Pedagoji Yerine Performans: Çocuk İnfluencerlığın Psikososyal Bedeli

Öz

Bu çalışma, çocuk influencer fenomeninin eğitim sistemleri ve öğrenci gelişimi üzerindeki derin etkilerini araştırmaktadır. Goffman'ın dramaturji teorisi ve Postman'ın 'çocukluğun yok oluşu' tezi çerçevesinde şekillenen bu araştırma, çocukların çevrimiçi ortamda metalaştırılmasının temel eğitim değerlerini ve gelişim süreçlerini nasıl baltalayabileceğini inceler. Çalışma, dijital çocuk işçiliği ve sömürüsü sorunlarını keşfetmek ve bunların neden olduğu derin psikososyal zarara yönelik somut müdahaleler önermek amacıyla çocuk influencer olgusunu inceleyerek akademik literatürdeki bir boşluğu ele almaktadır. Yirmi iki paydaş, ebeveyn, öğretmen ve uzmanla senaryo temelli görüşmeler yapılarak, araştırma; çocukluğun metalaştırılmasını, benlik algısı ve sosyal ilişkiler üzerindeki etkilerini, ayrıca okul süreci ve eğitimsel sonuçlara yönelik kritik tehditleri ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamıştır. Paydaş algılarına göre, çocuk influencerlar kurgulanmış çevrimiçi kişilikleri ile gerçek yaşam kimlikleri arasında önemli bir rol çatışması yaşamakta; bu durum kimlik parçalanması, duygusal dalgalanmalar ve dış onaya bağımlılığa yol açmaktadır. Ayrıca, içerik üretimindeki yoğun katılımları akademik performansı aksatmakta, samimi akran ilişkilerini zayıflatmakta, sosyal izolasyon ve kaygıyı beslemektedir. Bu araştırma, ticari hedeflerden ziyade çocuğun bilişsel ve psikolojik gelişiminin önceliklendirildiği bir eğitim ortamına sahip olma hakkını güvence altına alacak yasal bir çerçeveye duyulan ihtiyacın altını çizmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çocuk influencer
• çocuk işçiliği
• dijital çocukluk
• psiko-sosyal gelişim
• rol çatışması
• benlik sunumu
• sosyal medya ve çocuklar

Performance Over Pedagogy: The Psychosocial Price of Child Influencing

Öz

This study investigates the profound implications of the child influencer phenomenon for educational systems and student development. Framed by Goffman's dramaturgical theory and Postman's ‘disappearance of childhood’ thesis, this research explores how the commodification of children online can undermine core educational values and developmental processes. It addresses the gap in the academic literature by examining the phenomenon of child influencers to explore issues of digital child labor and exploitation and to propose concrete interventions for the profound psychosocial harm they cause. Conducting scenario-based interviews with twenty-two stakeholders, parents, teachers, and experts, the research aimed to explore the commodification of childhood, effects on self-perception, social relationships, and critical threats to the schooling process and educational outcomes. According to stakeholder perceptions, child influencers are viewed as experiencing significant role conflict between their curated online personas and real-life identities, leading to identity fragmentation, emotional volatility, and a dependency on external validation. Furthermore, their intense involvement in content production disrupts academic performance, erodes genuine peer relationships, and fosters social isolation and anxiety. Centrally, this research underlines the need for a legal framework that enshrines a child's right to an educative environment where their cognitive and psychological development is prioritized over commercial objectives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Child influencers
• child labor
• digital childhood
• psycho-social development
• role conflict
• self-presentation
• social media and children

Kaynakça

1. Alkhallouf, A. (2021). Parental cyberbullying through a global lens: Children’s digital rights and social media policies. Journal of Children and Media, 15(3), 448–453.https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2021.1942662
2. Alrumaidhi, K., & Alomran, M. A. (2024). The impact of “kidfluencers” on the cultural identity of Kuwaiti middle school students: A parental perspective. Middle School Journal, 55(5), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2024.2403939
3. Archer, C. J., & Delmo, K. M. (2025, July 1). Children’s ‘playbour’ as influencers on social media: An investigation into the legal and ethical issues surrounding kidfluencers. Communication Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2025.2523654
4. Armağan, A. (2013). Kimlik yapılarında değişim ve sanallaşan kimlik sunumları: Öğrenciler üzerinde bir araştırma [Changes in identity structures and virtualized identity presentations: A research on students]. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, (37), 1–20.
5. Baker, A. J. L., Brassard, M., Chandler-Ofuya, N., Kagan, J., Fischman, T. K., Amber, K., & Marsh, A. (2025, August 11). User comments to parents engaging in psychologically maltreating behaviors on TikTok: Implication for child protection. Journal of Public Child Welfare. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2025.2544131
6. Bearne, S. (2019, August 23). Would you let your child become a ‘kid influencer’? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49333712
7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
8. Cai, X. (2023). Do I have the right to share? Sharenting and psychological ownership of children’s information in the U.S. Journal of Children and Media, 17(4), 579–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2023.2260015

9. Casseus, M. C. (2024). Mom’s social media account featuring her kids: New York’s amended Coogan Act exemplifies the method to regulate parental exploitation. Hofstra Law Review, 52(3), 753–784. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol52/iss3/10
10. Choi, G. Y., & Lewallen, J. (2018). “Say Instagram, Kids!”: Examining sharenting and children’s digital representations on Instagram. Howard Journal of Communications, 29(2), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2017.1327380
11. Clark, D. R., & Boguslavskaya, A. J.-C. (2025). The child labor in social media: Kidfluencers, ethics of care, and exploitation. Journal of Business Ethics.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-05953-7
12. De Veirman, M., Hudders, L., & Nelson, M. R. (2019). What is influencer marketing and how does it target children? A review and direction for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2685. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02685
13. Döğer, M. F. (2024). Self-presentation of teachers in social networks. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IJEMST), 12(5), 1293-1319. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4371
14. Errington, E. (2008). Mission possible: Using near-world scenarios to prepare graduates for the profession. Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 84–91.
15. Errington, E. P. (Ed.). (2003). Developing scenario-based learning: Practical insights for tertiary educators. Dunmore Press/Thomson International Australia.
16. Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media: A critical introduction. SAGE.
17. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
18. Holiday, S., Norman, M. S., & Densley, R. L. (2022). Sharenting and the extended self: Self-representation in parents’ Instagram presentations of their children. Popular Communication, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2020.1744610
19. Hudders, L., & Lou, C. (2023). The rosy world of influencer marketing? Its bright and dark sides, and future research recommendations. International Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2022.2137318.
20. Joss, D. D. (2024). Likes, camera, action: Safeguarding “child influencers” through expanded Coogan protections and increased regulation of social media. William & Mary Business Law Review, 15(2), 441–474. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmbir/vol15/iss2/6
21. Kılıç, B., & Kaya, S. (2021). Yeni medya çağında çocuk youtuberlar üzerinden çocukluğun yok oluşu [The disappearance of childhood through child YouTubers in the new media age]. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(3), 1141–1156. https://doi.org/10.36362/gumus.946829
22. Latham, D. (2002). Childhood under siege: Lois Lowry’s Number the Stars and The Giver. The Lion and the Unicorn, 26(1), 1–15.https://doi.org/10.1353/uni.2002.0006
23. Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428
24. Masterson, M. A. (2021). When play becomes work: Child labor laws in the era of “kidfluencers”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 169(2), 577–622.
25. Morris, M. (2023). Kidfluencers and conundrums: The rising need for internet policy that addresses child labour and safety. The Motley Undergraduate Journal, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/muj.v1i1.76422
26. Mwangi, Z., & Buvár, Á. (2024). The beauty complex: Social media trends, effects, and opportunities. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), Article 2427350.
27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2427350
28. Özer, H. D., & Alpsoy, F. N. (2024). Çocuk işçiliğinin yeni görünümü: Kidfluencer [The new face of child labor: Kidfluencer]. İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 241–274.
29. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
30. Postman, N. (1982). The disappearance of childhood. Delacorte Press.
31. Rafsanjani, J. I. (2022). Legal protection of kid influencers from child exploitation. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 22(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2022.V22.93-104
32. Reardon, J. (2022). New kidfluencers on the block: The need to update California’s Coogan Law to ensure adequate protection for child influencers. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 73(1), 165–190.
33. Rees, F. (2025, January 17). Famous at five: Risk assessing digital child labour. Information & Communications Technology Law. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2025.2452699
34. Rotimi, I. K., Yap, S.-F., & Wooliscroft, B. (2024). Unboxing the child influencer paradoxes: A research agenda. Journal of Marketing Management, 40(11–12), 1030–1057. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2024.2405597
35. Serrant, A. B. (2025). From the silver screen to the phone screen: The Coogan Act’s struggle to keep pace with the evolution of social media. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 26(2), 221–244. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjist/vol26/iss2/5
36. Tosun, E. (2023). Youtube’un minyatür yetişkinleri: Kidfluencer videolarının toplumsal cinsiyet bağlamında incelenmesi [Tiny adults of YouTube: Examining kidfluencer videos in the context of gender]. İstanbul Arel Üniversitesi İletişim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 11(23), 121–151.
37. Tsaliki, L. (2022). Constructing young selves in a digital media ecology: Youth cultures, practices and identity. Information, Communication & Society, 25(4), 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2039747
38. Van Kessel, P., Toor, S., & Smith, A. (2019, July 25). A week in the life of popular YouTube channels. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/07/25/a-week-in-the-life-of-popular-youtube-channels/
39. Wegener, C., Jage-D’Aprile, F., & Plumeier, L. (2023). Motherhood in social media: Phenomena and consequences of the professionalization of mothers and their media (self- representation. Feminist Media Studies, 23(7), 3222–3238. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2022.2108479
40. Willoughby, M. (2019). A review of the risks associated with children and young people’s social media use and the implications for social work practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 33(2), 127-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2018.1460587
41. Yalman Polatlar, D., Karakaya Akçadağ, Ç., Sezer, H. N., Özmen, K. M., Akyüz, M. H., Bilici, N., & Özdoğru, Z. (2022). Modern çocukluğa bakış: Neil Postman değerlendirmesi [A look at modern childhood: An evaluation of Neil Postman]. Journal of Sustainable Educational Studies (JSES), (Ö1), 314–328.
42. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
43. Zengin, E. (2021). An evaluation on the effect of Erving Goffman’s impression management and interpersonal communication within the framework of the self-categorization theory. Anasay, 5(16), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.33404/anasay.906651