; Wilson, 2008; Wilson et
al., 2002). Television thus directly contributes to a child’s worldview, and the characters
represented can influence self-validation and social acceptance.
Representation on Television
Representation on television refers to how television constructs and presents individuals,
social groups, ideas, and events to the audience (Fürsich, 2010; Merriam-Webster, n.d.-b).
21

Character representation in television programming can impact how individuals view themselves
and others. Both academic and non-academic circles frequently discuss the types of characters
and storylines presented to television consumers. Researchers have extensively analyzed
representation on television and its impact on individuals and society related to identities such as
gender, ethnicity, race, culture, and sexuality. As such, both underrepresentation and stereotypical
representation of diverse characters in media have been studied and addressed over the years,
particularly in regards to race (Coltrane & Messineo, 2000; Eschholz, 2002; Eschholz et al.,
2002; Glascock & Preston-Schreck, 2004; Harwood & Anderson, 2002), gender (Aubrey &
Harrison, 2004; Brown et al., 2009; Browne, 1998; Glascock & Preston-Schreck, 2004; Lauzen
& Dozier, 2005), and sexual orientation (Fouts & Inch, 2005; White & Kurpius, 2002).
Representation is how television constructs and presents individuals, social groups, ideas, and
events to their audience (Fürsich, 2010; Markina, 2021). Reed (2018) posited that representation
on television of groups or individuals who are not socially valued or the dominant culture is
necessary for self-validation, allowing them to positively see themselves within society’s context
as characters or storylines (Reed, 2018). Humanizing portrayals can offer a foundation for
emotionally tolerant attitudes (Cialdini & Sagarin, 2005). Furthermore, representation of
characters and storylines to which children can relate can positively impact identity formation
and strengthen psychological well-being (Phinney et al., 2001).
Social tolerance and self-acceptance have increased due to the representation of diverse
characters on television shows (Schiappa et al., 2006). An empirical study of 245 undergraduate
students at a large midwestern state university found that 98% identified as heterosexual with
minimal exposure to LGBTQ+ people. This study found that the longer a person watches a show
with gay characters, the more positive that person’s perceptions are of gay people. The study
22

specifically assessed the possibility that Will & Grace, a television show with gay characters,
could reduce prejudice through parasocial real-life interactions (Schiappa et al., 2006). Long-
term television viewing can influence an individual to have a parasocial, one-sided relationship
with a character, which can influence their beliefs and attitudes about the character as a real
person (Horton & Wohl, 2016). Gross (1991) contended that television influences viewers’
beliefs and attitudes about groups of people, especially if there is a lack of exposure to that
particular group or individual.
A study conducted using content analysis of gender representation in television
programming for preschool children found that consistent watching of particular shows and
characters validated gender stereotypes (Walsh & Leaper, 2020). Walsh and Leaper (2020)
assessed the gender representation of 34 preschool television shows from four major children’s
networks from 2015 to 2016 and found that gender representation impacted perceptions of
identity (Walsh & Leaper, 2020). The study concluded that although bias and stereotypes exist,
more research is necessary to evaluate intersectional identities to form a complete picture (Walsh
& Leaper, 2020).
A study conducted over 30 years analyzed the representation of gender and minority
groups in character portrayals in television and associated changes in social tolerance (Garretson,
2015). The results indicated that fewer diverse characters equated to lower social tolerance, and
more lesbian and gay characters presented to young viewers equated to a higher tolerance of
lesbian and gay individuals (Garretson, 2015). Higher social tolerance levels occur with higher
numbers of diverse character portrayals and with increased television consumption (Garretson,
2015).
23

Presentation of gender and other identities on television is critical during developmental
years (Halim et al., 2013). Cultivation theory posits that children connect the real world to what
they see on television over time (Signorielli, 2012). Young children watching television can even
connect cartoon characters to specific traits, behaviors, and identity markers (Kuhlmeier et al.,
2003). One study of children ages 6 to 14 found that exposure to a cartoon representing a
stereotyped social group reinforced that stereotype in the children’s views, and stereotypical
behavior also increased (Campbell et al., 2016). Although inclusive representation influences
positive perceptions of self and others, television networks continue to produce content that lacks
socially valued diverse characters, coined symbolic annihilation (Gerbner & Gross, 1976;
Merskin, 1998; Ohye & Daniel, 1999; Tuchman et al., 1978). Not portraying or inaccurately
portraying certain character types on television reinforces the lack of value of those groups and
elevates the value of other groups (Klein & Shiffman, 2009). In contrast, strengthening self-
efficacy through symbolic connection to representative character idols has been shown to have
merit or validity (Cheung & Yue, 2003). Television and the longevity of exposure can set
standards for looking, acting, believing, and behaving related to being a member of certain
groups (Paik & Comstock, 2016; Shrum et al., 1998; Singer et al., 1998). Therefore, lack of or
inaccurate representation on television can lead to the socialization of preferred groups of
people—such as White, male, or heterosexual people—and the alienation of those not belonging
to socially respected groups (Klein & Shiffman, 2009).
Klein and Shiffman (2009) conducted an early content analysis on cartoons from 1930 to
the mid-1990s that found that 16.4% of all characters were female. However, women
consistently make up approximately 50% of the United States population (U.S. Census Bureau,
n.d.). Racial and ethnic minorities represented 8.7% of all characters, although they made up
24

14.8% of the American population at the time (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Finally, 0.03% of
characters were not heterosexual, and all of these characters were gay males, though research
indicates that 9% of the population at the time were gay, lesbian, or bisexual adults (McWhirter
et al., 1990; Mosher et al., 2005; Sell et al., 1995). In short, cartoons symbolically annihilated the
LGBTQ+ population in that period.
Walsh and Leaper (2020) conducted a gender representation content analysis of 34
television shows for preschool children across four different major networks during 2015 and
2016. They found male characters to outnumber female characters. In addition, female characters
wore significantly more stereotypical colors and accessories and participated more often in
performing arts activities than the male characters.
Studies like that of Walsh and Leaper (2020) were a response to early scholars’
assessment that television influences a child’s view of self and the world around them (Gerbner,
1998) and that presenting biased and stereotypical character identities and roles to young
children can influence them in both positive and negative ways. Many different groups have
studied representation on television. As LGBTQ+ studies have been conducted primarily on teen
and adult television shows, there is a dearth of information analyzing this representation in
young children’s television programming and its impact on LGBTQ+ positive identity formation.
This representation in children’s television is important because LGBTQ+ youth trauma statistics
are higher than among their heterosexual counterparts.
Youth LGBTQ+ Trauma Statistics
National data show that LGBTQ+ youth are much more likely than heterosexual youth to
experience isolation, fear, and self-harm (Bickford, 2017). Studies show that these young people
exhibit elevated rates of mental health issues, self-harm, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, and
25

behavior compared to heterosexual peers (Fergusson et al., 2005; Marshal et al., 2011). Children
who live and go to school in areas with high rates of LGBTQ+ hate crimes experience even
higher rates of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (Duncan & Hatzenbuehler, 2014; Duncan et al.,
2014; LoSchiavo et al., 2019; Mereish et al., 2014). Peer victimization through bias-based
bullying has significant implications for LGBTQ+ youth concerning mental health concerns
(Poteat et al., 2013). Youth who come out in the early years of childhood and adolescence
experience more harassment (D’Augelli et al., 2002; Kosciw et al., 2013). Societal and
community factors influence levels of peer victimization, mental health issues, and suicidal
thoughts and behaviors (Duncan & Hatzenbuehler, 2014; Duncan et al., 2014; Russell & Fish,
2016). Communities that support LGBTQ+ rights, have schools with more robust protections
and alliances for LGBTQ+ citizens, and include education efforts around normalizing these
citizens have lower instances of negative behaviors (Hatzenbuehler, 2011). The more exposure
there is, the more normalized LGBTQ+ individuals become. Gallup (n.d.) pointed to growing
national support for LGBTQ+ rights, such as same-sex marriage and serving in the military;
however, the 2021 poll indicated that 18% of people were very satisfied with the acceptance of
gays and lesbians in the nation, and 32% felt that gay and lesbian relations are morally wrong.
Espelage et al. (2018) conducted a study in 2015 with 11,794 high school students, aged
14 to 18 years old, in a geographically diverse area: Dane County, Wisconsin. The study focused
on various topics, including peer relations, drug use, aggression, and victimization. The results
indicated that LGBTQ+ youth faced increased mental health and peer victimization levels
compared to their heterosexual peers (Espelage et al., 2018).
Minority stress theory is concerned with sociocultural prejudice and discrimination
against minority individuals and groups, which induce stressors that can manifest into mental
26

health concerns and outcomes (Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 1995, 2003). The internalization of
prejudice and fear contribute to unhealthy behaviors (Meyer, 1995, 2003), and minority stress
theory states that, because of discrimination based on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia,
LGBTQ+ individuals have higher rates of mental health issues and suicidal thoughts and
behaviors (Cramer et al., 2015; Hendricks & Testa, 2012; Velez et al., 2016). A study on 394
LGBTQ+ youth and 394 demographically matched non-LGBTQ+ youth who died by suicide
between 2013 and 2016 used law enforcement and medical examiner reports from the National
Violent Death Reporting System (Ream, 2020). Ream (2020) found that 59% of LGBTQ+
adolescent suicides (between the ages of 12 and 17) were connected to bullying, family/peer
rejection, and sexual/gender identity struggles as compared to 30% of non-LGBTQ+ young
adults (between the ages of 18 and 29), yet LGBTQ+ young adult suicides are 3.6 times higher
than adolescent suicides.
An empirical study conducted with 335 transgender-identifying individuals analyzed
minority stress theory. The study found that minority stressors of experiences of prejudice and
discrimination, internalized anti-trans attitudes, and fear of anti-trans stigma manifested into
depression, high drug and alcohol use, and increased suicide risk (Tebbe & Moradi, 2016).
Goldbach et al. (2015) claimed that stress is higher among LGBTQ+ youth because their
identity is a developmental stressor in addition to the developmental challenges youth already
face. Suicide rates for LGBTQ+ youth are five times those of their heterosexual peers (Haas et
al., 2010) and are driven in part by individual stigma, prejudice, and discrimination. Parental
rejection, school harassment, bullying, and violence against LGBTQ+ youth around the world
connect to suicide attempts and self-harm (Grossman et al., 2016; Haas et al., 2010; Meyer,
2003; Plöderl & Fartacek, 2009; Stone et al., 2014; Yadegarfard et al., 2014). Minority stress
27

theory and LGBTQ+ trauma statistics indicate a need for more avenues for normalization.
Television is one such avenue for normalization.
LGBTQ+ Validation and Representation
Representation in media occurs when groups or individuals who are not socially valued
or members of the dominant culture see themselves positively within society via characters and
storylines (Reed, 2018). Laws protect LGBTQ+ identity, such as the Supreme Court Obergefell
v. Hodges (2014) decision that states must recognize same-sex marriages, yet it continues to be
associated with political tension and is not always legally and socially valued. North Carolina
state law exemplifies this controversy (North Carolina General Assembly, 2016b), which restricts
legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and requires transgender individuals to use biological
sex bathrooms. In early 2022, there has been a rise in anti-LGBTQ+ laws and media attention.
One example of many is the Florida Parental Rights Education bill (HB 1557), otherwise known
as the “Don’t say gay or trans” bill (Florida House of Representatives, 2022), designed to not
allow for conversation in primary schools K–12 about sexuality identity. Although LGBTQ+
representation in media, specifically on television and in literature, is increasing for young
adolescents and adults, it is still limited for children in the fifth grade or younger and lacks
complete representation of the diverse LGBTQ+ culture and family norms (Gillig & Murphy,
2016; Klein & Shiffman, 2009).
Gay and lesbian characters on mainstream television have grown in prevalence in the
United States (Cook, 2018; Gross, 2001; Ng, 2013; Siebler, 2010; Tropiano, 2002), as have
studies on their impact on individuals and society (Collier et al., 2009; Duggan & McCreary,
2004; Gomillion & Giuliano, 2011; Gonsoulin, 2010; Kessler, 2011; Siebler, 2010). Some studies
have discussed the drastic shift of same-sex families on television as a positive contrast to the
28

negative representation prevalent in the 1950s (Fisher et al., 2007; Gross, 2001; Turchiano,
2018). Others claim that the narrow representation of the White, middle-class LGBTQ+
population on television widens the gap of inequity and prevents accurate representation of the
diversity of the LGBTQ+ culture (Bond, 2015; Carbado, 2013; Rosenblum, 1994; Ruderman-
Looff, 2019; Taylor, 2018). Although research on LGBTQ+ teen and adult representation is
growing, there is a dearth of studies on the impact on young children’s television.
Gross (2001) maintained that, by labeling non-heterosexuality and cisgender identities as
deviant, social inequality and the dominant social structures dictate what is valued and what is
not. Unlike the case of heterosexuality, sexual activity is the assumed leading indicator of
homosexuality, prompting social concerns around innocent children watching television with
LGBTQ+ characters and storylines (Lemish, 2011; Wallis & VanEvery, 2000). Exposing children
to non-heteronormative behavior raises moral questions (J. P. Robinson & Espelage, 2012; K. H.
Robinson, 2012). Thorfinnsdottir and Jensen (2017) conducted content analysis and qualitative
interviews with Danish children’s advocates and organization representatives. Although same-
sex marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 and the culture accepts non-heterosexual
identities, the study found that the content designed for under 12 years of age did not have
LGBTQ+ representation and the participants claimed that content was not age-appropriate
(Thorfinnsdottir & Jensen, 2017).
The participants in the Thorfinnsdottir and Jensen (2017) study connected LGBTQ+
characters with sexualized scenarios. This correlation was in direct contrast to how they felt
about heterosexual representation, which asserts their connection of LGBTQ+ characters with
sex and, therefore, not appropriate for young audiences. The assessment was that affection
toward the opposite sex was appropriate and natural, affirming the heteronormative dominant
29

culture and alienation of anything different. Considerations of what is appropriate for children
and the over-sexualized perception of non-heterosexual people dominated the discussion.
Thorfinnsdottir and Jensen (2017) found that the sexual connotation of non-heteronormative
intimacy, unlike heteronormative intimacy, translated to its absence in children’s television
programming.
Numerous scholars have identified that LGBTQ+ identity formation begins earlier than
puberty (Adelson et al., 2016, 2021; Hancock et al., 2012; Horowitz & Itzkowitz, 2011), yet
early childhood LGBTQ+ character representation on mainstream television is largely absent. In
many cases, television is the only source for how young children form opinions on LGBTQ+
characteristics and norms (Bond, 2015; Hart, 2000). One investigation into preadolescent gender-
variant youth television indicated that representation was inaccurate and underrepresented
(Kelso, 2015). Therefore, even when television introduces LGBTQ+ characters, they are not
always representative of the diversity of the LGBTQ+ community. The different identities under
LGBTQ+ tend to get lumped together; however, the deep diversity within the culture indicates a
need for more scholarly studies and representation (Kelso, 2015).
An empirical study conducted at the department of communication studies at the
University of San Diego worked with 573 youth ranging from 13 to 19 years old with self-
reported LGBTQ+ identity markers. The study found a significant relationship between exposure
to LGBTQ+ media and the positive well-being of teens (Bond, 2015). Bond (2015) indicated that
the representation of LGBTQ+ characters, although lacking, overcomes symbolic annihilation
(Gross, 2001) by acknowledging their existence at all. Bond concluded that although media
exposure did support well-being, it did not resolve discrepancies in self-identity, specifically
around understanding and labeling feelings. LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s
30

television programming is thus lacking yet necessary. The intent, responsibility, and process of
television content developers, networks, and decision-makers for producing content is part of the
equation of why certain characters are represented or not.
Television Networks’ Role
Television networks are businesses designed to distribute content to increase viewership,
attract advertisers, and meet stakeholders’ expectations (Turow, 2016). Jackson Turner’s (2000)
historical analysis detailed television networks’ process from the producer selling and network
buying content relationship. The networks buy airtime on local stations. The guiding aspect of
the process is the funding engine of commercial time to advertise products to viewing audiences
(Jackson Turner, 2000). Television networks have standards departments that self-regulate and
control program content related to the audience, advertisers, producers, and local stations
(Jackson Turner, 2000; Turow, 2016). Department and network heads create a network’s
standards guided by the network’s vision, mission, and philosophy (Jackson Turner, 2000;
Turow, 2016). There are competing considerations when networks and local affiliates decide
what to put on the air: producers want editorial freedom, while networks and advertisers want
profit, and interest groups and regulatory agencies demand social and moral responsibility
(Jackson Turner, 2000). The standards departments are the regulatory bodies that manage these
competing interests.
Bryant (2007) edited a compilation of chapters by various authors outlining how
children’s television is structured and organized. Children’s television is an ecosystem of
relationships between parties that impact the television community, such as content creators
(entertainment and educational), content programmers (broadcast, cable, and online networks),
toy companies, advertisers, government bodies, advocacy groups, and philanthropic
31

organizations (Bryant, 2007, p. 37). Although the relationships between parties have evolved
over the years, especially with the emergence of digital children’s programming, the internal
dynamics and external pressures remain aspects of content and production decision making
(Bryant, 2007, p. 53).
Bryant (2007) described children’s television as highly profitable and divided into three
age groups: 2 to 5, 6 to 11, and 12 to 17. The industry refers to the combined 2- to 11-year-old
segment as children’s television. Children aged 2 to 7 are considered the audience for young’s
television. In the 1950s, networks designed children’s television to sell televisions by getting
more household members to watch. In the 1960s and 70s, cartoons became synonymous with
children’s television. In the 1980s, non-animation programming came onto the scene through
cable programming. In the 1990s, networks were getting out of children’s programming due to
the demand for a diversity of programming. The 1990 Children’s Television Act and the FCC
required that major networks produce three hours of educational/information programming per
week. The 1990s also saw a shift in the major players from networks to broadcast to cable. For
children’s television, it is a regulatory requirement for broadcast stations to offer no
compensation to affiliates for running programs or local advertising space; therefore, no local
children’s ads are usually run.
Bryant (2007) outlined that program directors at local affiliates manage the children’s
programming in response to advertising and subscribers. The goal of the dominant media
conglomerates Time Warner Inc., The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation Inc., and
Viacom Inc./CBS is to sell products at a margin. However, because children’s television is a
small part of their more extensive portfolio, it is hard to measure profit. There are three types of
broadcast acquisition processes. One is original programming funded, produced, and distributed
32

by the networks. The second, syndication, is programming sold by distribution companies to
local television stations and cable networks. Thirdly, local orientation is all locally produced and
sold, and cable networks self-produce or use independent production firms. If shows are
independently pitched to networks, the parties forge a shared control agreement. Shows are
pitched to the production company, distributor, or network with a concept or narrative and then
moved to storyboard or pilot with a licensing agreement. Bryant (2007) described that networks,
holding the money necessary to produce the show, have control of the scripts. The production
companies and networks divide ownership. The networks and stations work with trusted
production companies to create profit. The average children’s show package for sale comprises
66 episodes. Advertisers are a large part of the sale and production process. In addition, networks
generally have an advisory board of development psychologists, educators, mass communication
scholars, and advocates who comprise a think tank for strategic and tactical decision-making
advice (Turow, 2016). All networks also have web links, considered streaming (Bryant, 2007;
Turow, 2016).
Program acquisition is only one component of the process, and promotion is critical to
establishing a brand and viewership (Bryant, 2007; Turow, 2016). The profits increase through
avenues such as book and movie tie-ins, videos, games, music, and toys (Turow, 2016). The role
of a programming and character fan base has become part of the financial considerations, and
fans can directionally dictate characters and storylines, including marketing opportunities across
a multitude of media sources (Jenkins, 2010). Jenkins (2010) asserted that transmedia
storytelling and communication are an intersection of influences among film, television, comics,
advertising, game, social networks, and other digital practices. Jenkins (2010) stated that
information gets distributed throughout the systems and establishes a communication process,
33

and television is one part of this transmedia storytelling outlet. Therefore, content creators and
decision-makers consider how the creation and production of characters of one television
program will influence what takes place on other platforms and translated across the entire
entertainment system (Jenkins, 2010; Turow, 2016).
Children’s television is highly profitable with additional add-ons such as movie deals and
toys, but technology and the complicated nature of development are consistently shifting the way
networks invest, develop, and take risks (Panis et al., 2019). Congress, regulatory agencies,
advocacy groups, and networks themselves invest in children’s television assessment, and
academic research has assessed the impact of television on children, increasing the complication
of networks’ production processes (Bryant, 2007). Many networks, notably Nickelodeon as
identified by Banet-Weiser (2007) focus on the child in a commercial context. Banet-Weiser
(2007) asserts that “political citizenship” and “commercial citizenship” of the child informs its
brand strategies and approach to character and storyline development. They argue that children’s
relationship with television must be looked at from the political and cultural perspective. The
networks, therefore, attach value to the power of the child and see them as valuable assets to the
purchasing power (Banet-Weiser, 2007).
Panis et al. (2019) outlined the green-lighting process. The process starts with pitching
concept. Content developers originate the character and storyline vision (Panis et al., 2019).
Panis et al (2019) describe that once the concept is selected, individuals or teams of show-
runners monitor the concept vision. Decision-makers consider various elements before and
during production, usually around character and storyline choices, including character brands,
relatability, fantasy, action, empowerment, theories and qualitative statistics on viewership
trends, and advertiser dollars. Once a concept is in the development stage, it starts with a content
34

creators’ short description, known in animation as the “bible” or “pilot" in non-animation, of
characters, general storyline, setting, and tone for the executive to understand. Once an executive
green-lights a show, production begins. There are many checks and balances along the way for
executives to review character choice and script direction, among other factors. For example, a
group comprised of network executives, producers, the National Education Association, the
National Parent Teacher Association, and major universities writes guidelines to establish the
necessary considerations in producing children’s television (Jackson Turner, 2000).
Many critics, including politicians during election season, debate what is appropriate
children’s television content (Turow, 2016). Each network also has program practice
departments, including educators, development psychologists, parent groups, and other experts,
to assess appropriate content for children (Bryant, 2007). Each network self-regulates and has a
vision and standards by which they abide regarding what they show and do not show. The
decision-maker or decision-making team for green-lighting and creating a show is ultimately a
network executive or body of executives designed to green-light production (Goldstein, 1991;
Turow, 2016). In some cases, titles such as head of content or development, president/CEO, or
chief creative officer are designated as final decision-maker or used in situations where
consensus or veering from traditional programming is being discussed (Goldstein, 1991; Turow,
2016). The production of television shows, from content development to decision making, is
rooted in various factors, including economic, social, political, and artistic choices (Cantor, 2015;
Turow, 2016).
A qualitative study with 135 children’s television producers worldwide found that
discussions of homosexuality in programming were highly discouraged, avoided, or nonexistent
in shows produced for children’s television (Lemish, 2011). Lemish (2011) described it as
35

hegemonic regulation when a PBS show with a lesbian family caused controversy, leading to its
cancelation. Lemish concluded that dominant ideologies, seeing children as vulnerable, fear of
audience disapproval and action, fear of cancellation of programming, and threats to employment
were reasons for not producing what many deemed controversial content.
In 2017, Disney Junior aired an episode of its animated children’s television series Doc
McStuffins featuring a lesbian couple as doll moms (GLAAD, 2017). Groups like GLAAD
praised Disney’s inclusive choice. However, many other groups, like One Million Moms,
expressed disapproval and threatened a boycott, claiming the show was immoral and
inappropriate for young children (Cooper, 2017). Although a few shows have showcased
LGBTQ+ characters over the last 10 years, such representation is rare and causes controversy
when it occurs. Creators of children’s television programming have discussed how hard it is to
convince television executives to produce LGBTQ+ characters or storylines (Dudok de Wit,
2020). Although there is a lack of scholarly research, show creators have used social media, like
Twitter, and published interviews to express their harrowing experiences with network
executives when producing children’s shows with LGBTQ+ characters (Dudok de Wit, 2020).
Show creator Chris Nee, who identifies as lesbian, for example, has been interviewed in pop
culture outlets to discuss representation on children’s television, the difficulty of creating and
getting inclusive shows green-lit, awards received by her show Doc McStuffins, and the
importance and success of the first Black doctor and first lesbian character in Disney
programming (Gupta, 2021).
The current socially conscious climate has attracted new attention to representation in
television and television advertising. The public demands representation in many cultural
settings; as a result, television is measured, and analytics are published to foster transparency in
36

the representation of diverse groups. The Nielsen Company (n.d.-a), a media market researcher,
launched Gracenote inclusion analytics (Gracenote, n.d.) to measure and hold accountable
networks for their diversity representation (Deggans, 2020; The Nielsen Company, n.d.-b).
Advocacy groups like GLAAD track, research, and advocate for producing accurate LGBTQ+
characters and storylines. GLAAD advocates for representation in film and television and
created criteria called The Vito Russo Test to assess LGBTQ+ representation. The Vito Russo
Test not only assesses representation but goes deeper to assess accuracy, frequency, and
relevance. The test is broken into three assessment points:
• The film or programming contains a character that is identifiably lesbian, gay, bisexual,
or transgender,
• Their sexual orientation or gender identity must not solely or predominantly define that
character. They consist of the same unique character traits commonly used to differentiate
straight characters from one another; and
• The LGBTQ character must be tied into the plot so that their removal would have a
significant effect. Meaning they are not there to provide colorful commentary, paint urban
authenticity, or (perhaps most commonly) set up a punchline. That character should
matter (GLAAD, 2019).
Nickelodeon (2021) released a sing-along video on their Blue’s Clues YouTube channel,
titled “Blue’s Clues Pride Parade Sing-Along,” for LGBTQ+ Pride month 2021. The video
showcased a famous drag queen singer with LGBTQ+ inclusive lyrics and cartoon images
(Kacala, 2021). Blue’s Clues targets children aged 3 to 5. The video had over 100,000 views
after a day, and the organization turned off the comments. Social media primarily praised
37

Nickelodeon for being inclusive, yet there was also a barrage of hateful, negative, and
disparaging remarks posted on social media.
Children’s consumption of content via social media and online videos is becoming more
and more prevalent. Studies have evaluated influencer marketing and para-social relationships
between kids and the influencer and the rise in child content-creation on platforms such as
Youtube and others (Boerman & van Reijmersdal, 2020). The studies have primarily focused on
children older than 8 years; therefore, although children even younger consume social media
content and online videos, there is a dearth of current research. However, this shift from
broadcast to user-created content is challenging the gatekeepers, and the uncharted territory is
putting pressure on the monetary interests and networks' relevancy. As young consumers look for
other entry points and other modalities to interact with media, networks struggle to keep up as
indicated by networks launching streaming outlets and social shorts. These shifts raise mental
health concerns during adolescence (O'reilly, 2020: Wartberg & Kammerl, 2020). However, for
younger audiences, although hard to control, parents are still the primary media gatekeepers for
their children, and television programming, either via broadcast, cable, or streaming, continues to
play a prominent role.
Over the years, many studies and articles focus on television content creators and
decision-makers, specifically around race and gender representation and how race and gender
impact content creation and green-lighting of choices. However, no studies specifically examine
LGBTQ+ content creators or decision-makers at television networks or young children’s
television channels. In one study, Dates (2005) explored the impact of African American women
decision-makers in television. She challenged the authenticity of the African American
characters’ storylines while discussing the impact of audiences and network profits. Dates (2005)
38

found that the lack of authenticity impacted audiences, and the author called for a change in the
decision-makers’ process. Clarity around content creators’ and decision-makers’ knowledge,
motivation, and operational and organizational processes related to identity formation is needed.
Conceptual Framework
Part of a child’s development is based on what messages they receive, how they interpret
those messages in their world, and precisely how those messages shape their identity formation.
The conceptual framework for this study asserts that television has a significant role in a child’s
development because television is a form of modeling for social, emotional, cognitive, and
behavioral attributes and traits. The notion of modeling is posited by social cognitive theory,
according to which television, which is a symbolic communication vehicle, influences thought
and actions (Bandura, 2001). The framework asserts that this modeling enters the child’s
consciousness and forms connections to real-world behavioral attributes, traits, and socialization
in society. The modeling becomes internalized from watching television over time, as suggested
by cultivation theory, which suggests that the amount of time spent watching television is
reflected in cultivation indicators at the macro level (Gerbner et al., 2002; Potter, 2014). The
long-term internalization of this learning of self and others can trigger a feeling of being othered
or seeing people as others and perpetuates the dominant culture (Gross, 2001). The feeling of
being othered through perceived experiences of discrimination, internalized prejudice, and fear
coupled with traditional adolescent stressors is how minority stress theory intersects into the
framework (Kelleher, 2009).
As the literature review indicates, when children take in information, they internalize
what is acceptable. Over time, they engage with and translate these lessons to the world around
them. If one’s self, family, or others do not fit the accepted norm, then one can experiences
39

stress, and negative health outcomes. This process shapes identity formation and whether that
identity is accepted or not in the real world around them. Although television and the transmedia
convergent culture (Jenkins, 2010) is only one aspect of a child’s identity development, it is
especially relevant when a child does not have outside points of reference from family, school, or
community that alleviate their stress or conflict from internal and external development factors.
An example is a child who is transgender and does not have transgender role models, lives in a
community that does not actively support transgender individuals, and is aware of negative
perceptions of the transgender community or culture in their family or school. If the television
programming the child watches has no positive or accurate transgender representation, then their
feeling and reality of otherness are exasperated (Haas et al., 2010). Research has found that such
feelings can translate to stress and potentially peer victimization, drug and alcohol abuse, mental
health issues, and suicide (Haas et al., 2010; Tebbe & Moradi, 2016).
Identity-formation theories in relation to the KMO gap analysis of content creators and
decision-makers’ choices to develop and greenlight young television programming with
LGBTQ+ characters connect the conceptual framework. It is important to assess content creators
and decision-makers’ knowledge of the identity formation concept, their motivation for choices
they develop and greenlight in connection to the identity formation concept, and the operational
processes that encourage or discourage meaningful representation.
The theoretical framework of KMO gap analysis within organizations, with a primary
focus on the content creator and decision-maker, guides this study in combination with the
identity formation conceptual lens. Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO gap analysis has three main
aspects that will guide the study: the content creator and decision-maker’s perceived knowledge
of the importance and value of LGBTQ+ representation, especially related to identity formation;
40

if and how the content creator and decision-maker are motivated to include LGBTQ+ characters
and storylines; and operational factors that impede or facilitate these character choices. Figure 1
illustrates the interconnectedness of knowledge, motivation, and operational process for content
creators and decision-makers and how the lens of the conceptual framework impacts all areas.
The content creators’ and decision-makers’ knowledge, motivation, operational processes, and
connections among the three around the conceptual framework of identity formation validate or
impact their development and green-lighting decisions.
The first ring around identity formation in Figure 1 represents how the child learns via
modeling of what they watch on television as a symbolic communication vehicle, namely social
cognitive theory. The second ring posits the furthering of reality via what is watched through
longevity of television exposure, namely cultivation theory. The last ring around identity
formation is minority stress theory, which emphasizes that the internalization of being othered
can manifest into compounded stressors that impact identity and self-worth. The concentric
circles around the identity formation rings symbolize the KMO analysis of the content creator
and decision-maker of young children’s television and how it applies to the middle rings in their
choices for development and green-lighting LGBTQ+ characters.
41

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Summary
Research has found that diverse representation on television impacts a child’s identity
formation and social roles. The literature related to the representation of diversity in television
characters is vast, yet underrepresentation of LGBTQ+ in young children’s television is
prevalent. Although content creators’ and network executives’ decisions on development and
green-lighting are uncertain, studies have noted negative impacts on children who do not see
themselves represented.
The literature stated that young children consume much television and how that affects
their lives and world views. The literature discussed various psychology and sociology theories
42

related to television’s impact on identity formation and social roles. The literature clarified that
LGBTQ+ children have mental, health, and safety concerns from societal stressors, making their
representation on television more meaningful. The literature also validated that LGBTQ+
representation in young children’s television is minimal for various reasons.
The literature also noted the role of television networks in culture and how television
networks function as businesses. It validated the importance of understanding content creators
and network decision-makers’ KMO processes for developing and green-lighting LGBTQ+
characters in young children’s television programs. The conceptual framework interweaves
social cognitive theory, cultivation theory, and minority stress theory into the KMO theoretical
framework to show linkages between learning theories and organizational decision making.
Chapter Three presents the methodological approach for the study using the conceptual
framework to guide the research. Finally, the chapter evaluates how, when, and why content
creators and decision-makers do or do not develop or greenlight LGBTQ+ television programs.
43

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter outlines the research design and methods used to analyze the identified data
that impact how content creators and network decision-makers report choices in their
development and green-lighting of LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s television
shows. The purpose of the study was to explore the KMO elements that affect television
networks’ content creators’ and decision-makers’ choices. The questions allowed for discussion
of criteria that facilitated or barriers that impeded the creation or green-lighting of LGBTQ+
characters. The questions also allowed for discussion of how identity formation, the center of the
conceptual framework, plays a role in decision making and final character choices. It uses
learning outcomes specific to children’s identity formation through social cognitive, cultivation,
and minority stress theories to anchor the learning theories considered. I hoped to learn general
thoughts and examples of diversity representation, specifically LGBTQ+ representation, as much
as questions and conversations allowed. I designed the interview to learn if and what learning
outcomes participants consider when selecting characters. Moreover, the design lends itself to
learning how content creators and decision-makers think about and incorporate learning
outcomes in decision making.
My goal was to uncover models and best practices for increasing of LGBTQ+ character
and storyline representation. This chapter presents the study sample, data collection processes,
research setting, and instrumentation used. Additionally, this chapter addresses validity,
reliability, and ethics. Guiding the research are the questions below.
44

Research Questions
1. How do content creators and network decision-makers report that knowledge, motivation,
and operational factors are related to the development and decision to include LGBTQ+
character representation in young children’s television shows?
2. What are the criteria or barriers reported by content creators and network decision-
makers that facilitate or limit LGBTQ+ characters represented in young children’s
television shows?
3. To what extent are child development considerations investigated when producing young
children’s television shows?
Overview of Design
The study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis to explore perceived barriers and
facilitators for content creators and network decision-makers. The study was also grounded in the
relationship with the KMO foundation by the conceptual framework of learning outcomes of
identity formation. It also used learning outcomes of social cognitive theory, cultivation theory,
and minority stress theory connected with identity formation in children as a backdrop for
consideration. The study used a qualitative methodological design approach (Creswell, 2014).
The type of design was a case study using interviews to explore processes and activities to gather
KMO insights into the research questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To triangulate the case
studies, document, artifact, and programming content review were used to elicit meaning,
contextualize information pre- and post-interviews, contextualize the participant environment,
and clarify contemporaneous and historical facts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
45

Research Setting
I interviewed content creators and decision-makers at multiple young children’s
television networks. I collaborated with the interviewee at the specific virtual location of their
choice and time that worked with their schedule. The virtual setting was necessary, as the content
creators and decision-makers identified live at various locations in the United States. Purposeful
selection was necessary, as the content creators are responsible for what characters are developed
and pitched to networks, and decision-makers are responsible for green-lighting development
and production. Since the study focused on young children’s television, the target participants
developed content for, or were part of the executive decision-making process at networks with 2-
to 7-year age demarcations for their audience. The chosen networks are large, for-profit, and
nonprofit organizations from mainstream broadcast, cable, and streaming delivery sources. The
goal was to interview at least two to three content creators and two to three network executives. I
focused on rich and descriptive data to formulate themes connected to the questions.
The Researcher
The philosophical worldview that I most closely align with is the critical or
transformative belief system paradigm. This worldview looks at the power structures that impact
marginalized individuals (Hinga, 2019). Therefore, understanding how belief systems influence
the interview and probing questions were critical to mitigating bias in this study.
Ontologically, the critical theory looks at conflicting underlying structures, such as
gender and sexuality, in inquiry (Aliyu et al., 2015). From an epistemological perspective,
critical theory views knowledge from a lived experience (Aliyu et al., 2015). I have the lived
experience of being a lesbian in a same-sex relationship and co-parenting a 7-year-old; therefore,
I have firsthand knowledge of how the lack of LGBTQ+ programs has impacted our daughter
46

and family. Forming the interview questions from a case study perspective to receive examples
of how things occur and how participants feel about making decisions was essential for
mitigating bias.
My positionality, including connection and blind spots, impacts my interest in this topic. I
identify as a White lesbian woman who is co-parenting in an interracial union. All of these
identities shape my worldview and are the reason for conducting this study. Moreover, my sexual
orientation identity is unknown unless exposed, allowing me to choose when to use it to my
advantage and avoid disclosing it when it would place me at a potential disadvantage. Therefore,
I add my feminine presentation to my privilege and dominant position (Morgan, 2018). The
interviewees were unknown to me, nor did I have firsthand knowledge of their organizations,
which allowed me not to reveal positionality and allowed the participant not to feel intimidated
to reveal their genuine opinions about LGBTQ+ representation questions. I conducted a peer
review assessment of the analysis with a person with dominant identity markers (straight, White,
nonparent, male, with no interest in the study’s outcome) to validate the interpretation. The goal
was to establish a reflection point to assess bias in the outcomes and evaluate my positionality
that may have influenced the analysis or recommendations.
Data Sources
This research was purely qualitative. I conducted one semistructured 12-question
interview with the content creators, and another semi-structured 12-question interview with the
decision-makers. I did content analysis on secondary data to shape and support instrument and
protocol development. I gathered secondary data from documents and artifacts, such as network
mission statements; external communication, such as websites, social media, articles, decision-
makers’ biographies; and literature review. I focused the content analysis on programming for the
47

networks identified. I also gathered internal documents from content creators and decision-
makers for review. For the qualitative review, I used the data sources to triangulate the research,
mitigate bias, ensure ethics in research, and I made sense of the data in connection with one
another. The goal of document collection and analysis was to add the context of the content
creators, organization, and decision-maker and to support, validate, or contradict what
participants report.
Method 1
I collected and analyzed documents and artifacts pre-interviews to provide context and
lay the groundwork for the organization of themes. I did programming content analysis
throughout the process.
Method 2
I conducted each interview with simultaneous analysis between two consecutive
interviews.
Method 3
I collected and analyzed documents and artifacts post-interviews to support, validate, or
contradict participants reported.
Participants
The target population for the interviews consisted of content creators and executives
involved in the decision-making process of young children’s television networks. I chose the
content creators because they start the process of character development and pitch to the
decision-makers for production approval. I selected the executives involved in the decision-
making process as they are, individually or as part of a team, the final and ultimate decision-
makers for young children’s programs. I interviewed four content creators and two network
48

decision-makers in the study. The limited number of participants required purposeful selection
(Maxwell, 2013). The individuals chosen are appropriate for the study, as they are the developers
and final decision-makers on character development and green-lighting programs for production.
I targeted five young children’s networks and contacted individuals with the relevant specific
titles and roles via email and referral. I used the snowball sample method (Everitt, 2002) by
asking the initial participants at the end of the interview if they would recommend and introduce
me to another person within the organization that has a role in the decision-making process of
character choices to participate in the study. One content creator recommended and introduced
another content creator, and one decision-maker introduced another decision-maker for the study.
As stated previously, the targeted participants were from both for-profit and nonprofit
organizations that target programming for a 2-to 7-year-old audience. Ultimately, the
demographic details include role specificity with no other leading indicators. Of Maxwell’s
(2013) five goals of purposeful selection, two were critical for testing the theories for the study:
representativeness and deliberate selection of individuals. I am not associated with any television
network, and therefore, have no authority or positional power to influence the personal or
professional lives of the participants.
Instrumentation
I used a semistructured approach for the study. The goal was to ask questions, probe, and
go off-script as the conversation unfolds (Krueger & Casey, 2008). The questions started broadly
and were not specific to LGBTQ+ topics in the early stages of the interview to allow room for
trust and comfort with the questions and format. Using Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) approach,
the goal was not to espouse the organizational party line but to garner truth, thoughts, and facts
around the questions. The semistructured design allowed flexibility and clarification probes to
49

ensure and facilitate open-ended, non-leading questions. The flexible design encouraged the
participant to share knowledge, beliefs, insights, and information about their views on broad
representation and specific LGBTQ+ representation to gain worldview and behavior-based
responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Weiss, 1995). There were 12 main driver questions with
multiple probes to capture as much detail as possible for both sets of participants. The questions
were a mix of Patton’s (2002) description types of robust choices for interview question
development. The use of experience and behavior questions supported getting to the root of
knowledge, motivation, and operational process strengths and gaps. The questions helped to
identify what the participant had done to capture the facts around culture and decision-making
criteria or barriers that facilitate or limit LGBTQ+ characters represented in young children’s
television programs.
Moreover, to understand how participants consider learning outcomes, the opinion
questions supported knowledge and motivation facts around what matters and how it plays out in
reality. The feeling and knowledge questions were to get both an emotional response and pure
facts to compare the two (Patton, 2002). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) claimed that a qualitative
study gets the salient information about essential topics under study and maximizes discovery
and insight through a sampling approach. Thus, I chose a criterion-based selection of young
children’s content developers and network decision-makers. The study targeted the specific
experience and seats at the organizational table. Appendix A captures the interview instruments.
Data Analysis
I reviewed the documents, artifacts, programming content analysis, and interviews and
organized them into codes and themes. I worked inductively to build patterns, categories, and
themes and finalize a comprehensive set of themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I first analyzed
50

the documents and artifacts for context and initial patterning. Subsequently, a deductive review
of all data determined if the themes identified the need for more information gathering. Creswell
and Creswell (2018) focused on the importance of finding meaningful patterns in one’s research.
Learning the meaning of how content creators and decision-makers report on the research
questions, rather than my opinion through my positionality or the previous literature review
findings, was necessary to extract meaningful patterns. The goal was to learn from participants as
much as possible to address the research through an iterative emergent design process as the
learnings unfold (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The research was highly reflective of personal
positionality and how it shapes interpretations and themes that move to the meaning attached to
the data, which Creswell and Creswell (2018) described as reflexivity. The goal was to
understand how and why decisions are made by collecting multiple perspectives and trying to
mirror reality (Creswell & Creswell). Ultimately, I attempted to make sense of the participants’
responses and the supporting data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I undertook a simultaneous procedure of writing reports on interviews as other interviews
took place. The goal was to winnow the data into five to seven themes (Creswell, 2014).
Subsequently, I used a qualitative software program called Atlas.ti to analyze the data. After I
collected the data, I organized, prepared, and reviewed them to understand and question them,
code them, prescribe descriptions and themes, and, finally, use the narrative passage to convey
the findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In the end, I organized the data into 13 themes within
the categories of the research questions and a priori coding. Using inductive and comparative
analysis was essential to the study design (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The last process for data
analysis was the interpretation of the data via summary, comparison to the literature review,
51

personal reflection discussion, limitations and delimitations review, and, finally, future research
recommendations.
I was conscientious—because of the use of the single-bound unit and potential multiple
single-bound units—in the data management aspect of collection in the form of a case study
database (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The case study database helped to locate specific data
during the intense analysis phase of the study. The beginning part of the analysis was within-case
analysis and, later, cross-case analysis to develop a general explanation that fit all individual
cases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection Procedures
Qualitative research works well in examining areas of interest in a problem of practice
through features such as participants’ words or analysis of documents or content (Creswell, 2014;
McEwan & McEwan, 2003). To drive theory and conduct inductive analysis for this study,
interviewing the content developers and decision-makers to hear their personal and subjective
factors was essential and the essence of qualitative research (Creswell, 2014). Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) stated that getting voluntary consent, assurance of confidentiality, data integrity,
and security are critical; therefore, I took these measures before conducting the interviews. I read
the prepared prefatory script and then ensured verbal affirmation before recording the interview.
I conveniently organized the interviews for the interviewees in virtual locations (Patton, 2002). I
conducted the interviews, via Zoom, in the Fall of 2021 and they took 60 minutes each. I
recorded the interviews and activated the transcript function to ensure accuracy in transcription
and data analysis. I used the recording as detail to form a database for analysis (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). I stored the recordings on a password-protected, encrypted flash drive during
analysis and then deleted them after the study. I stored the transcripts on a password-protected,
52

encrypted flash drive and password-protected Altas.Ti database during analysis and will store
them for a minimum of five years.
According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), the key instrument is the researcher.
Therefore, I developed two original protocols, with 12 questions each and respective probes. I
recorded responses to the interview questions. I assured each participant of the trustworthiness of
data collection and of the recording deletion after study completion. I did not record participants’
names, but I assigned temporary labels to protect their identities and support data analysis. I
permanently deleted the recording records after transcription. I sent transcripts, summaries, and
notes to participants upon request for member checks to confirm and validate accuracy in
capturing their views (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As Maxwell
(2013) stated, purposeful sampling involves selecting people who would illuminate what is
happening at the extremes and finding examples to stress-test the research. A triangulation of
interviews of content creators and decision-makers, pre-content analysis assessment, public
documents (digital materials like websites, social media, articles, and bios), post-content
analysis, internal document review provided by participants, and literature review contributed to
the purposeful exploration (McEwan & McEwan, 2003) as it connected to the programming facts
and public perception. As stated earlier, I recruited participants via referrals and direct email to
targeted participants. I conducted snowball sampling for two additional interviews. I interviewed
a total of four content developers and two decision-makers for the study.
I collected the documents and artifacts relevant to the KMO factors, connected learning,
and identity formation theories. The documents included mission statements, programming
content, marketing material, websites, executive bios, public communication feedback (articles,
social media, and others as necessary), and internal documents provided from participants. As
53

Merriam and Tisdell (2016) encouraged, I also used these documents to cross-check interview
data. I stored the documents on a password-protected, encrypted flash drive. I deleted internal
provided documents after the study.
Validity and Reliability
The research design aimed to promote the validity, reliability, and ethics of the analysis
and findings. The study aimed to minimize threats to the research’s internal and external validity
and reliability by strengthening credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). An example of ensuring that the design maintained the internal validity
and credibility of the data is the triangulation strategy, specifically member checks and verbatim
transcription of responses. I used a member-check comment and an action-is-taken template to
provide an opportunity for the participants to provide feedback and know that action would be
taken accordingly (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, upon request, I asked participants if
the tentative findings and analysis were plausible, supporting trustworthiness (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The goal was to develop a long-term engagement with participants by being
transparent about the findings. For external reliability for confirmability, I designed a detailed
playbook of the study of the methods, procedures, and decision points to be used as an audit trail
for future studies (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A third approach for external validity and
transferability was to have a thick description, with a completely untraceable description of
participants and procedures created for future use (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used a highly
evident context of participants, how they were chosen, and their working conditions, along with
a database to create a complete description to allow others to make informed decisions in the
future (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
54

Ethics
A researcher is obligated to maintain the human subjects’ privacy, dignity, and safety
when engaging in the inquiry process (Glesne, 2011). As Creswell and Creswell (2018) outlined,
I told all participants how I would use the data. I distributed appropriate consent forms; however,
I informed participants that these are optional, and they would not be part of the study without
consent. I informed all participants that their participation was voluntary, that they would not
receive compensation, and that they could withdraw during any part of the process (Glesne,
2011). I let them know that they could also contact the university and dissertation chair at any
time with questions or concerns. The sensitive topic and fear of public identity exposure might
have reduced willingness to participate or answer fully; therefore, there was an assurance that
assigning fictitious names and networks would enhance confidentiality. In addition, a general
description of the content creator and network decision-maker was broad enough not to create
identifiers.
I also developed participant composite profiles. These aliases and composite stories
assisted in managing emotions around retribution from the larger network conglomerate power
structures or public exposure that might impact ratings, jobs, press, or livelihood. I acquired all
appropriate permissions to record the interviews, and communicated when I would delete them. I
shared copies of transcripts and notes with all participants upon request. As stated earlier,
although I deleted the recordings immediately after interview, I stored the documents and
artifacts, and interview transcripts and analysis on a password-protected, encrypted flash drive,
and password protected Altas.Ti database for a minimum of 5 years. I deleted the internal
documents collected upon request.
55

Although interviews were semistructured, the questions established in the interview
protocol were designed not to be leading questions and to allow participants to feel like
collaborators in the process. The collaboration was aimed to reduce ethical bias or the feeling of
being trapped to respond in a certain way. The research followed all institutional review board’s
approval guidelines and received all the necessary approvals, including local or network
approvals with crucial gatekeepers to support it. All participants were provided details about
approvals and how the study would be used (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

56

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine influences that facilitate or impede content
creators and decision-makers in creating and green-lighting shows with LGBTQ+ characters for
young children’s television. The study applied Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework
to help evaluate whether content creators and decision-makers have the KMO processes to
support decisions regarding LGBTQ+ character choices in programming. The study also
assessed how participants reported on KMO factors, criteria, or barriers and child development
considerations related to LGBTQ+ character representation. While a complete gap analysis
would address all children’s television production stakeholders, network content creators and
decision-makers were chosen as the primary focus of this analysis because they begin and end
the character and storyline development process. They both are integral to the character choices.
The content creators pitch the show and character concept to network decision-makers. Publicly
available documents, programming content, and internal artifacts were analyzed to triangulate
interviewees’ responses before and after the interviews. The data analysis consisted of coding
and theming the documents, artifacts, interviews, and associated programming content analysis
to finalize a comprehensive set of themes for analysis. Three questions that guided this study
were the following:
1. How do content creators and network decision-makers report that knowledge, motivation,
and operational factors are related to the development and decision to include LGBTQ+
character representation in young children’s television shows?
2. What are the criteria or barriers reported by content creators and network decision-
makers that facilitate or limit LGBTQ+ characters represented in young children’s
television shows?
57

3. To what extent are child development considerations investigated when producing young
children’s television shows?
Participants
The target population for the interviews consisted of content creators and individuals
involved in decision-making for young children’s television networks. These networks focus on
programming for children aged 2 to 7. Content creators create characters and storylines for
children’s programs and present them to network decision-makers. If green-lighted for
production, the content creators lead character and storyline implementation. Network decision-
makers are part of the green-lighting process and are usually the final decision-makers or part of
a team of final decision-makers. The limited number of participants required purposeful selection
(Maxwell, 2013). The individuals chosen are appropriate for the study. As mentioned, they are
the originators of the character development choices and pitch to network decision-makers to
secure a green light for production.
I targeted five young children’s networks, and I contacted those with the relevant specific
titles and roles via email and referral contact. The targeted participants were from both for-profit
and nonprofit organizations that target programming for a 2-to-7-year-old audience. I
interviewed four content creators and two decision-makers. I used the snowball sampling method
(Everitt, 2002) by asking the participants at the end of the interview if they would recommend
and introduce another person within the organization or another organization who has a role in
content creation or character choice decision-making process to participate in the study. I found
the three content creators via social search and references; one content creator was a reference
from snowball sampling from other content creators. One decision-maker was a referral, and the
other was from snowball sampling via another decision-maker. Ultimately, the demographic
58

details include role specificity with no other leading indicators. Of Maxwell’s (2013) five goals
of purposeful selection, two were critical for testing the theories for the study: representativeness
and deliberate selection of individuals. Table 1 provides information regarding the participants.

Table 1
Participant Details
Title Years of
experience
Gender Type of
delivery
method
Latest
development or
greenlight project
CC1 Independent content
creator/producer
25 Male broadcast
television,
cable,
streaming
2021
CC2 Creative executive
manager/independe
nt content
creator/producer
30 Male broadcast
television,
cable,
streaming
2021
CC3 Content
creator/producer
25 Female broadcast
television,
cable,
streaming
2021
CC4 Content creator/SVP
creative and
production
20 Male broadcast
television,
cable,
streaming
2021
DM1 Executive children’s
media
20 Female broadcast
television,
cable,
streaming
2021
DM2 Executive children’s
media
25 Female broadcast and
streaming
2021

Note. CC = Content creator, DM = Decision-maker

59

Results for Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “How do content creators and network decision-makers
report that knowledge, motivation, and operational factors are related to the development and
decision to include LGBTQ+ character representation in young children’s television shows?”
The following sections present the results pertaining to this question.
Knowledge Results
I used the data to diagnose knowledge gaps that I gathered through interviews, extensive
programming content analysis, analysis of publicly available documents, and internal artifact
review. I used factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge types (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001) in the analysis. While I did not use each specific category explicitly in the
interview, I structured the questions within the framework to assess all of them. The interviews
and data analysis evaluated content developers’ and decision-makers’ factual knowledge of
understanding and awareness of the importance of LGBTQ+ representation in character choices
for young children. I also evaluated their conceptual knowledge in terms of their understanding
of the benefits and how to achieve LGBTQ+ representation in character choices in young
children’s programming. Then, I evaluated the content developers and decision-makers’
procedural knowledge of the mechanics of LGBTQ+ representation processes, including how to
represent LGBTQ+ characters for a young children’s audience. Clark and Estes (2008) indicated
that conceptual and procedural knowledge are distinct yet substantially interrelated. However,
the study found that participants did not have the conceptual knowledge of understanding the
benefits or the procedural knowledge of the mechanics of LGBTQ+ character choices. Finally, I
evaluated content developers’ and decision-makers’ metacognitive knowledge of how their
personal opinions and beliefs may affect their predispositions about LGBTQ+ character choices.
60

Participants acknowledged factual awareness of the importance and demand for diversity
representation in young children’s television characters while also reporting strong factual
knowledge that LGBTQ+ representation would be controversial or sensitive to the network and
viewers. The data suggest limited factual knowledge that LGBTQ+ character choices were
highly important and called for as part of diversity representation. The factual awareness that
LGBTQ+ representation is controversial appeared to limit the conceptual and procedural
knowledge required to pursue development. The high awareness, therefore, does not drive high
effort or innovation in creating LGBTQ+ characters in pursuit of diversity representation goals.
The study revealed that although there is a high awareness of the importance of diversity
in character choices and high awareness that LGBTQ+ character choices were controversial, the
participants lacked accurate and detailed conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
associated with realizing the general organizational diversity representation goal as it relates to
LGBTQ+ character choices. Although not stated explicitly, the participants’ metacognitive
knowledge of personal and organizational opinions and beliefs appeared to affect their
predispositions about development and green-lighting LGBTQ+ characters. Lastly, Clark and
Estes (2008) described knowledge as the knowledge and skills to achieve a goal, and the study
aimed to determine whether the respondents knew how to achieve LGBTQ+ representation in
young children’s programming. The participants discussed a lack of understanding of pursuing
these choices and could not articulate how to do it, which highlighted a gap that must be closed.
Awareness of the Importance of Character Diversity
In interviews, respondents identified both the factual and conceptual awareness of the
importance of diversity in character choices for young children’s television programming,
including active attention to stereotyping. All content creators and those involved in decision-
61

making had knowledge and were motivated to provide diverse representation. When asked what
they believe personifies a good character choice, diversity was a leading answer. CC2 stated,
I think it’s an important thing, and I think that there’s tons of really great stories to tell,
and I think, you know, making sure that we as creators are representing everybody fairly
and equally is kind of the critical piece. You know, leaning away from stereotypes.
As it relates to stereotypes, CC4, although never having developed an LGBTQ+ character
discussed being mindful of stereotypes:
From the get-go, we were keeping an eye on stereotypical bossy battle-axe stuff that is
traditional lesbian stereotypes. The authority of ringleader women characters historically
have been, if there’s a woman in charge, does it seem brutish? You need to keep an eye
out for that type of stuff.
DM2 also acknowledged the factual and conceptual awareness of diversity representation
by stating, “We want our audience to see themselves reflected in the characters. We want
communities who are not represented in the dominant narrative to see themselves.” However,
they also acknowledged that they had not been a part of approving an LGBTQ+ character choice
for the age group addressed. There was a conceptual appreciation for diversity representation but
a blind spot for LGBTQ+ representation in the mix.
CC3 did have a metacognitive knowledge gap on whether LGBTQ+ characters were in
development, despite discussing the value of diversity representation in character choices at
length. When asked if they had developed an LGBTQ+ character, they said,
I don’t know if this exists, to be honest, but a transgender or gay or lesbian character, I
can’t imagine that other creators of content for children would create that, but they may
62

because there’s certainly thousands of parents who believe that they should be a part of a
child’s education and reflected in books and TV .
This same content creator later discussed that their network did introduce a same-sex
couple, not developed by them, but identified that it was not the center of the storyline and not as
common as race or gender representation. Therefore, they did have the factual knowledge that it
existed once, but their personal motivation to develop LGBTQ+ characters was not evident in the
data. In describing their opinion of why the show with a same-sex couple aired, they said,
Obviously, I believe content creators are feeling the pressure to include some of this in
the programming, which is why this show aired. I thought that was interesting that they
were trying to be inclusive and representative, and again I can imagine the pressure that
they must receive from people who are saying, “It’s not fair. You’re being discriminatory.
Just like if a Black person or a Native American or Asian American, we are part of the
population and viewing audience also.” That’s what I would imagine.
Awareness that LGBTQ+ Character Choices Are Controversial
Although having the factual and conceptual knowledge that diversity representation was
important, all six respondents stated that LGBTQ+ character choices for young children’s
character choices were deemed controversial or sensitive. Although diversity in character choices
were of high value, when asked about types of diversity, the respondents focused on race,
culture, ethnicity, and gender and called out LGBTQ+ representation as controversial or
sensitive. When asked what character choices would be deemed controversial, CC1, through a
metacognitive lens, immediately stated,
Homosexual, especially in children’s television, would be controversial. I think a lot of
networks would and are sensitive to who their sponsors are and who’s buying the
63

advertising space and are not sure if that constituent is comfortable introducing that at
this age group.
Furthermore, the use of the word “homosexual” infers a biased lens, and when asked if they were
ever told not to develop an LGBTQ+ character, this same content creator made it clear that “I’ve
not been told outright, so I didn’t have to be. I didn’t have to be. I have enough experience to
know that this is not going to go over well.”
All respondents deemed LGBTQ+ characters as controversial or sensitive for the age
group for which they were developing or making decisions. The respondents identified that they
were not as active in pursuing innovative or unique solutions to represent LGBTQ+ characters as
with other demographics, such as race. Three of the four content creators identified that using
aliens, animals, or animation with non-accurate skin colors, such as purple or green, was an
innovative way to show visual diversity or avoid having to show it. CC4 avoided dealing with
diversity representation: “I frequently make them animals or aliens or fish or robots because then
we don’t have to talk about it.” However, DM2 also noted that the network was working toward
shifting to humans to address diversity head-on:
My organization relied too heavily on animals and not enough [on] people in the shows,
so that was a revision made, and part of that is around DEI. My organization has
traditionally used animals and other creatures to sort of get around skin tones and
backgrounds and things that are trickier and trying to sort of not deal with that. I think, in
the last few years, the recommendations and the direction that we’re going is to actually
confront and talk about these issues and have characters who live in different
neighborhoods with different skin colors. It’s especially true in animation, where they’ve
64

relied too heavily on green monsters, so there was a concerted effort to move more
towards human characters.
The knowledge that diversity representation is essential and the knowledge that LGBTQ+
representation is challenging indicates that the participants are not pursuing innovation and
unique solutions to represent LGBTQ+ characters. The data indicate that they valued diversity,
but the risk of controversy regarding LGBTQ+ characters was too high, and did not value
diversity of sexuality or gender identity as highly as diversity of race and male and female
gender. In the gap analysis, the interviews supported that factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge causes impacted the lack of LGBTQ+ character representation.
CC2 discussed how proud they were to have worked on a show that introduced a same-
sex adult couple in a young children’s non-mainstream network: “I think as adult characters,
that’s fine, but as kid characters, I think that will be both innovative and groundbreaking and
challenging.” The juxtaposition of factual and conceptual knowledge with the lack of procedural
knowledge identifies a gap. The content creator acknowledged that this was the only time they
had worked on a same-sex character for young children’s television. They did state they were
currently working on a non-binary character but acknowledged that it is rare. They
acknowledged that it will be groundbreaking when these characters become common in the
future.
Programming content analysis, publicly available documents, and internal documents
provided limited data directly addressing factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge. All networks had programming shorts, less-than-5-minute segments between shows,
that discussed the importance of diversity and inclusive representation. All networks showcased
race diversity and had diversity equity and inclusion (DEI) internal statements. This evidence
65

supports the networks’ desire to represent diversity. Although none of the representation
reviewed was supportive of the LGBTQ+ community explicitly.
Thematic analysis of participant interviews, documents, and artifacts showed that, while
participants strive for diversity in character choices, there was limited focus on LGBTQ+
representativeness and inclusivity. As a group, participants lacked detailed conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge associated with realized LGBTQ+ representation.
Although they strongly considered diversity representation, they did not consider the LGBTQ+
population for representation. The fact that all six participants discussed an LGBTQ+ character
as controversial or sensitive indicates their knowledge of the risk as not worth the effort. They
lacked knowledge regarding whether they should take the risk and how to represent LGBTQ+
characters, which also highlighted the knowledge gap. Equally, the next section discusses
motivation impediments.
Motivation Results
The interviews and document and content analysis addressed Clark and Estes’ (2008)
three components of motivation. Examining whether the participants chose to work toward
LGBTQ+ representation addressed the first. Next, I examined persistence in terms of achieving
the goal of LGBTQ+ representation despite distractions. Lastly, they examined how much mental
effort they invested to achieve LGBTQ+ character green-lighting. None of the three were
validated in the interviews or document analysis, resulting in a motivation gap. It appeared that
the lack of knowledge of how, including the personal, organizational, and societal constraints,
impeded the motivation to pursue LGBTQ+ inclusivity.
Participants lacked the motivation to develop LGBTQ+ characters in response to the
networks’ diversity, equity, and inclusion goals. Although the goals do not explicitly define
66

diversity, diversity refers to anyone not in the dominant culture. The networks did not state the
goal of including LGBTQ+ characters, but their DEI statements and mission statements indicate
a disconnect with that definition.
The participants interviewed could not provide examples of action, persistence, or mental
effort invested in including LGBTQ+ characters to achieve the networks’ DEI and representation
goal. There is also a lack of stakeholder pressure or aspirational motivation to inspire or expect
content creators and decision-makers to create or approve LGBTQ+ characters.
Diversity Goals and Content Analysis
All six participants reported developing or working for at least one young primary
television network, and all the content creators had developed for various networks. Cross-
referencing the mission statements, values, and DEI statements for the networks indicated they
all claim a focus on positive role models, children’s well-being, enlightened social engagement,
and diversity representation as a centerpiece of programming. The mission statement and internal
guideline documents obtained from participants and principal investigator network analysis
indicated that network decision-makers expect diversity representation and inclusion, and these
are part of the organizational goals for programming. Therefore, the data indicates that content
developers are aware of this expectation and develop characters accordingly. All four content
developers discussed DEI representation as important in what they developed. No participants,
however, associated the LGBTQ+ population with the diversity goal. There was a disconnect
between the DEI goal and how LGBTQ+ characters applied to the goal. Public documents like
websites, social media, articles, and bios showed that consumers expect innovative and diverse
representation in character choices. Organizations like GLAAD also evaluate LGBTQ+
67

representation in mainstream programming. However, other organizations actively denounce
LGBTQ+ representation.
The document analysis indicated that mainstream content creators are moving to
streaming platforms or branching out on their own to tell stories they feel are not being told in
young children’s programming, specifically for the LGBTQ+ demographic. Steinberg and Low
(2021) described Chris Nee as the lead content creator for Doc McStuffins on Disney Junior. Nee
left Disney to take a Netflix deal with her own development budget and authority over
production for young children’s audiences. Content analysis of shows Nee produced validate that
she actively introduces LGBTQ+ characters and storylines to young 2-year-old to 12-year-old
audiences both in adult and child characters (Steinberg & Low, 2021). The authors discussed the
goal of attracting young children to the characters and content and finding what outlet and
medium they were chasing and interested in (Steinberg & Low, 2021). The authors addressed
how important it is for the main networks to be relevant and capture young audiences and engage
family viewing (Steinberg & Low, 2021). In her quest for autonomy, Nee stated,
I very actively want to make the world of kids TV better, in the act of work that I’m
doing…I care about what the kids are seeing…but I also care about raising up a new
generation of voices, who are going to be the people who take over. (Steinberg & Low,
2021, para. 41)
Steinberg and Low (2021) noted that streaming content from multiple channels are the
future, and individuals like Nee are on the cutting edge of making fundamental shifts to content
and character development and what audiences see. In Doc McStuffins, Nee produced the first
same-sex couple shown on a Disney platform for a young audience, and in her new network and
shows, she showcases vast LGBTQ+ representation (Steinberg & Low, 2021). Although a few
68

content creators like Nee are motivated in action, persistence, and mental effort, the interviewees
in this study indicate different and possibly slower adoption. When discussing the lack of
LGBTQ+ character choices, CC2 indicated,
I think that it is difficult right now. I’m not at all against it. I just think that it’s difficult. I
don’t want to come across that I am against having a gay character. I just think that it’s
difficult. I think it’s an interesting challenge right now, and, so, I just want to be clear that
I’m not against that in any way. I’m actually for it. I just think that it is a choice that is
profound, and also the interesting thing is I don’t know where the audience sits with that.
I think it’s an interesting moment. Someone [else] will do it.
The responses indicate that content creators are aware that it is a gap, see it as a
challenge, but are personally not motivated to take on the challenge. This lack of active choice
highlights a gap in motivation. All six participants seemed uncomfortable when discussing
LGBTQ+ representation in character choices. One participant had to stop the interview and take
a pause to gather their thoughts. Another participant made multiple clarifying statements about
not being “against” LGBTQ+ representation, but they thought it was hard. Every participant
named LGBTQ+ representation as either controversial or sensitive. All content creators seemed
visibly uncomfortable, and their speech patterns became choppy during these conversations.
Gupta (2021) stated that Chris Nee has reported the difficulty in getting LGBTQ+
characters created and green-lit over her career, yet the artifact review indicated there are
creators and producers, like Nee, who are motivated to be innovative to achieve LGBTQ+
representation diversity goals. However, this study’s participants, with an average of 25 years of
experience, indicated otherwise and expressed that developing LGBTQ+ characters is not at the
forefront of development, unlike race, culture, and other diversity representation efforts.
69

The content of 12 currently airing shows for children 2 to 7 years old was analyzed. The
shows analyzed were from networks where the participants have worked, created, produced, or
greenlit. I was careful not to identify the network or programming with the participants to
maintain anonymity. Multiple episodes per show on all six mainstream networks identified
before and after interviews showcased diversity in race, ethnicity, and male and female gender
and appeared to be aligned with participants’ comments about race and dismantling normalized
gender norms being the forefront of what is shown to young children. All shows displayed a
heteronormative structure, with moms and dads and relationships between opposite-sex
characters, including normative male and female gender representation. All couples presented
were adults, although the child characters did indicate opposite-sex crushes and heteronormative
attitudes. There was no indication of transgender or non-binary characters. The participants said
it is difficult to show same-sex relationships on television to this age group. CC2 said,
I think that showing a character’s sexuality, which is like their sexual preferences, is more
difficult because we’re not talking about sexuality of characters at that age. So, showing a
5-year-old, who is attracted to the same-sex character is difficult in kids animation
because we’re not showing 5-year-olds that are attracted to the opposite sex anywhere
along the scale. In general, my feeling is avoid sexual relationships in kids TV .
However, during the analysis of this content creator’s shows and other shows made for 2-
to 7-year-olds, there were many instances where both animated and live characters had moments
of opposite-sex crushes, gift exchanges, and heteronormative behaviors. One example was a
Valentine’s Day gift exchange between animals where the boy characters only gave a Valentine
to the girl characters. The content creator’s quote indicates a knowledge gap in terms of
70

representing an LGBTQ+ character and a lack of motivation to do so. The data suggests the
content creators' unconscious bias toward heteronormative representation.
Pressure From Stakeholders
When making character choices, participants are not receiving enough pressure or
motivation from stakeholders to include LGBTQ+ representation to outweigh participants’ fear
of backlash from anti-LGBTQ+ stakeholders. Therefore, they do not actively pursue creating
LGBTQ+ characters. Although stakeholders strongly push to diversify character choices,
LGBTQ+ choices are not among those leading that effort. According to the content creators, the
process of character development is extremely collaborative. CC1 stated, “You don’t develop
anything by yourself.” They consider stakeholders, everyone from collaborators on the shows to
decision-makers, advertisers, various external stakeholder groups, audience viewers, and others.
The political landscape is also part of the stakeholder pressure. Higher-level executives ask
content creators to make demographic changes to characters during the development process.
The content creators reported the requests are most often to change a character to an
underrepresented race and ethnicity. CC4 stated the political landscape is at a “high
temperature.”
When I’m leading a group of people, a team, I’m the first in line saying, “What the heck
is wrong with you guys?” Someone recently showed me a picture for a show we were
pitching, and right in the top left was the White boy, and then there was this other group
of diverse figures, and it’s like everybody’s eyes are going to go to the top left where
there’s a large White boy. And there is nothing wrong with that, but it’s like, right now,
it’s front and center. It’s front and center, and you don’t want to be in a conversation, so
why start?
71

When asked if anyone ever asked them to change a character to an LGBTQ+ character,
the same content developer said, “I would say no. I think it’s just in that particular age group,
there just isn’t sexuality in it for 4-year-old characters.” All four content creators reported
someone had asked them to change a character’s demographics, but not to add an LGBTQ+
character or make a non-dominant LGBTQ+ identity choice. DM2 expressed disappointment in a
decision-making team she was on. That effort resulted in the network’s final decision to remove
a non-binary character from a show before it aired. The fact that the choice came about without
the decision-making team’s green-light indicates that the distractions forced the network to not
persist in the specific goal of showcasing an LGBTQ+ character to achieve its diversity
representation goal. Therefore, they did not achieve the persistence facet of motivation. About
their organization not approving a recently pitched non-binary character, they said,
I understand it’s kids. It’s little kids who are learning and absorbing everything, and you
have to be careful about how you introduce new topics, but I thought it wasn’t that
revolutionary to have a gay marriage on TV 3 years ago. So, this time, my non-binary
character not getting approved was disappointing.
Two of the content creators and one of the decision-makers indicated that the political
landscape is intense and that taking on the LGBTQ+ representation effort would be
overextending and not worth the effort. This perspective indicates that the active choice,
persistence, and mental effort to create and produce diverse characters is exhausting and that
producing LGBTQ+ characters falls low on the list, minimizing the motivation needed. When
DM2 continued to discuss a non-binary character that was not greenlit, despite their wanting to
produce it, they indicated,
72

We’re in the middle of 25 different culture wars across our stations, both locally and
nationally, and we can’t take this one on. We have been in the center of a bunch of stuff in
the last year that have been controversial, and I think it was honestly a decision to not put
ourselves in the middle of another fight.
To that end, CC4 stated,
But it’s definitely shifted, and it’s shifted dramatically in the last couple of years. Now,
the discussions are much more focused along racial lines and cultural lines. We are at
peak judgement of the creators, and I think we’ll get past it, but it’s really intense right
now, and it’s drifted into content creation. Now we’re correcting something that’s been
really messed up, or imbalanced, for a long time. The line between the creators in the
industry, the creators and the product, is a hypersensitive moment. I don’t think it will
last, and the changes are good because we are fixing a serious imbalance. However, I
believe we are at a very high temperature right now because of social and political issues.
However, when asked about their choices, they mentioned race and ethnicity additions to
their character lineup, but about developing an LGBTQ+ character, they said, “No, it hasn’t
come up much.”
The fact that stakeholders were highly invested in diversity but not related to LGBTQ+
character choices indicates they lack motivation for action to develop LGBTQ+ characters.
Persistence to Pursue Goal
Another indicator of the lack of motivation for action to develop LGBTQ+ characters is
the lack of participants’ persistence to overcome the obstacle of not knowing if audiences will
approve. The participants indicated they were not sure if parents would approve or if children
were ready to be exposed to LGBTQ+ characters. Participants indicated this was an obstacle, and
73

there were no signs of overcoming this obstacle. Regarding identifying the obstacle specifically,
CC2 said, “I think that it’s just a touchy subject for kids. I don’t know where the audience sits
with that.” Not knowing how an audience feels is also a knowledge barrier and an obstacle that
can divide attention and cause a lack of persistence to overcome it. CC3 stated, “They might not
be ready at that 2- to 7-year-old age group to present that.” The interaction among the goal of
LGBTQ+ representation, the obstacle of not being sure if the parents were ready to expose
children at that age to LGBTQ+ characters, and the persistence required to overcome meant the
obstacle was non-existent amongst the interviewees. Equally, they presented no innovative
solutions to move to mental effort investment for creative solutions to prove otherwise.
Lack of LGBTQ+ Aspirational Motivation
When the participants described the why behind the importance of diversity
representation in young children’s programming, there was much passion in their responses;
however, there was a lack of aspirational motivation when asked about or describing LGBTQ+
character development. All participants expressed a personal understanding and an appreciation
for the importance of diversity representation and its impact on the child. Three of the four
content developers and two of the decision-makers talked about the importance for the child and
as an aspirational social goal. DM1 stated, “The goal is to just find the balance and reflect back
and be as inclusive as we absolutely can and really shine a light on the human being.” That same
decision-maker later stated,
We try to have as much diverse representation as possible, so that’s the ultimate. That’s a
priority for us in terms of character development. We want to make kids feel like it’s a
safe space. They not only will feel safe in that environment, [but] they will be learning
something fun and learning [without] knowing they’re learning something. It goes back
74

to reflecting back to our audience, so we really want them to see themselves in the
content and absolutely representation.
And CC2 stated,
Showing all kinds of representation is important. There’s the saying, “if you see it, you
can be it.” Every kid should be able to see themselves and their family on TV , even as a
kid, no matter what your family looks like. That’s why I think that diversity is important
because out there, somewhere, is whatever version of diversity you can come up with.
There’s lots of kids who are currently living that way and need to see themselves.
Although the participants were motivated to develop diverse characters, they did not have
that same motivation when it came to LGBTQ+ characters. The lack of motivation was both an
active choice and persistence problem. It appeared as if they excluded the LGBTQ+
demographic in what they were motivated to create to meet diversity representation goals. The
next section shows that the lack of operational processes and culture equally impacts the gap.
Operational Processes and Influences
The data gathered from interviews, programming content, publicly available documents,
and internal artifacts were used to diagnose gaps in operational processes and influences. Clark
and Estes (2008) define operational and organizational barriers in terms of work processes,
material resources, value streams and value chains, and organizational culture. The interviews
and documents do not indicate operational processes or influences as facilitators of LGBTQ+
development or green-lighting. Various operational processes and influences impede this
development. The tools and resources used are not supporting LGBTQ+ character choices.
Although there was some conversation about the importance of diverse representation behind the
camera and in development, there was no specific mention of LGBTQ+ representation. There is
75

a culture of collaboration, but it is not driving LGBTQ+ character development efforts. The
study highlights a performance gap of inefficient and ineffective organizational work processes,
material resources, and support culture to achieve the goal of LGBTQ+ representation in young
children’s television programming.
Tools and Resources
Networks use various processes, tools, and resources in young television programming
that hinder or facilitate character development. The literature review, the data analysis, and the
interview responses supported the tools and process addressed below. One process is the pitch.
Ultimately, the pitch is a gating process to develop the story's purpose and mission, sometimes
called the “show bible.” The collaborators then create a list of characters and descriptions,
sometimes called the character bible. Then, they pitch both to a network. The interviewees
described different processes, such as an initial script portal submission, to a pitch in front of the
decision-maker. All participants indicated that if moved through Phase 1 of the process, there are
many other stages, such as focus groups, test audiences, and education specialists who critique,
vet, and gate the concept along the way. All participants indicated that a script could be rejected
anywhere along the process, and there may be requests to alter characters. In some cases, some
networks approve but expect the content developer to fully fund the production before
considering official approval. All content developers described also being a part of independent
content development projects during their careers. DM1 described the process:
We typically don’t produce soup to nuts. Oftentimes, [there] will be a distribution partner
for content. Producers will have to go out and fully fund the project and bring it back to
us, and we’ll work out a distribution deal. Although we absolutely do work with
76

independent producers and produce content, but with kids, mostly it’s [a] distribution
deal. We don’t within our organization typically produce the content in-house.
In these scenarios, the decision-makers described using familiar producers, and as DM1
said, “From a business perspective, we should home in on one audience that might be able to
fund us and curate that audience.” They later described the process they were involved in: “I’m
part of many early rounds where it’s sort of like a gating process. You sort of get through the first
round of reviews, and they come back to you with revisions, and then you read the second
round.” They all discussed the role of relationships and years of experience with particular
networks. The process appears to impede LGBTQ+ representation because, as one DM2 stated,
“We are squarely in the middle of whatever culture wars [are] happening at the time,” and they
signaled that the race war was the driving force today, not LGBTQ+ identities. When referring to
the network for which they develop content, DM1 said,
That’s just the biggest [challenge]. Just to find the balance and reflect back and be as
inclusive as we absolutely can and really shine a light on the human being and not
classify them. I think we do a better job at race. It’s just so apparent out there. You don’t
intentionally exclude. You intentionally include people just naturally.
However, when asked about including LGBTQ+ characters, they said,
I cannot remember. It hasn’t been intentional. I will say we didn’t intentionally exclude
them. I don’t know. I can’t really answer that I am not sure. Well, it’s not that it’s not
considered. It’s just I, you know; we haven’t had an instance.
Their comments indicated that the process was to honor the network goal of diverse
representation but not expect it from the content developers with LGBTQ+ characters. The data
77

suggests the lack of expectation and it not being a part of the expected gating process impedes
developing LGBTQ+ characters.
CC3 and DM1 also described that their network arms them with resources or talking
points and educational materials to support controversial or sensitive topics for viewers. The
content developer described that a 2019 episode for a popular young children’s show, with which
they were not involved, had a same-sex couple introduced, and the network sent around talking
points and a Q&A to support them in validating the choice to produce and air it. Some of the
questions addressed in the memo sent to internal staff were
1. Why are you showing a same-sex relationship on a children’s television show?
2. What is your agenda with this episode?
3. This goes against my belief. / It’s not your role to introduce my child to the concept of
same-sex marriage – as a parent it’s my role to decide what topics my child should be
exposed to. Why is your station airing this?
According to a media search on this episode, many local stations refused to air it, and
other media declared it groundbreaking in television history. CC3, who shared this example,
described it as an example of why LGBTQ+ representation was controversial and discussed the
resources used:
A huge deal. So, that was proof, then. This is very sensitive. But, obviously, I believe
content creators are feeling the pressure to include some of this in the programming,
which is why this show aired. I thought that was interesting. There were resources that we
were offered to provide to any viewer who may have called.
They described that there were always resources on the website if parents had questions
but that a massive email and multiple meetings, including a viewing party to discuss in case
78

viewers had questions, indicated to them that this was a “huge deal.” The investment in
communication and effort around staff education could hinder content developers or decision-
makers in producing content that requires extra explanation or might elicit negative viewership
responses. Based on the content creator’s tone and body language, it appeared that the risk of it
not getting aired and the hindrance of extra resources made it not worth developing LGBTQ+
characters themselves. They also described that many local stations across the country did not air
this episode, which increased the risk of time, money, and effort not meeting the ultimate
viewership goal.
Behind-the-Scenes Representation
Networks strive to have diverse representation in character choices for young children’s
programming and behind-the-scenes during development. The structure of who represents and is
represented for influence over authentic voices and storylines has become more prevalent over
the last few years, specifically regarding the race and gender balance. All participants discussed
this operational aspect of the process. CC2 stated, “We make sure that we have fair and even
gender splits both in front of and behind the camera.” CC3 said,
It is so critically important to have a diverse staff who are at the table, making the
decisions and bringing ideas to the table, even if the organization doesn’t necessarily
have the mission or the follow-through for the mission. If you have employee producers
in those roles, we can do that.
CC4 had a differing point of view on diversifying those involved. As it related to
themself, they said,
Unfortunately, there’s this sort of other side show that I just try to avoid, which is the
makeup of who’s writing it and who is working the production. I know this might be
79

outside the scope of this discussion, but we are kind of in a troubling time right now.
There are people out there saying guys shouldn’t write or develop for girls, but again,
everyone, if we lower the temperature. There was a huge issue with several projects that
I’ve been tangential to where it’s like African American characters and not enough
African Americans helming the project. I just try to avoid those issues, but they are huge
right now. We are at peak judgement of the creators, and I think we’ll get past it, but it’s
really intense right now, and it’s drifted into content creation.
Although all made statements about generally diverse staff, there was no specific
reference to LGBTQ+ staff, and the lack of LGBTQ+ characters developed by them indicates
they do not consider LGBTQ+ representation when referring to staff diversity. However, in
public document review, the LGBTQ+ characters developed and popularized have been
developed by openly gay individuals, such as Chris Nee, as reference earlier.
Culture of Collaboration
Content creation for young children’s television is highly collaborative. Multiple
stakeholders and participants reinforced the culture for collaboration. All content creator
participants discussed collaboration and emphasized that the process never happens alone, yet
the culture of collaboration does not drive LGBTQ+ character development. CC1 stated
It’s a collaboration. You’ll have those that are very passionate. That inclusion will convey
the concepts more effectively. Parts of the collaboration that are just part of the machine,
and “this is the way we’ve done it in the past, and this is what works, and this is what the
track record is, and this is the way we’re going to do it moving forward.” In the end, the
result comes out, usually some kind of balance of both.
80

My observation was that the content creator was trying to explain the value and how diverse
collaboration or perspectives can change the outcome. However, although collaboration is the
culture, collaboration and variety of perspectives have not influenced LGBTQ+ character
choices.
The results indicate that the lack of knowledge and motivation impede the creation or
green-lighting of LGBTQ+ characters, and the operational processes do not support the effort.
The study showed the lack of specific organizational processes and culture as a gap to LGBTQ+
representation in character choices for young children’s television. The data indicates that
various stakeholders expect diverse representation, but the risk of creating or green-lighting an
LGBTQ+ character is not worth the effort.
Results Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What are the criteria or barriers reported by content
creators and decision-makers that facilitate or limit LGBTQ+ characters represented in young
children’s television programming?” Participants’ responses presented two main themes limiting
LGBTQ+ characters in young children’s television programming: the value of diversity
representation as related to the LGBTQ+ demographic and LGBTQ+ representation equated with
sexual activity.
Value of Diversity as Relates to the LGBTQ+ Demographic
In interviews, respondents identified that they are actively developing diverse
demographic representation in characters for young children's television programming or asked
decision-makers to change characters to be more diverse. However, they do not create and
executives do not ask them to present the LGBTQ+ population in their characters. Creators of
young children's television content reported that they are aware of the value of representation,
81

are motivated to pursue representation, and are actively developing demographically diverse
characters that represent and reflect their audience. However, they reported they do not classify
or consider the LGBTQ+ demographic in their character choices. This exclusion of LGBTQ+
character choices was a barrier limiting LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s television
programming. The exclusion indicates that an LGBTQ+ character is not equal or has the same
value as underrepresented communities. All four content developers with 20+ years of
experience shared that diversity was one of the essential character decision-making criteria over
the last few years. However, three of the four had not developed an LGBTQ+ character for
young children's programming during that time frame. CC4 stated,
Especially in the last year or two, there is so much attention going to correct the balance
of diversity and equity issues that there is a huge push to make sure that the characters
represented are diverse. It's dominating the business right now.
When asked if LGBTQ+ characters were being considered or expected, the same content creator
stated,
No, it hasn't come up as much because we are talking little kids. In my personal
experience, it just hasn't. It hasn't been an issue. In my personal work, it hasn't come up
that much other than to just to keep an eye out. Everyone's keeping an eye on it and being
careful. But you are not asked to change a character to that, unlike race, gender, or
culture.
Equally, DM1 reinforced the importance of representation when they stated,
A big piece of those choices was about representing. We wanted our audience to see
themselves in that content, and that’s always a number one priority when we’re selecting
or making character choices is representing our audience. You know, for us, it’s just about
82

reflecting back to our audience. We want them to see themselves in that character. We try
to have as much diverse representation as possible.
When the same decision-maker was asked if they had green-lit an LGBTQ+ character,
they stated, “I don’t think that we’ve ever had that.” They then went on to say, “It hasn’t been
intentional. I will say we didn’t intentionally exclude them.” And later in the discussion, they
clarified, “I think we do a better job with race. It’s just so apparent and so out there.”
The exclusion indicates that an LGBTQ+ character choice is not equal or has the same
value as other diverse and underrepresented communities to the content creators or decision-
makers who green-light shows and have the ultimate power to make decisions around character
choices. This barrier is a limitation on LGBTQ+ character development for young children’s
television.
LGBTQ+ Representation Is Equated With Sexual Activity
In interviews, participants stated that developing an LGBTQ+ character in young
children’s television would be controversial or a sensitive choice because they equate LGBTQ+,
not with a demographic identity such as race or gender, but with sexual activity and not being
appropriate for young children. As the literature review discussed, unlike with heterosexuality,
sexual activity is the assumed leading indicator of homosexuality, prompting social concerns
around innocent children watching television with LGBTQ+ characters and storylines (Lemish,
2011; Wallis & VanEvery, 2000). The interviewees' responses supported that moral questions
arise when exposing children to non-heteronormative behavior (J.P. Robinson & Espelage, 2012;
K. H. Robinson, 2012). Thorfinnsdottir and Jensen (2017) assessed that affection and
relationships, including innocent crushes and adult characters like parents or others, were
appropriate and natural when with the opposite sex, affirming the heteronormative dominant
83

culture and alienation of anything different. Thorfinnsdottir and Jensen found that the sexual
connotation of non-heteronormative intimacy translated to its absence from children’s television.
Four participants felt that it was too early to present sexuality to 2- to 7-year-olds and that
it would be challenging to present to a young audience. The respondents also added that they felt
that parents are not ready to expose their young children to LGBTQ+ characters. The participants
did not differentiate the diversity of the LGBTQ+ community but did lump all categories of this
community into sexual activity and took a stance that it was not appropriate for a young
audience. CC2 stated that at that age, “no one is having conversations about sex.” CC3 stated,
“Not everyone is willing to have that be put to their children at that age. They want to determine
when,” and CC4 said, “I would say no. I think it’s just, in that particular age group, there just
isn’t sexuality and sexual activity.” CC3 (or one participant?) compared her experience as a
Black mother exposing her son to the brutality of slavery and oppression by stating,
A different example is my mom really wanted to make sure that my son watched Roots. I
do agree that he should watch it, but in my opinion, at the time, he was too young. And I
wanted to wait. Because you can’t un-see things and un-hear things, so I'm imagining that
would be the case with this also. So, it’s not necessarily that the young parents don’t want
their children to know that there are men who love men and women who love women as
a couple. Maybe they weren’t ready at the 2- to 7-year-old group to present that.
The finding emerged that the content creators connected aspects of the LGBTQ+
demographic to sexual activity and determined that 2- to 7-year-olds are too young, or parents
should decide if and when they should introduce an LGBTQ+ identity. The finding was
identified as a barrier that limits LGBTQ+ character choices on young children's television.
84

Results Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “To what extent are child development considerations
investigated when developing and producing young children’s television shows?” Participants
highly value child development considerations when producing young children’s television.
Character choices are a part of the development consideration. Participants discussed curriculum,
such as informational text, social-emotional, and identity formation. All stated that the networks
they work for and have worked for emphasized learning outcomes for the 2 to 7 age group in
programming. They reference expected frameworks and protocols to follow when working with
a network or when pitching to the network as an independent content creator in terms of how
they pitch the expected learning objective in the show and character bibles. The use of experts to
validate and deepen the learning is a part of the development process. All participants referenced
the importance of representation as a positive aspect of character development on a child’s
identity and acceptance of others. Although participants did mention child safety and learning
outcomes, only one expressed the downstream impact on a child’s life as it relates to the
internalization of negative behaviors or attitudes. They were not referring to the LGBTQ+
population, but they did reference a show taken off the air due to the character antagonizing or
bullying its peers.
Use of Experts
Networks and independent content developers use experts and stress-test characters to
assess and validate expected child development learning outcomes. Character and content
development is extremely collaborative, but young children’s television has legal and
organizationally driven learning outcome expectations. Therefore, experts often support
achieving expected learning outcome goals. All content creators and decision-makers discussed
85

various experts to support the actualization of learning outcomes. Experts were educational
specialists, curriculum advisors, child psychiatrists, educators, parents, and child focus groups.
Focus groups and multi-layered reviews take place before a show goes on the air. The use of
experts validates that the network also believes that character choices impact identity formation.
Using experts supports the effort to meet learning objectives and that character choices support
the learning or do not negatively impact a child’s self-worth or validation. CC3 said,
We have child psychiatry that will go over the scripts and a psychologist to make sure
that we are addressing the whole child [and] that nothing is very offensive. We work
really, really hard to ensure that the people that we bring on the air, the kids and the
families, are diverse.
Also, one DM2 who was part of the decision-making process as the education expert
stated about their role in that process and their point of view of character choices as it relates to
identity formation,
We want the community we serve to be reflected in the characters we create. This is very
top of mind for everybody at our network. And wanting to make sure that none of our
characters would have a detrimental effect on somebody’s self-worth, their self-identity,
or any of those things. It is meant to build up kids.
Identity Formation Considerations
Participants believe that character choices influence a child’s identity formation.
Similarly, Ellithorpe and Bleakley (2016) asserted that diverse representation on television can
validate self-identity and acceptance of others. Three of the four content creators and both
decision-makers discussed the importance of diversity in character choices related to identity
formation and social-emotional well-being. DM1 referred to the positive impact a character
86

choice has on a child: “Especially within the children’s audience, kids see themselves. You know
the power you have to impact a child if he sees himself in that character, and then that’s huge.
That’s the biggest benefit.” The same decision-maker, when discussing the importance of
supporting parents with materials for discussion with their child, said, “You have to be really
careful because we understand the impact and the ramifications that one character can make in
seconds with that child.”
The content developers are also aware. CC1 felt the opposite of the others:
I don’t think they’re thinking the kids are going to learn better if it’s diverse. I think they
feel we’re gonna keep it diverse because we want a diverse audience, and if we have a
diverse audience, we will have diverse advertisers, and so it’s more of a financially driven
decision than necessarily [an] education success decision.
However, the other three agreed that diversity impacts identity formation and social and
emotional well-being. CC2 said,
I do think that the character choices that you’re making influence your audience’s
identity. There’s a saying, “if you see it, you can be it.” Every kid should be able to see
themselves and their family on TV , even as a kid, no matter what your family looks like.
That’s why I think that diversity is important because out there, somewhere, is whatever
version of diversity you can come up with. There’s lots of kids who are currently living
that way and need to see themselves.
Although, there were strong feelings about identity formation considerations around
character choices, it was not explicitly connected to LGBTQ+ character choices.
87

Summary
The study found many influences that impeded content creators and decision-makers
from creating and green-lighting shows with LGBTQ+ characters for young children’s television.
The qualitative process used interviews and publicly available documents, programming content,
and internal artifacts that supported the findings and triangulated interviewees’ responses.
Applying Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework to the analysis revealed that content
creators and decision-makers do not have the adequate knowledge, motivation, or operational
processes to support decisions regarding LGBTQ+ character choices in programming. The
participants identified that they had the knowledge that diversity representation was valued and
currently demanded in content development and decision-making, yet LGBTQ+ character
representation was reported as controversial and therefore not valued or considered. The
participants and networks were motivated to produce diverse character representation but not
motivated to produce LGBTQ+ characters. Stakeholders were not pressuring to produce
LGBTQ+ characters the same way they were with race and male and female gender
representation. The participants were not displaying persistence or aspirational motivation to
develop LGBTQ+ characters. According to the findings, the operational tools and resources, the
increased behind-the-scenes diversity representation, and the culture of collaboration did not
support the creation of LGBTQ+ characters.
The study also identified barriers such as the lack of value on LGBTQ+ representation as
it relates to diversity representation goals and equating LGBTQ+ representation with sexuality
activity instead of as an identity. Although child developmental considerations were valued, there
was a lack of connection to LGBTQ+ identity formation as a valued aspect for the development
of LGBTQ+ characters. The study validated the lack of LGBTQ+ characters in young children’s
88

television and the reasons for it. The next section will present recommendations, discuss the
study’s limitation and delimitations, and recommendations for future study.

89

Chapter Five: Recommendations
Chapter Four outlined KMO influence findings in relation to the three research questions:
1. How do content developers and network decision-makers report that knowledge,
motivation, and operational factors are related to the development and decision to include
LGBTQ+ character representation in young children’s television shows?
2. What are the criteria or barriers reported by content developers and network decision-
makers that facilitate or limit LGBTQ+ characters represented in young children’s
television shows?
3. To what extent are child development considerations investigated when producing young
children’s television shows?
This chapter provides recommendations pertaining to the findings identified in Chapter
Four. The sources of data were documents, artifacts, programming content analysis, and
interviews. Data analysis identified KMO barriers in relation to social cognitive theory,
cultivation theory, and minority stress theory connected to individuals’ identity formation as
anticipated by the study’s conceptual framework. Chapter Five delivers specific improvement
recommendations for each influence supported by the data. The recommendations are selected
and grounded by specific performance solutions identified in the KMO framework (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The literature review did not identify specific, intentional examples of organization
actions, procedures, and best practices to mitigate the performance gap of the lack of LGBTQ+
representation of young children’s television programming. However, pop-culture research and
personal observation revealed that streaming networks provide content developers and producers
autonomy and budgets to create without oversight (Steinberg & Low, 2021).
90

Some developers, like Chris Nee, produce well-rounded inclusive perspectives,
specifically utilizing LGBTQ+ characters and breaking the heteronormative norm (Steinberg &
Low, 2021). In these efforts, they gain awards and social media recognition (GLAAD, 2022).
Although there is a macro-opportunity for recognizing LGBTQ+ diversity in inclusion efforts
across many organizations, the recommendations provided here are specific to organizational
change in young children’s television networks as part of the solution. A holistic approach is
embedded into the recommendations and synergistically linked to mitigating KMO influence
gaps. In conclusion, this chapter will discuss possible areas for future research and a brief
reflection on the importance of long-term benefits for children’s positive self and other
validation.
Discussion of Findings
Six significant findings emerged during the data analysis. Results revealed two major
findings under each area of the KMO framework. The delimitation of the small sample might
have limited the variation and depth of data responses; however, the findings provide suggested
justification for the lack of LGBTQ+ characters in young children’s television programming.
Knowledge Finding 1: Participants Lack Knowledge That LGBTQ+ Representation Is
Connected to the DEI Goal for the Organizations and Lack Awareness of How to Represent
LGBTQ+ Characters
The data indicated that young children’s networks have a DEI goal, yet LGBTQ+
representation is not explicit in the goal. Consequently, a lack of demonstrated understanding of
representing LGBTQ+ characters is present. Clark and Estes’ (2008) first implementation
strategy step is to identify a key business goal. The research identified that DEI in character
development is an explicit network goal. Although the goal does not explicitly define LGBTQ+,
91

the framing of the goal does not call out diversity representation explicitly. Therefore, the
assumption is that the goal includes LGBTQ+ as a non-dominant identity. The data analysis
showed a lack of understanding that LGBTQ+ is as important as other diversity representation
and the research demonstrated the lack of knowing how to represent LGBTQ+ characters to
young viewers.
Bandura (1997) claimed that individuals working in an organization must have clearly
understood work goals for action to ensue. Not understanding the goal may lead to not
understanding how to achieve it (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gilbert, 1978; Rummler & Brache, 1995).
The literature review identified that the lack of knowledge of how to represent LGBTQ+
characters pertained to a connection to sex as compared to the heteronormative narrative
(Thorfinnsdottir & Jensen, 2017) and a worry about the timing of exposure and moral questions
(J. P. Robinson & Espelage, 2012; K. H. Robinson, 2012). The study also identified these factors
to be true. The study suggests the lack of goal knowledge, conceptual benefits, and know-how
contribute to the lack of LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s television programming.
Knowledge Finding 2: Lack of Awareness That LGBTQ+ Character Representation Affects
Identity Formation and Its Potential Consequences on the Child
The data did not validate that content developers and decision-makers understood that
LGBTQ+ representation either positively or negatively impacted a child’s identity formation, life
choices, and consequences through adolescence. The literature review found that television
impacted identity formation (Ellithorpe & Bleakley, 2016). The participants did not address the
conceptual framework developed for this study around identity formation in relation to LGBTQ+
character choices. There are three aspects of the identity formation conceptual framework.
Cognitive theory asserts that children internalize the model that television characters provide
92

(Bandura, 2001). Then, cultivation theory contributes to the assertion that watching television
over time causes individuals to formulate perceptions of the world and those in it (Gerbner et al.,
2002; Potter, 2014). Lastly, minority stress theory layers in that, when children reach
adolescence, the combination of traditional adolescence stressors and feeling othered compounds
the stress (Kelleher, 2009).
The literature review also found that LGBTQ+ teens have the highest trauma statistics
compared to their non-LGBTQ+ peers (Fergusson et al., 2005; Marshal et al., 2011). The study
results suggest a lack of direct awareness and value of these statistics, and this lack of knowledge
contributed to the lack of development of LGBTQ+ characters for young audiences. Identity
formation was identified in the study as valuable, specifically around modeling, in diversity
representation, but not in relation to LGBTQ+ characters. The research and study suggest that the
lack of knowledge on how LGBTQ+ representation impacts identity formation contributes to the
lack of LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s programming.
Motivation Finding 3: Lack of and Fear of Stakeholder Pressure to Develop and Produce
LGBTQ+ Characters
Stakeholders are not motivating content developers and decision-makers to develop or
produce LGBTQ+ characters for young children’s television. Although content developers and
decision-makers were motivated by outside stakeholders to ensure character diversity, they did
not consider LGBTQ+ representation. When they considered an LGBTQ+ choice it was in
relation to the infrequency of representation, a guess of when it was done, or the idea that there
must have been outside pressure to ensure inclusion. The research did outline organizations like
GLADD, the largest media advocacy organization focused on fair and accurate coverage of the
LGBTQ+ community (GLAAD, 2022), and other special interest groups that were instrumental
93

in motivating LGBTQ+ inclusion. However, participants did not discuss that as a motivating-
enough force. The results suggest that fear of stakeholders was a consideration but did not
provide for a detailed assessment of where and how this fear manifests. Although there is
evidence of change in recent years, especially due to efforts from organizations like GLAAD, the
rate of change is slow compared to that for other underrepresented groups in young children’s
television programming. The study provided minimal evidence that stakeholders were
motivating the change.
The literature review also identified that parent groups organized in dissent of LGBTQ+
representation, and the data suggest a concern amongst the participants that parents might not be
ready to show children LGBTQ+ characters, which adds pressure to not present these characters.
Clark and Estes (2008) described barriers to motivation as a failure to make an active choice that
could achieve a goal. They describe it as an active choice. The literature review and study results
identified that stakeholders who drove negative press through letter-writing campaigns, creating
fear for local networks, threats to drop sponsorship and advertising dollars, and social media
backlash were prevalent as a reason to not produce LGBTQ+ content. The data indicate that fear
of stakeholder pressure presents the development of LGBTQ+ characters. The data identified
that stakeholders do not motivate content creators and decision-makers to develop or produce
LGBTQ+ characters, contributing to the lack of LGBTQ+ characters in young children’s
television.
Motivation Finding 4: The Risk of Developing LGBTQ+ Characters Is Not Worth the
Effort
The competing priorities, the lack and fear of stakeholder pressure, participants’ personal
beliefs, and the divergent diversity representation pressure suggests that the participants believe
94

that effort is not worth the reward of developing LGBTQ+ characters. The risk appears to them
to be not worth the effort. The obstacles prevent the choice and persistence to drive forward. The
literature review identified the diversity representation movement and shift in television
development and diversity representation in television research, yet also identified the lack of
young children’s television LGBTQ+ representation and research. GLADD is the prominent
evaluator of LGBTQ+ representation in media in general, but the literature identified a gap in
LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s research specifically. The competing priorities are a
barrier to motivation regarding active choice and persistence to continue in the face of
distractions (Clark & Estes, 2008). The risk indicates a potential impediment to the lack of
LGBTQ+ characters in young children’s television.
Operational Process Finding 5: Participants Value Experts in Character Development
Choices, but Do Not Use LGBTQ+ Experts
The data suggests that participants do not use LGBTQ+ experts to drive LGBTQ+
character development. However, the data suggest that experts specifically encourage, support,
and provide feedback in diversity representation outside of LGBTQ+ populations related to
identity formation, general learning outcomes, and representation accuracy. Clark and Estes
(2008) outlined that an organizational barrier can cause an organizational gap if a work process
designed to support is flawed. Study results show that experts were utilized but not to support
LGBTQ+ representation. No experts were used to suggest, inspire, or coach on developing
LGBTQ+ characters. The results suggest that the lack of LGBTQ+ experts contributes to the lack
of LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s programming.
95

Operational Process Finding 6: There Is Value in Behind-the-Scenes LGBTQ+
Representation in Character Development Choices
The literature review and content analysis revealed that behind-the-scenes representation
was valued and considered critical in developing diverse characters. The content analysis
specifically showed that LGBTQ+ content developers and decision-makers are more vocal and
take more risks on LGBTQ+ representation. The data from interviews suggested participants did
not consider that LGBTQ+ behind-the-scenes representation in creating or producing characters.
Social cognitive theory, as outlined in the conceptual framework, posits that modeling characters
on-screen is necessary for viewers’ identity formation. However, social cognitive theory as
related to organizational infrastructure posits that modeling behavior and modeling
representation among staff can drive the modeling of organizational processes and decision
making (Bandura, 2001). Therefore, social cognitive theory would apply to LGBTQ+
representation behind-the-scenes in creating and developing LGBTQ+ characters. Data from
social media banter between content developers indicated that those who were LGBTQ+ were
more vocal and took more risks to develop characters. They showed persistence and mental
effort to be innovative and driven to achieve representation goals. The lack of LGBTQ+
representation in decision-making positions and the lack of outspoken representation suggests
another culprit to the lack of LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s programming.
Recommendations for Practice
The qualitative study aimed to identify organizational or leadership gaps at young
children’s networks in creating LGBTQ+ characters. This section addresses recommendations
identified by knowledge, motivation, and operational influence gaps. Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis framework was used as the conceptual framework in partnership with identity formation
96

theories, social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), cultivation theory (Gerbner et al., 2002; Potter,
2014), and minority stress theory (Kelleher, 2009). Although the data suggested gaps in factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), the
recommendation focuses on conceptual and procedural knowledge. The findings of this study
validate conceptual and procedural knowledge as areas of need that require mediation to drive
organizational and behavioral change. This study also found Clark and Estes’ (2008) motivation
types of active choice, persistence, and mental effort as a need that requires mediation. However,
the recommendation will only address active choice and persistence related to motivation. The
study also validated Clark and Estes’ (2008) operational process and culture deficit needs
requiring mediation. Therefore, the recommendations will address operational culture shifts to
mediate the gap.
Knowledge Recommendation 1: Provide Education Programs and Organizational Training
on Representing LGBTQ+ Characters
In this study, all interviewees indicated that they lacked conceptual and procedural
knowledge of the benefits and mechanics regarding LGBTQ+ character choices. Clark and Estes
(2008) indicated that conceptual and procedural knowledge are distinct yet substantially
interrelated. They stated that acquiring knowledge of new skills depends on gaining conceptual
and procedural knowledge of the benefits and mechanics of achieving the goal. They suggest
education programs and training when the knowledge needed to perform job duties is known.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) stated that acquiring knowledge depends on gaining
factual, conceptual, procedural, or metacognitive knowledge about the topic. Like Clark and
Estes (2008), they suggested education programs to support conceptual understanding and
training programs to support the procedural processes when the knowledge needed to perform
97

job functions is known (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Schraw and McCrudden (2006)
suggested that integration of knowledge learning secures mastery of skills needed to perform
expected tasks. Clark and Estes suggested a need for more profound education beyond essential
job aids or training when general conceptual knowledge is needed to acquire novel or
unanticipated skills. They also stated that training is necessary when a procedural job aid is
insufficient to secure learning.
The first recommendation to close the conceptual gap is not focused on seasoned content
developers but on new and emerging students in university programs that train them to develop
content for television programming. Creating LGBTQ+ character and content creation courses or
programs, in relationship with the why and how it impacts identity formation, within universities
to groom future content developers can support closing the conceptual knowledge gap.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), acquiring “conceptual, theoretical, and strategic”
knowledge and skills through educational programs supports the future handling of unique and
complex situations (p. 59). The conceptual knowledge gap can be mitigated not by focusing on
content developers who have been in the business for decades. Instead, doing so requires creating
an education program in partnership with universities on content development specific to
LGBTQ+ representation. The recommendation assumes that universities are willing to partner in
these programs. Finding allies and key academic partners at the university level will be critical to
creating these educational programs.
Another recommendation to close the procedural gap in the current network structure is
to create immersive training for content developers and contracted developers on LGBTQ+
representation and on how to represent LGBTQ+ characters to young children. The training
would include guided practice, expert coaching, and feedback from leading LGBTQ+ experts to
98

support acquiring the strategies to present LGBTQ+ characters. Clark and Estes (2008) also
stated that training means acquiring the how-to skills needed to reach a goal.
Another recommendation is a network intern program for recent college graduates
designed for diversity and inclusion representation with specific LGBTQ+ representative
content. The intern program should relate to current research-based knowledge about why
LGBTQ+ representation is important for identity formation and its larger societal benefits, as
identified in the literature review. Developing an intern program assumes that the network is
willing to invest in meeting their named DEI representation goal by providing the tools necessary
to include LGBTQ+ representation. I designed the recommendation to close the conceptual and
procedural gap in the current network structure.
The comprehensive recommendation for supporting knowledge shifts to facilitate change
is the combination of LGBTQ+ representation education programs for emerging content creators,
intern programs at the networks for incoming production staff members, and ongoing immersive
training for those in the development and decision-making power structures.
Motivation Recommendation 2: Support Confidence in Developing LGBTQ+ Characters
All study participants discussed that political and cultural influences and obstacles
reduced confidence and impeded LGBTQ+ character development. Four out of five content
developers and both decision-makers indicated they were not as confident in developing
LGBTQ+ characters as they were in developing characters of different demographics. Clark and
Estes (2008) described that lack of confidence challenges active choice and persistence to
achieve a goal. They described the value of persistence despite the obstacles and stated that
persistence is high when the goals are current and challenging.
99

The recommendation asserts that network leaders should be clear that LGBTQ+
representation is part of the diversity goal despite its challenges. This assumes that the DEI goal
does, in fact, mean all non-dominant identities. If the goal does not mean that, then leaders
should work to include LGBTQ+ representation in the goal. To be relevant and meet diversity
and representation goals, the network decision-makers need to present the challenge to content
developers despite the political and cultural influences and obstacles. They should expect
creative and innovative ways to represent LGBTQ+ characters, including providing experts to
support efforts. According to Clark and Estes (2008), leadership that sets challenging goals
despite obstacles can drive individual and team motivation.
After establishing the goal, the team needs professional development on different but
required skills to achieve the goal. Bandura (1997) posited that when individuals lack confidence
in procedural processes, they are not motivated to pursue goals. Providing how-to information
can increase confidence and inspire motivation. As previously identified, LGBTQ+ experts could
drive confidence during the how-to implementation strategy.
Bandura (1997) also argued that the team must believe in each other and perceive
individual strengths to pursue goals to have team persistence. A lack of confidence might be due
to a sense of being overwhelmed, a task that appears too large, or a lack of models to serve as
examples (Clark, 1998; Clark & Estes, 2008). LGBTQ+ focus groups and stress-test advocates
need to be part of the team to validate and hold content creators accountable for accurate
LGBTQ+ representation. Organizational and public relations recognition should motivate long-
term LGBTQ+ representation. Advocacy groups, affinity groups, parent or student groups, or
other special interest groups should build advice and support mechanisms in combination with
current accountability activity and training. The people involved in the support mechanisms will
100

demonstrate the importance of and provide examples for LGBTQ+ representation. They will also
demonstrate how to shift heteronormative signals to inclusive signals.
Clark and Estes (2008) recommended small stages or small chunks to develop wins and
feelings of success. They posit small wins motivate more and build confidence for greater levels
of creativity and innovation. Low-stakes examples, such as a picture of a same-sex couple or a
male giving a gift to another male and other non-heteronormative choices, will lead to characters
who have non-heteronormative crushes, non-binary characters, and more obvious LGBTQ+
representation. Examples of specific movies and shows representing the LGBTQ+ culture and
the positive feedback will increase confidence and support the risk. Content developers must
closely monitor the process to prevent mission drift and inaccurate representation. The
recommendation is to ground LGBTQ+ representation in examples and celebrate small wins
along the way to build confidence and drive motivation to do more.
Eccles and Wigfield (1995) discussed interest value as individuals doing what interests
them, adds to their expertise, helps them master a new area, and impresses stakeholders. The
content analysis and personal observation suggest that decision-makers and content developers
are interested in public recognition and celebration of effort and outcome. The results indicate
the goal for television programming is to secure fans, gain widespread notoriety, become a
cultural phenomenon, and drive revenue. This data suggests there are driving interests, so
individuals will choose to accomplish those interests. All content developers discussed the
consideration of identity formation. Connecting LGBTQ+ trauma statistics to their interest in
identity formation and responsibility in content development could motivate them to do it
because that interests them. One content developer claimed LGBTQ+ representation in children’s
characters would be “groundbreaking,” and document analysis identified fame as driving
101

behavior. Therefore, using those interest values to drive motivation to achieve the goal could
mitigate the gap.
Eccles and Wigfield (1995) described skill value as motivation caused by challenges and
showing off special skills. The researchers stated that if individuals connect to something and are
good at it, they can be motivated to show off their skills despite the obstacles. The data show that
content creators are artists and thrive on being creative. In addition, the data suggests they see
creating television programming as a unique skill.
The recommendation is for network leaders to challenge the development of LGBTQ+
characters by inspiring content developers to show their unique skills. CC2 said, “I think it’s a
privilege and a great collaboration to make TV shows.” Suggesting connections with the
representation goal can motivate the artist to show off their unique skills in creative ways. In
addition, the data suggest that both content creators and decision-makers see the value and take
much pride in being creative with representation; therefore, connecting that value and pride to
LGBTQ+ representation can motivate and build confidence in the individuals’ skill value to
show off that skill in a new way.
LGBTQ+ interest groups and viewers need to demand more from the network decision-
makers. Then celebrate and choose networks that move the needle on LGBTQ+ representation.
They then could use that as a stakeholder demand, desire, and societal inclusion value. Providing
and celebrating the networks’ special skill of LGBTQ+ inclusion will motivate others to show
the same special skill.
The comprehensive recommendation to support the confidence to drive motivation in
developing LGBTQ+ characters for young children’s programming is the combination of making
clear that their representation is part of the diversity representation goal, moving forward despite
102

obstacles, providing how-to guidance, outside stakeholder pressure, and tapping into interest and
skill values.
Operational Process Recommendation 3: Support a Shift in Cultural Pattern
All study participants discussed the current culture of using diversity experts and having
behind-the-scenes representation. Document analysis revealed the importance of LGBTQ+
experts and behind-the-scenes representation. However, the data did not suggest this culture and
importance applied to LGBTQ+ programming development. Clark and Estes (2008) noted the
importance of finding leverage points to designate culture patterns through individuals who value
and have the knowledge and persistence to pursue goals.
Prieto et al. (2009) described strong organizational culture values diversity as an asset
through inclusive action of all non-dominant cultures. Analysis of social media posts among
content creators and fans suggests the necessary culture shift and its impact on future shows with
LGBTQ+ representation (Nee, 2022). These posts openly discuss that accurate and frequent
LGBTQ+ representation starts with hiring LGBTQ+ production staff. Chris Nee, content creator
and executive producer, and openly gay lesbian, tweeted a response to the GLAAD Media Award
nominations (GLAAD, 2022),
Thank you @glaad for recognizing We the People with a Glaad Media Award
nomination. When we created ‘We the People’ we wanted everyone to feel included. By
hiring LGBTQ directors designers creators and producers you get a vision of a more
inclusive America. We ARE the people. (Nee, 2022).
A fan tweeted to Chris Nee about a show she created:
Currently sat with kids I babysit watching #RidleyJones. As a queer teenager myself,
seeing the character of Ishmat (who has two dads) and Fred (who is non binary) makes
103

me so happy!! Having this sort of queer representation in a tv show when I was younger
would have allowed me to come to terms with my identity so much easier. Watching
shows like this give me so much hope for the future, these kids will grow up with nothing
but love in their hearts. Thank you for creating this. (Elli, 2021)
Acknowledging the necessity of LGBTQ+ behind-the-scenes representation and showing the
impact on a children’s identity formation supports the cultural shift needed.
GLADD released their 2022 nominations for the 33rd GLADD Media Awards for
Outstanding Children’s Programming and Outstanding Kids & Family Programming in January
2022 (GLAAD, 2022). According to the organization, “The GLAAD Media Awards recognize
and honor media for their fair, accurate and inclusive representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community and the issue that affect their lives” (para. 2). Chris
Nee discussed the value of GLAAD as an outside influence or expert to support motivating
production of LGBTQ+ characters on Twitter:
Not long ago it was hard to scrape together 3 shows to justify 1 kids category for the
@Glaad Media Awards. Now it’s two categories, and look how many shows. Again,
thank you to all the nominees for making queer and trans kids feel less alone. We all win
here. (Nee, 2022)
The recommendation to shift the culture is to seek, hire, and use experts in program
development and establish hiring goals and patterns, including network affinity groups to garner
a collective voice for LGBTQ+ representation behind-the-scenes. Clark and Estes (2008) stated
the importance of aligning the organizational culture with organizational behavior. If the current
culture is about diverse experts and behind-the-scenes representation, then the behavior of
104

LGBTQ+ goals, tools and resources, and celebration of efforts along the way need to align to
produce change.
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that organizational culture shifts when those interested in
pursuing a goal band together. The document analysis shows that LGBTQ+ individuals and allies
who banded together made change. The data suggested that content creation is highly
collaborative, so the people behind-the-scenes who value LGBTQ+ representation could increase
LGBTQ+ representation and reduce heteronormativity in young children’s programming.
Implementing the knowledge and motivation strategies and shifting the culture can
support a shift. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that operational process culture shifts can happen if
there is a belief that the effort is worth the reward. Making the recommended changes and
ensuring decision-makers see the value through financial gain, recognition, and viewership will
make the effort worth the reward.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are potential limitations and delimitations to the study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
outlined many limitations of interviews and document and artifact reviews as potential
limitations to a study. A qualitative study can result in indirect filtering flaws from the researcher.
I could have missed unobservable designation and visual cues because I did not conduct the
interviews in a natural setting. Although I aimed not to steer the questions heavily to focus on
LGBTQ+ issues immediately to ease into the potentially more sensitive and controversial
subject, my presence might have biased the responses. Moreover, the current cultural climate of
discussions around diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in pop, political, and
organizational cultures may have biased the participant to provide answers they did not believe
in or live in action. Although the participants were likely used to interviews and public exposure
105

based on their public persona and executive presence, the sensitive nature of the questions and
current climate might have led to varying levels of articulate and perceptive responses.
Moreover, the nature of qualitative case study interviews, creating a hunting-for-
information approach, may have exposed a weakness in what I discovered through the probing
questions. The participant might also have been skilled at speaking to the party line or delivering
standard organizational answers, which may hinder authentic personal responses. Similarly, the
decision-makers’ status and high-level positions might have limited their accessibility, time
commitment, and focus during the interview. These realities might make data difficult to
interpret. From a technical perspective, an interview also makes the data entry more difficult due
to potential pattern and coding dilemmas.
Furthermore, the interviewee can veer off-topic or stray outside the lines of the
discussion, which can cause flaws in data collection. Lastly, the document and artifact review
might not have been fully authentic or accurate due to their location in unvalidated non-peer-
reviewed data sources. Specifically, public documents can be biased, political, and polarizing by
nature. Thus, especially in the current climate of political and social unrest, the document
reviews might have been inherently flawed or tainted. Equally, internal documents are not public,
and their analysis could be biased due to not knowing the internal culture or organizational
expectations.
The delimitations of the study are inherent in the choices I made that had implications for
the data. For example, I targeted a small sample, and this might have limited the variation and
depth of data responses. Equally, I targeted specific roles, although many others are involved in
creating and deciding on children’s programming. The lack of a comprehensive view of all
involved might have limited the responses’ variation and depth. The topic is sensitive and could
106

go in many different directions, leading to short one-time interviews, adding limitations to what I
discovered. The goal was to uncover enough and leave the door open for further exploration and
research.
Recommendations for Future Research
Although the conceptual framework used for the study identified gaps and findings that
led to multilayered recommendations, further research using other theoretical frameworks could
provide deeper systemic structural or societal reasons for the lack of LGBTQ+ representation in
young children’s television. As mentioned in the limitations, the sample was small, so a larger
and more diversified organizational sample might yield insights not captured here. Further
research considering outside organizations or groups and their efforts to support or discourage
LGBTQ+ representation could provide another lens from the stakeholder perspective. A gap
analysis on how the special interest or advocacy groups influence change would be highly
beneficial. Further quantitative and qualitative research on viewers, both parents and youth,
could provide insight into what they value, what they watch, what drives watching decisions, and
the influence of character choices.
The study was conducted specifically on television as it relates to identity formation, but
the landscape of media content for youth is multi-faceted, diverse, and evolving. Therefore,
further research considering various forms of media and their impact on health, emotions, and
long-term identity formation would be highly beneficial. This study focused on television for 2-
to 7-year-olds. Future research could analyze what LGBTQ+ teens watched when they were
younger to cross-reference or triangulate their identity markers and how television influenced
them. Multi-decade longitudinal research could be important to the media industry and parents in
decision-making for their young children.
107

Further study on content creators and decision-makers taking risks developing and
producing LGBTQ+ characters would also be highly beneficial in identifying positive
organizational and societal benefits. Comparing the ages at which children first encounter
LGBTQ+ characters and how shows introduce these characters would inform best practices for
future programming. The study highlighted the shifts in representing other demographics, and
further research on the role of intersectionality in decision making and identity formation would
be highly beneficial to the discussion.
Finally, research on the financial impacts of LGBTQ+ decision making in networks could
highlight financial considerations and implications. Although research shows that those who
make television do consider societal benefits, television is ultimately a business, and research in
the financial considerations could move the needle on impact and shifts in deeper ways than this
study.
Conclusion
Lack of LGBTQ+ representation in young children's television related to identity
formation is a challenging problem of practice requiring assiduous consideration of barriers to
improvement. Although media production and viewing are rapidly changing, television remains a
viable source of education and entertainment for the very young. Although television networks
are making more moves to claim value, establish diversity, equity, and inclusion character and
storyline development goals, and increasingly deliver diversity representation in character
choices and storylines, LGBTQ+ representation for young children continues to be low. It is also
a sensitive topic. This study used Clark and Estes' (2008) gap analysis framework to evaluate
KMO influences that facilitate or impede LGBTQ+ representation in young children's television.
The conceptual framework utilized KMO as the backdrop, layering in social cognitive theory,
108

cultivation theory, and minority stress theory concerning identity formation. The study focused
on content creators and decision-makers at, and for, young children’s television networks. The
study evaluated barriers in networks achieving their DEI goals. I proposed recommendations to
reduce identified KMO gaps. I linked the recommendations to the findings identified through
data collection and analysis.
Although the data suggested barriers in all four knowledge areas, the findings suggest
that increased conceptual and procedural knowledge will facilitate shifts in content creators' and
decision-makers' actions to develop and produce LGBTQ+ characters through training and
education programs. The findings also suggest that building content developers' and decision-
makers' confidence, despite the various obstacles, can support their motivational active choice
and persistence to develop and produce LGBTQ+ characters. Lastly, the findings suggest that
increased use of tools and resources, such as experts and behind-the-scenes representation, may
improve the likelihood of LGBTQ+ representation.
In light of television networks' recent intensified focus on improving diversity
representation and the recognition of the critical stakes of identity formation consequences, the
proposed recommendations may prove to be particularly timely and useful. Furthermore, the
literature shows the necessity of positive and accurate representation as a part of a child's identity
formation; therefore, increased attention on improving LGBTQ+ representation in young
children’s television is imperative.
For various reasons, including lack of support, political and legal action, and
representation, the literature shows LGBTQ+ children are more at risk for drug and alcohol
abuse, peer victimization, mental health issues, and suicide than their heterosexual peers. It has
been shown that television influences a child's development, and without forward-thinking,
109

innovative solutions to address this problem, it will become exponentially worse. Television
networks that reflect optimized representation will facilitate meaningful change for LGBTQ+
youth and their families. Individuals identifying as LGBTQ+ are rapidly growing as compared to
generations before, according to a 2021 Gallup poll of over 12,000 U.S adults (Phillips, 2022).
Therefore, not only do the networks need to change to stay relevant, the gravity of mental health
concerns and lives are at stake.
In conclusion, various influences in a child's life contribute to identity formation and
social awareness. Identity formation starts in early childhood. Family, friends, school, and
community contribute to identity formation, but research shows that what children see on
television is also a strong contributor. Underrepresentation of LGBTQ+ characters contributes to
the influences and consequences that LGBTQ+ youth face. Inclusive organizational and societal
change requires accountability from content creators, decision-makers, and the networks to
represent diversity and disrupt the dominant culture by including LGBTQ+ representation in the
diversity representation movement and culture. Innovation, action, and non-dominant culture
representation are needed for accurate stories to be told and the positive impact of identity
formation and social acceptance to be actualized. The changing landscape of how children are
consuming and self-creating media is uncharted, and the importance of researching, staying
current, and remaining relevant is crucial to understanding its influence.
There are examples of many taking risks and driving change, and I hope this study opens
the conversation for more research, attention, and action. It matters because, besides young
children not seeing themselves and their families represented on television, the children and their
families are watching the current uptick in anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, such as the Florida Parental
Rights Education bill, otherwise known as the “Don’t say gay or trans” bill (HB 1557; Florida
110

House of Representatives, 2022), including some of the Walt Disney Company employees
protesting the non-specific company response to the bill (Hernandez, 2022), and the Texas
Republican Gov. Gregg Abbott calling for child abuse investigations of parents approving of
gender-affirming care for transgender children (Office of the Texas Governor, 2022). It matters
because children and their families can feel invalidated and symbolically annihilated through
book bans, such as the South Carolina governor calling an LGBTQ+ book to be banned in
schools due to what he called “inappropriate and sexually explicit” (Lavietes, 2021) and the
Supreme Court nomination of Hon. Ketanji Brown Jackson, during the hearing, was asked to
define a woman in questioning transgender women’s participation in women’s sports (Hesse,
2022). It matters because LGBTQ+ continues to be controversial, a public and media debate,
called into question and invalidated politically, and polarizing publicly and privately. It matters
because it is not always seen as a human rights issue. It matters because healthy identity
formation is on the line. If we want to see the world as a different place for our children as
adults, then we need focus and action toward accurate representation to challenge the normative
culture and be a solution for a new normal.
111

References
Adelantado-Renau, M., Moliner-Urdiales, D., Cavero-Redondo, I., Beltran-Valls, M. R.,
Martínez-Vizcaíno, V ., & Álvarez-Bueno, C. (2019). Association between screen media use
and academic performance among children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(11), 1058–1067.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3176
Adelson, S. L., Reid, G., Miller, A. M., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2021). Health Justice for LGBT
Youths: Combining Public Health and Human Rights. Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 60(7), 804–807.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JAAC.2021.02.021
Adelson, S. L., Stroeh, O. M., & Ng, Y . K. W. (2016). Development and Mental Health of
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender Youth in Pediatric Practice [Article]. The Pediatric
Clinics of North America, 63(6), 971–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.002
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I. M., Adamu, H., & Mu’awuya, A. (2015, December 22). Ontology,
epistemology and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research: Elucidation of the
research philosophical misconception [Paper presentation]. The Academic Conference:
Mediterranean Publications & Research International on New Direction and Uncommon,
Abekuta, Ogun State, Nigeria.
Anderson, D. R., Bryant, J., Wilder, A., Santomero, A., Williams, M., & Crawley, A. M. (2000).
Researching Blue’s Clues: Viewing behavior and impact. Media Psychology, 2(2), 179–194.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0202_4
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson.
112

Aubrey, J. S., & Harrison, K. (2004). The gender-role content of children’s favorite television
programs and its links to their gender-related perceptions. Media Psychology, 6(2), 111–
146. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0602_1
Bahr, S. (2021, January 14). L.G.B.T.Q. representation on TV falls for first time in 5 years,
GLAAD Finds. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/arts/
television/tv-lgbtq-glaad.html
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist, 44(9),
1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H.Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory.
Psychology & Health, 13(4), 623–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449808407422
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3),
265–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0303_03
Banet-Weiser, S. (2007). Kids rule! Nickelodeon and consumer citizenship. Duke University
Press.
Barber, L. (2015, January 28). Queer in children’s television: Where are we now? Archer
Magazine. https://archermagazine.com.au/2015/01/queering-childrens-television-where-are-
we-now/
Bickford, J. H. (2017). The representations of LGBTQ themes and individuals in non-fiction
young adult literature. Social Studies Research & Practice, 12(2), 182–198.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SSRP-05-2017-0021
113

Biden, J. R. (2021, June 1). A proclamation on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer
Pride Month, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
actions/2021/06/01/a-proclamation-on-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-and-queer-pride-
month-2021/
Boerman, & van Reijmersdal, E. . (2020). Disclosing influencer marketing on YouTube to
children: The moderating role of para-social relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 10,
3042. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03042
Bond, B. J. (2015). The mediating role of self-discrepancies in the relationship between media
exposure and well-being among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. Media Psychology,
18(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.917591
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. The
American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Brooks, V . R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington Books.
Brown, J. D., Keller, S., & Stern, S. (2009). Sex, sexuality, sexting, and sexed: adolescents and
the media. The Prevention Researcher, 16(4), 12.
Browne, B. A. (1998). Gender stereotypes in advertising on children’s television in the 1990s: A
cross-national analysis. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 83–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1998.10673544
Bryant, J., & Zillman, D. (2002). Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bryant, J. A. (2007). The children’s television community. In J. A. Bryant (Ed.), The children’ s
Television Community. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410614452
Buckingham, D. (2008). Youth, identity, and digital media. The MIT Press.
114

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public. Scientific
facts versus media misinformation. The American Psychologist, 56(6–7), 477–489.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.56.6-7.477
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and
differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.106.4.676
Calvert, S. L., Jordan, A. B., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2002). Children in the digital age:
Influences of electronic media on development. Praeger.
Calzo, J. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). Media exposure and viewers’ attitudes toward
homosexuality: Evidence for mainstreaming or resonance? Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 53(2), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150902908049
Cambridge University Press. (n.d.-a). Representation. In Cambridge English Dictionary online.
Retrieved July 5, 2021, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/
representation
Cambridge University Press. (n.d.-b). Validation. In Cambridge English Dictionary online.
Retrieved July 5, 2021, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/
validation
Campbell, M. C., Manning, K. C., Leonard, B., & Manning, H. M. (2016). Kids, cartoons, and
cookies: Stereotype priming effects on children’s food consumption. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 26(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2015.06.003
Cantor, M. G. (2015). The Hollywood TV producer: His work and his audience. Transaction
Publishers.
115

Carbado, D. W. (2013). Colorblind Intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society, 38(4), 811–845. https://doi.org/10.1086/669666
Carruthers, B. (2016). Television vs digital: the battle for children’ s (and mums’) attention.
WARC. http://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?MasterContentRef=13f66892-
57c8-4497-9257-9a1eb23b93b7&q=advertising+to+children&CID=A106706&PUB=
EVENT-REPORTS
CBN News. (2021, July 6). The queering of kids TV: 259 LGBTQ characters in children’ s
animation as producers actively push agenda. https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/
entertainment/2021/july/the-queering-of-kids-tv-259-lgbtq-characters-in-childrens-
animation-as-producers-actively-push-agenda
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Health considerations for LGBTQ youth
Retrieved June 27, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/disparities/health-
considerations-lgbtq-youth.htm
Cheung, C., & Yue, X. D. (2003). Identity achievement and idol worship among teenagers in
Hong Kong. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 11(1), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2003.9747914
Children’s Television Act of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101–437 47 U.S.C § 303.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/1677
Cialdini, R. B., & Sagarin, B. J. (2005). Principles of interpersonal influence. In T. C. Brock &
M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 143–169).
Sage Publications
Clark, R. E. (1998). Motivating performance. Performance Improvement 37, no.8: 39-47.
116

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing Inc.
Collier, N. R., Lumadue, C. A., & Wooten, H. R. (2009). Sample of Lesbian Fans and Web Site
Users. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(5), 575–609.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360903005253
Coltrane, S., & Messineo, M. (2000). The perpetuation of subtle prejudice: Race and gender
imagery in 1990s television advertising. Sex Roles, 42(5), 363–389.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007046204478
Cook, C. (2018). A content analysis of LGBT representation on broadcast and A content analysis
of LGBT representation on broadcast and streaming television streaming television A
Content Analysis of LGBT Representation on Broadcast and Streaming Television.
https://scholar.utc.edu/honors-theses
Cooper, M. (2017, August 8). “Doc McStuffins” features lesbian parents; One Million Moms
calls for boycott. Washington Blade. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/08/08/2907
5484/
Cramer, R. J., Burks, A. C., Stroud, C. H., Bryson, C. N., & Graham, J. (2015). A moderated
mediation analysis of suicide pronenes among lesbian, gay, and bisexual community
members. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34(7), 622–641.
https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2015.34.7.622
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods appreoaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
117

Crouch, S. R., McNair, R., & Waters, E. (2017). Parent perspectives on child health and
wellbeing in same-sex families: Heteronormative conflict and resilience building. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 26(8), 2202–2214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0796-3
Daniel, P. (2002). Nick Lee, 2001 Childhood and Society, Open University Press, Buckingham
[Book review]. Journal of Social Policy, 31(4), 753–778.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279402276928
Dates, J. L. (2005). Movin’ on up: Black women decision makers in entertainment television.
The Journal of Popular Film and Television, 33(2), 68–79.
D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental health
impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high
school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(2), 148–167.
https://doi.org/10.1521/SCPQ.17.2.148.20854
Deggans, E. (2020, December 4). More evidence TV doesn’t reflect real life diversity. NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/04/942574850/more-evidence-tv-doesnt-reflect-real-life-
diversity
Dictionary.com. (n.d.-a). Normalize. In Dictionary.com dictionary. Retrieved July 5, 2021, from
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/normalize
Dictionary.com. (n.d.-b). Validation. In Dictionary.com dictionary. Retrieved July 5, 2021, from
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/validation
Dines, G., & Humez, J. M. (Eds.). (2011). Gender, race, and class in media: A critical reader
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
118

Dudok de Wit, A. (2020, August 14). Disney Executive Tried To Block Queer Characters In “The
Owl House,” Says Creator [blog post]. https://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/disney-
executives-tried-to-block-queer-characters-in-the-owl-house-says-creator-195413.html
Duggan, S. J., & McCreary, D. R. (2004). Body image, eating disorders, and the drive for
muscularity in gay and heterosexual men: The influence of media images. Journal of
Homosexuality, 47(3-4), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v47n03_03
Duncan, D. T., & Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2014). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender hate
crimes and suicidality among a population-based sample of sexual-minority adolescents in
Boston. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 272–278.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301424
Duncan, D. T., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Johnson, R. M. (2014). Neighborhood-level LGBT hate
crimes and current illicit drug use among sexual minority youth. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 135(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DRUGALCDEP.2013.11.001
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescent’s
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 21: 215-225.
Elli, C. [@elliglc]. (2021, November 9). [Currently sat with kids I babysit watching
#RidleyJones. As a queer teenager myself, seeing the character of Ishmat (who has].
Twitter. www.twitter.com
Ellithorpe, M. E., & Bleakley, A. (2016). Wanting to see people like me? Racial and gender
diversity in popular adolescent television. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1426–
1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0415-4
119

Encyclopedia.com. (2020). Green light. https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-
thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/green-light
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. 1968. Journal of Extension, 6(4).
Eschholz, S. (2002). Racial Composition of Television Offenders and Viewers’ Fear of Crime.
Critical Criminology 2002 11:1, 11(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021178201580
Eschholz, S., Blackwell, B. S., Gertz, M., & Chiricos, T. (2002). Race and attitudes toward the
police: Assessing the effects of watching “reality” police programs. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 30, 327–341. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jcjust/v30y2002i4p327-341.html
Espelage, D. L., Merrin, G. J., & Hatchel, T. (2018). Peer victimization and dating violence
among LGBTQ youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16(2), 156–173.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016680408
Everitt. (2002). Snowball Sampling. In Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics (pp. 353–353).
Federal Communications Commission. (n.d.). https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-
educational-television
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., Ridder, E. M., & Beautrais, A. L. (2005). Suicidal behaviour
in adolescence and subsequent mental health outcomes in young adulthood. Psychological
Medicine, 35(7), 983–993. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291704004167
Fisher, D. A., Hill, D. L., Grube, J. W., & Gruber, E. L. (2007). Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual
Content on Television: A Quantitative Analysis Across Two Seasons. Journal of
Homosexuality, 52(3–4), 167. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082V52N03_08
Florida House of Representatives. (2022). CS/CS/HB 1557 (2022) - parental rights in education.
https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=76545&SessionId=9
3
120

Fouts, G., & Inch, R. (2005). Homosexuality in TV situation comedies: Characters and verbal
comments. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(1), 35–45.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J082V49N01_02
Fürsich, E. (2010). Media and the representation of others. International Social Science Journal,
61(199), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01751.x
Gallup, Inc. (n.d.). LGBT Rights. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
Garretson, J. J. (2015). Does change in minority and women’s representation on television
matter?: a 30-year study of television portrayals and social tolerance. Politics, Groups, and
Identities, 3(4), 615–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1050405
Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (2014). The 2013 national school climate survey.
https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2020-03/GLSEN-2013-National-School-Climate-
Survey-Full-Report.pdf
Gerbner, G. (1970). Cultural indicators: The case of violence in television drama. The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 388(1), 69–81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000271627038800108
Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication and Society, 1(3–
4), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of
Communication, 26(2), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The
cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in
theory and research (pp. 17–41). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
121

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with
television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 43–67). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Gilbert. (1978). Human competence : engineering worthy performance. McGraw-Hill.
Gillig, T. K., & Murphy, S. T. (2016). Fostering support for LGBTQ Youth? The effects of a gay
adolescent media portrayal on young viewers. International Journal of Communication
(Online), 3828.
GLAAD. (n.d.-a). Kids TV is getting queerer and queerer - but kids film isn’t.
https://www.glaad.org/amp/kids-tv-getting-queerer-but-kids-film-is-not-2019-SRI
GLAAD. (n.d.-b). Where we are on TV report – 2020. https://www.glaad.org/whereweareontv20
GLAAD. (2017, August 5). How Disney is teaching valuable family lessons in an episode of
“Doc McStuffins” featuring Wanda Sykes and Portia de Rossi [blog post].
https://www.glaad.org/blog/how-disney-teaching-valuable-family-lessons-episode-doc-
mcstuffins-featuring-wanda-sykes-and
GLAAD. (2019). The Vito Russo Test. https://www.glaad.org/sri/2019/vitorusso
GLAAD. (2022). The Nominees for the 33
rd
Annual GLAAD Media Awards.
https://www.glaad.org/mediaawards/33/nominees
Glascock, J., & Preston-Schreck, C. (2004). Gender and racial stereotypes in daily newspaper
comics: A time-honored tradition? Sex Roles, 51(7), 423–431.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000049231.67432.A9
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
122

Goldbach, J. T., Schrager, S. M., Dunlap, S. L., & Holloway, I. W. (2015). The application of
minority stress theory to marijuana use among sexual minority adolescents. Substance Use
& Misuse, 50(3), 366–375. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2014.980958
Goldstein, N. (1991). The history of television (1991 ed.). Portland House.
Gomillion, S. C., & Giuliano, T. A. (2011). The influence of media role models on gay, lesbian,
and bisexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(3), 330–354.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.546729
Gonsoulin, M. E. (2010). Liberated and inclusive? An analysis of self-representation in a popular
lesbian magazine. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(9), 1158–1173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2010.508327
Gracenote. (n.d.). Inclusion analytics. Retrieved July 5, 2021, from
https://www.gracenote.com/video/inclusion-analytics/
Gross, L. (1991). Out of the mainstream. Journal of Homosexuality, 21(1–2), 19–46.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v21n01_04
Gross, L. (2012). Fastening our seatbelts: Turning crisis into opportunity. Journal of
Communication, 62(6), 919–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01679.x
Gross, L. P. (2001). Up from invisibility : lesbians, gay men, and the media in America.
Columbia University Press.
Grossman, A. H., Park, J. Y ., & Russell, S. T. (2016). Transgender youth and suicidal behaviors:
Applying the interpersonal psychological theory of suicide. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Mental Health, 20(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2016.1207581
123

Gupta, A. H. (2021, June 20). She never saw herself in children’s TV shows. So she created her
own. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/20/us/chris-nee-doc-
mcstuffins-ridley-jones.html
Haas, A. P., Eliason, M., Mays, V . M., Mathy, R. M., Cochran, S. D., D’Augelli, A. R.,
Silverman, M. M., Fisher, P. W., Hughes, T., Rosario, M., Russell, S. T., Malley, E., Reed,
J., Litts, D. A., Haller, E., Sell, R. L., Remafedi, G., Bradford, J., Beautrais, A. L., …
Clayton, P. J. (2010). Suicide and suicide risk in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
populations: Review and recommendations. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(1), 10–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.534038
Halim, M. L., Ruble, D., Tamis-LeMonda, C., & Shrout, P. E. (2013). Rigidity in gender-typed
behaviors in early childhood: A longitudinal study of ethnic minority children. Child
Development, 84(4), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12057
Hancock, K., Alie, L., Cerbone, A., Dworkin, S., Gock, T., Haldeman, D., Kashubeck-West, S.,
& Russell, G. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual
clients. The American Psychologist, 67(1), 10–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024659
Hart, K.-P. R. (2000). Representing gay men on american television. The Journal of Men’ s
Studies, 9(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0901.59
Harwood, J., & Anderson, K. (2002). The presence and portrayal of social groups on prime–time
television. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 21(1), 81–97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210209367756
Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2011). The social environment and suicide attempts in lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 127(5), 896. https://doi.org/10.1542/PEDS.2010-3020
HBO. (n.d.). Project Greenlight. Retrieved July 5, 2021, from http://www.hbo.com/greenlight/
124

Hendricks, M. L., & Testa, R. J. (2012). A conceptual framework for clinical work with
transgender and gender nonconforming clients: An adaptation of the minority stress model.
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 43(5), 460–467.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029597
Hernandez, J. (2022, March 22). Disney workers walk out over the company's response to so-
called 'Don't Say Gay' bill. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/03/22/1088048998/disney-
walkout-dont-say-gay-bill
Hesse, M. (2022, March 25). Ketanji Brown Jackson did define ‘woman’ at her confirmation
hearing. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/03/
25/ketanji-brown-jackson-woman/
Hilmes, M., Newcomb, H., & Meehan, E. (2012). Legacies from the past. The Journal of
Communication Inquiry, 36(4), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859912459749
Hinga, B. (2019). Paradigms of inquiry for practice. Adapted from Creswell, J. W. & Creswell,
J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Horowitz, A., & Itzkowitz, M. (2011). LGBTQ youth in American schools: Moving to the
middle. Middle School Journal, 42(5), 32–38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2011.11461780
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (2016). Mass communication and para-social interaction:
Observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049
125

Italie, L. (2019, July 31). LGBTQ representation is growing in children’ s television. USA Today.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/parenting/2019/07/31/ltbtq-representation-growing-
childrens-television/1875892001/
Jackson Turner, L. (2000). But the republic stood: Program producers’ perceived pivotal
moments in network television broadcast standards of the 1970s. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 44(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4401_8
Jenkins, H. (2010). Transmedia Storytelling and Entertainment: An annotated syllabus. [Article].
Continuum., 24(6), 943–958. https://doi.org/info:doi/
Jones, J. M. (2017, June 22). In U.S., 10.2% of LGBT adults now married to same-sex spouse.
Gallup, Inc. https://news.gallup.com/poll/212702/lgbt-adults-married-sex-spouse.aspx
Kacala, A. (2021, May 29). Blue’ s Clues” releases LGBTQ-themed sing-along video for Pride.
NBC Universal. https://www.today.com/popculture/blue-s-clues-releases-lgbtq-themed-
sing-along-video-pride-t220295
Kahlenberg, S. G., Kahlenberg, S. G., Hein, M. M., & Hein, M. M. (2010). Progression on
Nickelodeon? Gender-role stereotypes in toy commercials. Sex Roles, 62(11), 830–847.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9653-1
Kelleher, C. (2009). Minority stress and health: Implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) young people. Counselling Psychology Quarterly,
22(4), 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070903334995
Kellner, D. (2003). Media culture: Cultural studies, identity and politics between the modern and
the postmodern. Routledge.
126

Kelso, T. (2015). Still trapped in the U.S. media’s closet: Representations of gender-variant, pre-
adolescent children. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(8), 1058–1097.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1021634
Kessler, K. (2011). They Should Suffer Like the Rest of Us: Queer Equality in Narrative
Mediocrity. Cinema Journal, 50(2), 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.2011.0005
Klein, H., & Shiffman, K. S. (2009). Underrepresentation and symbolic annihilation of socially
disenfranchised groups (“out groups”) in animated cartoons. The Howard Journal of
Communications, 20(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646170802665208
Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2013). The effect of negative school
climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. Journal
of School Violence, 12(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2012.732546
Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., Cooper, N. R., & Simpson, A. (2017). The relationship between
television exposure and children’s cognition and behaviour: A systematic review.
Developmental Review, 44, 19–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.12.002
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2008). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). SAGE
Kuhlmeier, V ., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2003). Attribution of dispositional states by 12-month-
olds. Psychological Science, 14(5), 402–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01454
Lamont, E. (2017). We can write the scripts ourselves. Gender & Society, 31(5), 624–646.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217723883
Lang, B., & Shaw, L. (2013). Who has greenlight power in Hollywood? A studio-by-studio guide.
https://www.thewrap.com/hollywood-greenlighting-power/
127

Lauzen, M. M., & Dozier, D. M. (2005). Maintaining the double standard: Portrayals of age and
gender in popular films. Sex Roles, 52(7–8), 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11199-005-
3710-1
Lavietes, M. (2021, November 12). South Carolina governor calls for LGBTQ book to be banned
in schools. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/south-
carolina-governor-calls-lgbtq-book-banned-schools-rcna5409
Lemish, D. (2006). Children and television: A global perspective. Wiley.
Lemish, D. (2011). “Can’t talk about sex”: Producers of children’s television around the world
speak out. Sex Education, 11(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.590082
Lemish, D. (2015). Children and media. Wiley.
Lerner, R. M., Johnson, S. K., & Buckingham, M. H. (2015). Relational developmental systems-
based theories and the study of children and families: Lerner and Spanier (1978) Revisited.
Journal of Family Theory & Review, 7(2), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12067
LGBT Capital. (n.d.). LGBT Capital. http://www.lgbt-capital.com/
Lincoln, Y . S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (1st ed.). SAGE.
Lind, A. (2013). Heteronormativity and Sexuality. In G. Waylen, K. CElis, J. Kantola, & S. L.
Weldon (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender and politics (pp. 189–213).
https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780199751457.013.0007
Lissak, G. (2018). Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children
and adolescents: Literature review and case study. Environmental Research, 164, 149–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.015
LoSchiavo, C., Halkitis, P. N., & Kapadia, F. (2019). Sexual orientation and gender identity
victimization among young adults in the New York City metropolitan area: The P18 cohort
128

study. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 6(4), 399–407.
https://doi.org/10.1037/SGD0000336
Markina, V . (2021). The representation of others in the media: The (re)production of stereotypes
and counter-strategies for the depiction of otherness. Russian Social Science Review, 62(1–
3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611428.2021.1911538
Marshal, M. P., Dietz, L. J., Friedman, M. S., Stall, R., Smith, H., McGinley, J., Thoma, B. C.,
Murray, P. J., D’Augelli, A., & Brent, D. A. (2011). Suicidality and depression disparities
between sexual minority and heterosexual youth: A meta-analytic review. The Journal of
Adolescent Health, 49(2), 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JADOHEALTH.2011.02.005
Marshall, S. J., Gorely, T., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2006). A descriptive epidemiology of screen-based
media use in youth: A review and critique. Journal of Adolescence, 29(3), 333–349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.016
Martin, A. C. (2008). Television media as a potential negative factor in the racial identity
development of Sfrican American youth. Academic Psychiatry, 32(4), 338–342.
https://doi.org/10.1176/APPI.AP.32.4.338
Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender
development. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 903–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.128.6.903
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design : an interactive approach (3rd ed.) [Book].
SAGE Publications.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research [Book]. Corwin Pr.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328591
129

McWhirter, D. P., Sanders, S. A., & Reinisch, J. M. (Eds.). (1990).
Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation. Oxford University Press.
Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. The American Psychologist, 44(12),
1469–1481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.12.1469
Mereish, E. H., Ocleirigh, C., & Bradford, J. B. (2014). Interrelationships between LGBT-based
victimization, suicide, and substance use problems in a diverse sample of sexual and gender
minorities. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 19(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2013.780129
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-a). Normalize. In Merriam-Webster.com disctionary. Retrieved July 5,
2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normalize
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-b). Representation In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved July 5,
2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/representation
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-c). Validation. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved July 5,
2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/validation
Merskin, D. (1998). Sending up signals: A survey of Native American media use and
representation in the mass media. The Howard Journal of Communications, 9(4), 333–345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/106461798246943
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 36(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137286
130

Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.129.5.674
Morgan. (2018). Art Making Through Change: New Journeys with Gender and Identity. Creative
Arts in Education and Therapy, 4(2), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.15212/CAET/2018/4/32
Mosher, W. D., Chandra, A., & Jones, J. (2005). Sexual behavior and selected health measures:
Men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16250464/
Murrar, S., Campbell, M. R., & Brauer, M. (2020). Exposure to peers’ pro-diversity attitudes
increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(9), 889–
897. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0899-5
Nee, C. [@chrisdocnee]. (2022, January 19). [Thank you @glaad for recognizing We the People
with a Glaad Media Award Nomination. When we created ‘We the People]. Twitter.
www.twitter.com
Netzley, S. B. (2010). Visibility that demystifies: Gays, gender, and sex on television. Journal of
Homosexuality, 57(8), 968–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2010.503505
Ng, E. (2013). A “post-gay” era? Media gaystreaming, homonormativity, and the politics of
LGBT integration. Communication, Culture & Critique, 6(2), 258–283.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12013
Nickelodeon. (2021). ABC Song w/ Blue! | Alphabet Song for Kids [video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezEdMZhA5jk&t=10s
The Nielsen Company. (n.d.-a). Audience is Everything – Nielsen. Retrieved July 5, 2021, from
https://www.nielsen.com/global/en/
131

The Nielsen Company. (n.d.-b). Inclusion analytics – Nielsen. Retrieved July 4, 2021, from
https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/about-us/diversity-and-inclusion/inclusion-analytics/
Njoroge, W. F. M., Elenbaas, L. M., Garrison, M. M., Myaing, M., & Christakis, D. A. (2013).
Parental cultural attitudes and beliefs regarding young children and television. JAMA
Pediatrics, 167(8), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.75
North Carolina General Assembly. (2016a). House Bill DRH40005-TC-1B (03/22).
https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v0.pdf
North Carolina General Assembly. (2016b). House Bill 2 / SL 2016-3. https://www.ncleg.gov/
BillLookup/2015E2/h2
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S.___ (2015)
Office of the Texas Governor. (2022). Letter to the Texas Department of Family and Protective
Services. https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/O-MastersJaime202202221358.pdf
Ohye, B. Y ., & Daniel, J. H. (1999). The "other" adolescent girls: Who are they? In N. G.
Johnson, M. C. Roberts, & J. Worell (Eds.), Beyond appearance: A new look at adolescent
girls (pp. 115–129). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10325-
004
Oliver, M. B., Raney, A. A., & Bryant, J. (2020). Media effects: Advances in theory and research.
Routledge.
O’Reilly, M. (2020). Social media and adolescent mental health: the good, the bad and the ugly.
Journal of Mental Health, 29(2), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2020.1714007
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (2016). The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A
meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21(4), 516–546.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004004
132

Panis, K., Paulussen, S., & Dhoest, A. (2019). Managing super-diversity on television: The
representation of ethnic minorities in flemish non-fiction programmes. Media and
Communication, 7(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i1.1614
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 1(3), 261–283.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
Pecora, N., Murray, J. P., & Wartella, E. A. (Eds.). (2009). Children and television: Fifty years of
research. Taylor and Francis.
Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration,
and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 493–510.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00225
Plöderl, M., & Fartacek, R. (2009). Childhood gender nonconformity and harassment as
predictors of suicidality among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual Austrians. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 38(3), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9244-6
Poteat, V . P., Sinclair, K. O., Digiovanni, C. D., Koenig, B. W., & Russell, S. T. (2013). Gay-
straight alliances are associated with student health: A multischool comparison of LGBTQ
and heterosexual youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(2), 319–330.
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1532-7795.2012.00832.X
Potter, W. J. (2014). A critical analysis of cultivation theory. Journal of Communication, 64(6),
1015–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12128
Prieto, P., Phipps, S. T. A., & Osiri, J. K. (2009). Linking workplace diversity to organizational
performance: A conceptual framework. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(4), 13-22.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v4i4.4966
133

Ream, G. L. (2020). An investigation of the LGBTQ+ youth suicide disparity using national
violent death reporting system narrative data. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(4), 470–
477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.10.027
Reed, E. (2018). The heterogeneity of family: Responses to representational invisibility by
LGBTQ parents. Journal of Family Issues, 39(18), 4204–4225.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X18810952
Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., & Wright, J. (1990). Words from “Sesame Street”.
Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.3.421
Richert, R. A., Robb, M. B., & Smith, E. I. (2011). Media as social partners: The social nature of
young children’s learning from screen media. Child Development, 82(1), 82–95.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01542.x
Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). Bullying Explains Only Part of LGBTQ–Heterosexual
Risk Disparities: Implications for Policy and Practice.
Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.3102/0013189X12457023, 41(8), 309–319.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12457023
Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). Peer victimization and sexual risk differences between
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning and nontransgender heterosexual youths
in grades 7-12. American Journal of Public Health (1971), 103(10), 1810–1819.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301387
Robinson, K. H. (2012). “Difficult citizenship”: The precarious relationships between childhood,
sexuality and access to knowledge. Sexualities, 15(3-4), 257–276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460712436469
134

Rodgers, S. M. (2016). Transitional age lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning
youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 26(2), 297–309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2016.12.011
Romero, A. P. (2017). 1 Million LGBT adults are married to someone of the same sex at the two-
year anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges. The Williams Institute.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Obergefell-2-Year-Marriages-Jun-
2017.pdf
Rosenblum, D. (1994). Queer intersecionality and the failure of recent and lesbian and gay
“victories.” Law & Sexuality, 4, 83–122.
Ruble, D. N. (1994). A phase model of transitions: Cognitive and motivational consequences.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 163–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-
2601(08)60154-9
Ruderman-Looff, A. (2019). Looking beyond the lesbian: The intersectionality of death on
Netflix’s Orange is the New Black. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 23(4), 490–503.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10894160.2019.1652084
Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white
space on the organization chart (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Russell, S. T., & Fish, J. N. (2016). Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) youth. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12(1), 465–487.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093153
Russell, S. T., & Joyner, K. (2001). Adolescent sexual orientation and suicide risk: Evidence
from a national study. American Journal of Public Health (1971), 91(8), 1276–1281.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.8.1276
135

Schachter, E. P., & Ventura, J. J. (2008). Identity agents: Parents as active and reflective
participants in their children’s identity formation. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
18(3), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00567.x
Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2006). Can one TV show make a difference? Will &
Grace and the parasocial contact hypothesis. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(4), 15–37.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n04_02
Schmidt, M. E., & Anderson, D. R. (2009). The impact of television on cognitive development
and educational achievement. In N. Pecora,J. P. Murray, & E. A. Wartella (Eds.). Children
and television: Fifty years of research (pp. 65–84). Taylor and Francis.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410618047-10
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Sell, R. L., Wells, J., & Wypij, D. (1995). The prevalence of homosexual behavior and attraction
in the United States, the United Kingdom and France: Results of national population-based
samples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24(3), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541598
Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1998). The effects of television consumption on
social perceptions: The use of priming procedures to investigate psychological processes.
Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1086/209520
Siebler, K. (2010). Transqueer representations and how we educate. Journal of LGBT Youth,
7(4), 320–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2010.512521
Signorielli, N. (2012). Gender-role socialization in the twenty-first century. In The International
Encyclopedia of Media Studies. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444361506.WBIEMS116
136

Signorielli, N., & Kahlenberg, S. (2010). Television’s World of Work in the Nineties.
Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1207/S15506878jobem4501_2, 45(1), 4–22.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15506878JOBEM4501_2
Signorielli, N., & Morgan, M. (1990). Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects
research. SAGE
Signorielli, N., Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2019). The violence profile: Five decades of
cultural indicators research. Mass Communication & Society, 22(1), 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1475011
Singer, M. I., Slovak, K., Frierson, T., & York, P. (1998). Viewing preferences, symptoms of
psychological trauma, and violent behaviors among children who watch television. Journal
of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(10), 1041–1048.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199810000-00014
Steinberg, B., & Low, E.,(2021). How kids television become the most heated front in the
streaming wars. Variety, https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/kids-television-streaming-netflix-
apple-disney-nickelodeon-1234891622/
Stone, D. M., Luo, F., Ouyang, L., Lippy, C., Hertz, M. F., & Crosby, A. E. (2014). Sexual
orientation and suicide ideation, plans, attempts, and medically serious attempts: Evidence
from local youth risk behavior surveys, 2001-2009. American Journal of Public Health
(1971), 104(2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301383
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (2002). Culture structures the environment for development.
Human Development, 45(4), 270–274. https://doi.org/10.1159/000064988
Taylor, C. M. (2018). Release your wiggle. Southern Cultures, 24(2), 60–77.
https://doi.org/10.1353/scu.2018.0020
137

Tebbe, E. A., & Moradi, B. (2016). Suicide risk in trans populations: An application of minority
stress theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(5), 520–533.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000152
Thorfinnsdottir, D., & Jensen, H. S. (2017). Laugh away, he is gay! Heteronormativity and
children’s television in Denmark. Journal of Children and Media, 11(4), 399–416.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2017.1312470
Tropiano, S. (2002). The prime time closet: A history of gays and lesbians on tv. Applause
Tuchman, G. (2000). The symbolic annihilation of women by the mass media. In L. Crothers &
Lockhart, C. (Eds.), Culture and politics (pp. 150–174). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62397-6_9
Tuchman, G., Daniels, A. K., & Benét, J. W. (1978). Hearth and home: Images of women in the
mass media (Eds.). Oxford University Press.
Turchiano, D. (2018). A “family” celebration. Variety, 338(15), 71–74.
Turow, J. (1981). Entertainment, education, and the hard sell: Three decades of network
children’ s television. Praeger.
Turow, J. (1985). The effects of television on children: What the experts believe. Communication
Research Reports, 2(1), 149–155.
Turow, J. (2016). Media Today: Mass Communication in a Converging World. Taylor and
Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315681726
U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). 2000 census results. https://www.census.gov/program-
survey/decennial-cenus/decase/2000/2000-census-results.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). 2004 census results. https://www.census.gov/program-
survey/decennial-cenus/decase/2004/2004-census-results.html
138

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). 2020 census results. https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/2020-census-results.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020, February 24). U.S. Census Bureau releases CPS estimate of same-
sex households [press release].
Velez, B. L., Breslow, A. S., Brewster, M. E., Cox, R., & Foster, A. B. (2016). Building a
pantheoretical model of dehumanization with transgender men: Integrating objectification
and minority stress theories. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(5), 497–508.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000136
Verkuyten, M. (2014). Identity and cultural diversity: What social psychology can teach us.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203710142
Walker, L., & Taylor, D. (2021). Same-sex couple households: 2019. U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/acs/acsbr-005.html
Wallis, A., & VanEvery, J. (2000). Sexuality in the primary school. Sexualities, 3(4), 409–423.
https://doi.org/10.1177/136346000003004003
Walsh, A., & Leaper, C. (2020). A content analysis of gender representations in preschool
children’s television. Mass Communication & Society, 23(3), 331–355.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2019.1664593
Wartberg, & Kammerl, R. (2020). Empirical relationships between problematic alcohol use and a
problematic use of video games, social media and the internet and their associations to
mental health in adolescence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 17(17), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176098
Weiss, R. S. (1995). Learning from strangers : the art and method of qualitative interview
studies. Free Press.
139

Welch, R. L., Huston-Stein, A., Wright, J. C., & Plehal, R. (2021). Subtle sex-role cues in
children’s commercials. Journal of Communiation, 293), 202–209.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1979.tb01733.x
White, B. H., & Kurpius, S. E. R. (2002). Effects of victim sex and sexual orientation on
perceptions of rape. Sex Roles, 46(5–6), 191–200.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019617920155
Whitley-Berry, V . (2021, June 30). Queer characters are at the center in new kids’ media. NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/30/1011310695/after-decades-in-the-background-queer-
characters-step-to-the-front-in-kids-media
Wikimedia Foundation. (n.d.-a). Normalization. Retrieved July 5, 2021, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization
Wikimedia Foundation. (n.d.-b). Validation. Retrieved July 5, 2021, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validation
Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2005). Peer victimization, social support, and
psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
34(5), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-7264-x
Wilson, B. J. (2008). Media and children’s aggression, fear, and altruism. The Future of
Children, 18(1), 87–118. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0005
Wilson, B. J., Smith, S. L., Potter, W. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Colvin, C. M., & Donnerstein, E.
(2002). Violence in Children’s Television Programming: Assessing the Risks. Journal of
Communication, 52(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1460-2466.2002.TB02531.X
Yadegarfard, M., Meinhold-Bergmann, M. E., & Ho, R. (2014). Family rejection, social
isolation, and loneliness as predictors of negative health outcomes (depression, suicidal
140

ideation, and sexual risk behavior) among thai male-to-female transgender adolescents.
Journal of LGBT Youth, 11(4), 347–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2014.910483

141

Appendix A: Decision-Maker Interview Guide
Interview Guide
Respondent Type: decision-maker
Introduction to the Interview:
My name is Jennifer Berry. I appreciate your agreeing to meet with me, and thank you for
providing information relevant to my dissertation study. I feel honored to interview you; I
appreciate your time aside today to answer some of my questions. The interview should last
approximately 1 hour. Does that still work for you? Before we get started, I wanted to provide
you with a high-level overview of what we will discuss today and answer any questions about
participating. My study is looking at decision-making in green-lighting character choices in
children's television shows. My research will include interviewing network decision-makers like
yourself and content analysis in shows produced on networks under review. I will also be
interviewing content creators to understand their processes for decisions around character
choices. Today I will be exploring knowledge, thoughts, beliefs, and operational considerations
and realities, as well as barriers in your decision-making approach and process.
I am the principal investigator (PI) for this study, and I am working with a faculty advisor
at USC. Do you have any questions about the purpose of the study itself? Everything we discuss
today will be treated as strictly confidential. All of the findings for my study will be reported
upon request. When I report an actual quote in the study, it will be anonymous and identified in
the form of a "network decision-maker." No names will ever be associated with the findings.
Additionally, no one will ever see the transcripts of this conversation. The Zoom
recordings and transcripts will be deleted when the study is completed. I will also check back
with you as I conduct my analysis to validate and provide feedback to my summaries and
142

findings to ensure I am capturing your perspective of your thoughts. If you want to add anything
further or have concerns about what we discussed, please reach out to my dissertation chair, Dr.
Hyde, at chyde@usc.edu. Do you have any questions about the interview? If you have questions
about your rights while participating in this study, have concerns or suggestions, or you want to
talk to someone other than me about the study, please email Dr. Hyde or email irb@usc.edu. The
last couple of things that I would like to cover are the logistics of the interview process. I will be
Zoom recording so that I can accurately capture what you share. The recorder helps me focus on
our conversation and not on taking notes. You can request a copy of the recording and transcript
at any time during the study; however, they will be deleted upon completion. Do I have your
permission to record the interview? If you wish for me to stop the recording, let me know, and I
will do so, and you may make your comments unrecorded. Your participation in all aspects of
data collection is entirely voluntary. You may skip questions or end the interview at any time. Do
you have any initial questions about the process and scope of the interview currently? May I
have your permission to get started?

Table A1
Decision-Maker Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes
Can you tell me about a show you green-
lighted that you are proud of?
Why?
Did character choices influence your
approval?
Did you ask the content developers or writers
to make changes to any character choices
after submission?
What prompted you to do this?
Tell me about a time a show was pitched to
you that you did not green-light.
Why?
What was the reason you did not green-light
the show?
Did you provide feedback?
143

Interview questions Potential probes
Did you bring in other perspectives to review
this decision?
What traits and experiences (background,
qualities) do you believe personify a good
character choice?

Can you share an example of a time you had a
content creator or writer change a character
demographic representation?
What was it about that character that you felt
needed revision?
How did you present the change request?
Has this happened with an LGBTQ+
character? Use specifics from content
analysis. Why?
Use document review analysis as necessary.
What are the three most important factors that
contribute to how you make decisions on
green-lighting shows?
Let’s talk more about one. Can you provide
me more context?
What criteria or processes do you review
before or during assessing a show?
What stakeholders are involved?
What is your organization's philosophy on
diversity representation and inclusion in
character choices?
What types of representation do you consider
or champion? Why?
What benefits or limitations do you believe
are associated with increased diversity?
What role do learning outcomes for kids
influence character choices?
How?
What learning outcomes are considered? How
does that learning outcome translate to a
character choice?
Can you provide an example of when you
considered a learning outcome and how that
translated into the character choice?
Are considerations about the impact on the
child considered? How does that impact
translate to character choice?
Can you tell me about processes or tools you
use to make decisions on shows pitched to
you?
How do you assess strengths and weaknesses?

What would you consider a controversial or
sensitive character choice?
What makes it controversial or sensitive?
How do you know?
What is your response when presented to you?
What characters are off-limits for
development for your organization? Why?
If learning outcomes are discussed: How does
this play into the learning outcomes
considered?
How do you think this impacts the child?
Use document review analysis as necessary.
144

Interview questions Potential probes
How does your organization externally
communicate your desired character and
storyline vision and mission?
How does that impact pitches you receive?
How does that impact how you react to
proposals?
Can you tell me about a time an LGBTQ+
character was presented for you to green-
light?
What happened?
What questions did you ask?
What changes were requested?
Did you green-light?
If yes, what was the success of that show?
If not, why?
How often do you produce LGBTQ+
characters? What is the reason for the
number?
Use document review analysis as necessary.

Conclusion to the Interview:
Thank you again for your time today. As a reminder, I recorded and will transcribe what
was said and delete the Zoom recording at the end of the study. I appreciate all that we discussed
today. I will also check back with you as I conduct my analysis to validate and provide feedback
to my summaries and findings to ensure I am capturing your perspective of your thoughts. If you
want to add anything further or have concerns about what we discussed, please reach out to my
dissertation chair, Dr. Hyde, at chyde@usc.edu.
I look forward to sharing with you the overall study findings after the study. I want to
ensure that I am capturing all the decision-making aspects for character choices at your network.
Do you have any recommendations, and can you refer me to another person who is part of that
process who might be willing to participate in the study? Thank you again.

145

Appendix B: Content Creator Interview Guide
Interview Guide
Respondent Type: content creator
Introduction to the Interview:
My name is Jennifer Berry. I appreciate your agreeing to meet with me, and thank you for
providing information relevant to my dissertation study. I feel honored to interview you; I
appreciate your time aside today to answer some of my questions. The interview should last
approximately 1 hour. Does that still work for you? Before we get started, I wanted to provide
you with a high-level overview of what we will discuss today and answer any questions about
participating. My study is looking at decision-making in character choices in children’s
television shows. My research will include interviewing content creators like yourself and
content analysis in shows produced on networks under review. I will also be interviewing
network decision-makers to understand their processes for green-lighting shows based on
character choices. Today I will be exploring knowledge, thoughts, beliefs, and operational
considerations and realities, as well as barriers in your character development and decision-
making approach and process.
I am the principal investigator (PI) for this study, and I am working with a faculty advisor
at USC. Do you have any questions about the purpose of the study itself? Everything we discuss
today will be treated as strictly confidential. All of the findings for my study will be reported
upon request. When I report an actual quote in the study, it will be anonymous and identified in
the form of a "content creator." No names will ever be associated with the findings.
Additionally, no one will ever see the transcripts of this conversation. The Zoom
recordings and transcripts will be deleted when the study is completed. I will also check back
146

with you as I conduct my analysis to validate and provide feedback to my summaries and
findings to ensure I am capturing your perspective of your thoughts. If you want to add anything
further or have concerns about what we discussed, please reach out to my dissertation chair, Dr.
Hyde, at chyde@usc.edu. Do you have any questions about the interview? If you have questions
about your rights while participating in this study, have concerns or suggestions, or you want to
talk to someone other than me about the study, please email Dr. Hyde or email irb@usc.edu. The
last couple of things that I would like to cover are the logistics of the interview process. I will be
Zoom recording so that I can accurately capture what you share. The recorder helps me focus on
our conversation and not on taking notes. You can request a copy of the recording and transcript
at any time during the study; however, they will be deleted upon completion. Do I have your
permission to record the interview? If you wish for me to stop the recording, let me know, and I
will do so, and you may make your comments unrecorded. Your participation in all aspects of
data collection is entirely voluntary. You may skip questions or end the interview at any time. Do
you have any initial questions about the process and scope of the interview currently? May I
have your permission to get started?

Table B1
Content Creator Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes
Can you tell me about a show you developed
that you are proud of?
Why?
Did character choices influence your
development?
Were you asked to make changes to any
character choices after submission?
Tell me more about that.
Tell me about a time you submitted a show
pitch that did not get green-lit.
Why?
What was the reason you were given?
Were you provided feedback?
147

Interview questions Potential probes
Did you bring in other perspectives to pitch or
support choices?
What traits and experiences (background,
qualities) do you believe personify a good
character choice?

Can you share an example of a time you were
asked to change a character demographic
representation?
What was the reason given for why?
What was it about that character that needed
revision?
How did you change the character?
What are the three most important factors that
contribute to how you make character
choices?
Let’s talk more about one. Can you provide
me more context?
What criteria or processes do you review
before developing a show?
What stakeholders are involved?
How do you incorporate the organization's
philosophy on diversity representation and
inclusion in your character choices?
What types of representation do you consider
or champion? Why?
What benefits or limitations do you believe
are associated with increased diversity?
What role do learning outcomes for kids
influence character choices?
How?
What learning outcomes are considered? How
does that learning outcome translate to a
character choice?
Can you provide an example of when you
considered a learning outcome and how
that translated into the character choice?
Are considerations about the impact on the
child considered? How does that impact
translate to character choice?
Can you tell me about processes or tools you
use to make decisions on character choices?
How do you assess strengths and
weaknesses?

What would you consider a controversial or
sensitive character choice?
What makes it controversial or sensitive?
How do you know?
How do you prepare and change to pitch?
What characters have you been told are off-
limits for development for an organization?
Why?
If learning outcomes are discussed: How does
this play into the learning outcomes
considered?
How do you think this impacts the child?
Use document review analysis as necessary.
How do you communicate your desired
character and storyline vision and mission?
How does that impact pitches you do?
How does that impact how you respond to
push back?
148

Interview questions Potential probes
Have you developed an LGBTQ+ character in
a show you pitched? If yes, use probes. If
not, why?
Tell me more.
What happened?
What questions were you asked?
What changes were requested?
Did you get it green-lit?
If yes, what was the success of that show?
If not, why?
How often do you create LGBTQ+
characters? What is the reason for the
number?
Use document review analysis as necessary.

Conclusion to the Interview:
Thank you again for your time today. As a reminder, I recorded and will transcribe what
was said and delete the Zoom recording at the end of the study. I appreciate all that we discussed
today. I will also check back with you as I conduct my analysis to validate and provide feedback
to my summaries and findings to ensure I am capturing your perspective of your thoughts. If you
want to add anything further or have concerns about what we discussed, please reach out to my
dissertation chair, Dr. Hyde, at chyde@usc.edu.
I look forward to sharing with you the overall study findings after the study. I want to
ensure that I am capturing all the decision-making aspects for character choices in young
children’s programming. Do you have any recommendations, and can you refer me to another
person who is part of that process who might be willing to participate in the study? Thank you
again.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teacher compassion fatigue in predominantly BIPOC classrooms - a qualitative study

PDF

Success factors for global virtual team leaders: a qualitative study of leaders of global virtual teams in a global professional service firm employing grounded theory

PDF

Representation of gay Asian men in the media

PDF

Grinding all my life: the role of a community college men of color program in supporting masculine identity exploration

PDF

A study of shared leadership in a California community college

PDF

Beyond the board room: how personal experiences and environments shape community college trustee learning

PDF

Inclusive gender practices in middle schools: a study on supports and practical solutions for California administrators

PDF

Inclusive gender practices in high schools: a study on supports and practical solutions for California administrators

PDF

A study of diversification In the outdoor recreation industry and its connection to the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) urban health equity gap

PDF

Transformative social-emotional learning: an action research study on supporting parents in a predominantly White community…

PDF

Representation matters: a study on the impact of mirrored ethnoracial identity on the motivation of clergy candidates to complete the ordination process in the United Methodist Church

PDF

Participation in higher education diversity, equity, and inclusion work: a relational intersectionality of organizations analysis

PDF

Protest of the oppressed: a case study on Black female administrators’ experiences in K-12 education from student to leadership

Asset Metadata

Creator Berry, Jennifer Ann (author)

Core Title LGBTQ+ representation in young children’s television: a qualitative research study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 05/02/2022

Defense Date 03/25/2022

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

Tag behind-the-scenes representation,bisexual,content creators,cultivation theory,diversity,diversity goals,diversity representation,dominant and nondominant identity,equity and inclusion (DEI),Gay,green-lighting,heteronormative,identity formation,Lesbian,LGBTQ+ characters,minority stress theory,network decision-makers,normalization,OAI-PMH Harvest,plus (LGBTQ+),queer,representation,social cognitive theory,symbolic annihilation,television,transgender,validation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hyde, Corinne (committee chair), Andres, Mary (committee member), Gross, Larry (committee member)

Creator Email jaberry@usc.edu,jenberry83@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111160250

Unique identifier UC111160250

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Berry, Jennifer Ann

Type texts

Source 20220502-usctheses-batch-936 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu