Transcript
Hello, everyone. I’m Celisse, and I’m a PhD student from Ontario over in Canada working on that bigger project about FASD prevention that was mentioned. We don’t have much time, so I’m going to jump right in.
So I’m going to start with some more time with those images that you saw in Taylor’s presentation and give you barely a moment to take them in again. What’s your first reaction to these images? Do you think these campaigns are effective in raising awareness around FASD? Why? Or why not? We ask questions like these to twenty-nine Laurentian University undergraduate students during seven different semi-structured focus groups. As individuals of childbearing age, we are interested in their thoughts and opinions and perspectives around FASD prevention campaigns. But during these discussions, we realised that the way they were talking about these campaigns were different especially when it came to what they deemed effective. Their definition seemed to be fluid, flexible, and not universal, like everyone was speaking differently from each other, but also from campaign to campaign. And so we really had to take a step back in examining these students’ thoughts and opinions and perspectives. To actually see, okay, when a student says that they think this campaign is effective, what are they actually talking about? And so, the result of my interpretive thematic analysis was this “pebble in your shoe” model of effectiveness. And I’ll break down each section piece by piece for you.
The first section is clarity. Is the campaign simple to understand, specific to FASD and consistent in its messaging? The next is context. What environment would make the campaign the most effective? And how would that environment influence a reader’s time and their expectations? The next is likeability. Do you like the campaign? Do you think it’s effective? And what would it take to reach both? Our participants really separated these two concepts. The next is education. Do you come away from this campaign feeling educated informed and ready to move forward? And the last is attention. Does the campaign catch and keep your attention? And, if you remember something about the campaign, will it be the message? Or will it be something else?
In addition to these components, our participants identified two overarching lenses that the campaigns work through in order to be effective. Shame and support. The students perceived shaming campaigns to be more traditionally effective, but explained that they struggled with their personal feelings and tended to really dislike viewing the campaigns. Effectiveness in this sense really referred to the short term, campaigns were bold and bright and would catch your attention. But the messaging was harsh and often harmful through adding to anxiety, feelings of isolation, and that perpetuation of stigma.
On the other hand, supportive campaigns were well liked, but perceived as less effective as they tended to be less clear and eye-catching. Where they excelled however, was in the long term as these campaigns were capable of really becoming that “pebble in your shoe” that sticks in your mind just enough until it finally helps create long term change. Our participants made it clear that they really wanted more supportive campaigns in the world of alcohol use and pregnancy, but that these efforts also needed to be supported through other initiatives like resources to educate, and open environments for safe conversation. Thank you so much for listening.