Fascinating facts and trends about families and their interactions with technologies

  • At June 2010, 77% of the population aged 14 years and over had access to the internet at home, 40% at work and 15% at locations other than home or work.
  • At June 2010, approximately 89% of Australians aged 14 years and over were estimated to have used the internet at some point in their life.
  • Of those Australians using the internet, the home and work environment remained the most common sites of internet use with 95% of internet users using the internet at home and 46% at their place of work during June 2010.
  • During the month of June 2010, 79% of persons using the internet via a computer went online for communication purposes (email, instant messaging or VoIP), 75% for research and information purposes, 64% for banking and finance related activities and 61% general browsing.
  • There is an ongoing trend to more frequent internet use in Australia – that over the last five years (2005 to 2010), the proportion of heavy internet users (online for more than 15 hours a week) in the Australian population has doubled
  • 95% of all families in Australia have more access to ICTs than any other unit (couples, individuals etc)

Sources of information: ABS 2010; ACMA 2009-10 Report 1: Australia in the digital economy: the shift to the online environment

Source: ACMA Use of electronic media and communications: Early childhood to teenage years (2009) p.1

The above graph demonstrates that TV is still the medium that is used most – but this data does not capture information about streaming of programs as opposed to viewing them in real time. I am also uncertain about whether information is being captured when DVDs or TV shows are being watched in cars and on portable devices in the family context.

What do these research facts tell us?

  • The home has become a busy communication hub, with continuing technological advances making new technology affordable and available, and families adapt and transform these technologies to meet their own purposes.

That the increasing complexity of family interactions in an online environment AND the increasing numbers of information and communication technologies (ICTs) involved in those interactions is changing the way we work, play and relate to each other.

  • The ability to be in multiple places simultaneously redefines ‘togetherness’, and the way we attend to others. For example: If you are chatting to your daughter on the mobile phone, while she is instant messaging her friends – does that constitute family time together? If dad is watching TV with his son, while the son is text messaging his mates – are they spending time together?
  • Email, the Internet, mobile phone, social networking sites, Instant Messaging (IM) and Short Message Service (SMS) texting provide family members a means to communicate and maintain a sense of ‘connectedness’ with each other.
  • Families seem to be living more and more moments ‘on air’ so that virtual family ties co-exist with face-to-face time.
  • Family togetherness becomes disembodied and fragmented; nevertheless, togetherness can be experienced whilst being separate.
Advertisements

Teens, technology and sharing information

Isn’t it funny when we as parents, or researchers, ask a young person, that is, adolescent, teenager, or young adult, what they think of all the new technology that is available? They look bewildered (or is that frustrated?), roll their eyes and remind us that there is nothing unusual in their experience – it is normal! Normal to have a Facebook account (Myspace lost its status as ‘cool’ very early); to Google for information regarding any query; to download music and videos; and ultimately to have an online presence and identity. But perhaps most significantly, it is normal behaviour to share information in the digital world.

Digital Footprints

When my daughter has her 21st birthday party (and it is still some years away yet) the advantage of digital technology is that I will be able to find a vast array of embarrassing moments at the click of a mouse, or finger swipe across a screen! All those digital images add up to a significant digital footprint.

In a poll conducted by AVG last year, the following information about digital downloads/uploads of images of very young children was ascertained:

1 – The average age at which a child acquires an online presence courtesy of their parents is at six months, and by the time they are two 81% of children have some kind of ‘digital footprint’.
2 – A third (33%) of children have had images posted online from birth
3 – A quarter (23%) of children have even had their pre-birth scans uploaded to the Internet by their parents
4 – Seven per cent (7%) of babies have even had an email address created for them by their parents
5 – More than 70% of mothers said they posted baby and toddler images online to share with friends and family

See: AVG Blogs | J.R. Smith http://jrsmith.blog.avg.com/2010/10/would-you-want-a-digital-footprint-from-birth.html#ixzz1ErsaHZYx

Unlike footprints in the sand, our digital footprints leave a trace that is not necessarily washed away – I am uncertain about whether this is something that we need to be concerned about. I have noticed that many parents create online profiles of their very young children on social networking sites as a means of sharing precious moments. Rather than being placed in private family photo albums, they are distributed in the public domain. It seems to be standard practice to share photographic memories online. It starts early, and then teens continue to interact, connect, play, explore, learn and communicate in the digital world. It is normal for these kids to post pictures of themselves in a variety of situations. It will make locating those amusing pictures for the purpose of celebrating a rite of passage into adulthood all the more trouble-free.

Shiny, bright new things

As we demand to have the next, newest, more shiny brighter version of the thing we had before, (iphone 4, 4G, new generation iPad, Android technology, etc), what are the emotions attached to the ‘old’ thing? Is it contempt or disappointment because it has become slow and obsolete (and so quickly)? Each newer generational ‘thing’ has better inbuilt processing, more power, is smaller to carry, comes in a variety of colours and shapes, and can clean your house and prepare your evening meal (I wish) too! Once upon a time we had the same TV or fridge for over 20 years (okay – I had a Westinghouse fridge that was my parents’ before it became mine, until it imploded at 35 years – a very good innings). Now we seem to replace our technology at regular intervals.

Teens and mobile devices

Children may misplace their mobile phones, and while parents wait a few weeks to see if it will turn up, they are resigned to the fact that it will be replaced with a new one. In my own research so far, all the families have experienced the ‘missing mobile’ by one of their teens. One teen claimed the dog ate her phone! Another 13-year-old teen took her brand new Blackberry to the beach and swam with it. Only when she had to call her parents to pick her up, did she realise that her smart phone was missing (still swimming without her)! Similar instances occur with gaming apparatus, digital cameras, and mp3 players. I have also heard stories from teens about their own desire for newer, better phones and how they purposely ‘misplace’ or destroy their unwanted device in order to get an updated one.

Nostalgia for the old?

It seems that there is little or no nostalgia associated to our technological gadgets. Marketing departments perpetuate the need for the new – and yet, some of the old stuff does become valuable (eventually). Our children have enormous influence over our purchase decisions, and this has an impact on the moral economy of the household. We are encouraged to dispose of our unused technology (for the potential harm caused to the environment) – there is no room for nostalgic mementos in this context.

This sparks a memory associated with a Dr Seuss story: The Lorax, where the Once-ler developed the “thneed” which is a fine something-that-all-people-need! It’s a shirt. It’s a sock. It’s a glove! It’s a hat! But it has other uses, yes, far beyond that. You can use it for carpets, for pillows, for sheets, for curtains! Or covers for bicycle seats!

“I meant no harm. I most truly did not.

But I had to grow bigger. So bigger I got.

I biggered my factory. I biggered my roads.

I biggered my wagons. I biggered the loads

of the Thneeds I shipped out. I was shipping them forth

to the South! To the East! To the West! To the North!

I went right on biggering … selling more Thneeds.

And I biggered my money, which everyone needs.”

And again it seems that history repeats…………

A very short story on the history of technology acceptance

Looking at my surroundings while attempting to work, I was struck by the titles of some of the books on the shelves (otherwise known as my library) in my study (which is an ode to Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own, where I am able to contemplate all things). Obviously these books are related to the field of my research, but take a look and see what comes to mind…

Alone Together – Sherry Turkle
The Second Self – Sherry Turkle
New Tech, New Ties – Rich Ling
Distracted – Maggie Jackson
Cyburbia – James Harkin
The Winter of Our Disconnect – Susan Maushart
Hamlet’s Blackberry – William Powers
The Wired Homestead – Turow & Kavanaugh
Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out – Ito, Baumer, Bittanti, et al
Modern Media in the Home – Mackay & Ivey
Enough – John Naish
The Shallows – Nicholas Carr
The Dumbest Generation – Mark Bauerlein
Amusing Ourselves to Death – Neil Postman

All except Neil Postman’s 1985 book were published between 2003 and 2011. What do the titles of these books suggest to us about human interaction? Do they strike you as ebulliently positive? Are they steeped in existential ponderings about how humans ‘be’ in the modern techno-filled world? What is the overriding theme espoused? Is there any hope? Are we communicating more, or less, or just differently? Where did it start, and does it have an end?

A Brief Historical Perspective
Developed in the 1830s the telegraph was considered an innovative and new communications technology that allowed people to correspond across vast distances. It was considered to be:

“A worldwide communications network whose cables spanned continents and oceans, it revolutionized business practice, gave rise to new forms of crime, and inundated its users with a deluge of information. Romances blossomed over the wires. Secret codes were devised by some users and cracked by others. The benefits of the network were relentlessly hyped by its advocates and dismissed by the skeptics. Governments and regulators tried and failed to control the new medium. Attitudes toward everything from newsgathering to diplomacy had to be completely rethought. Meanwhile, out on the wires, a technological subculture with its own customs and vocabulary was establishing itself.” (The Victorian Internet, Standage, 1998)

Moral panic
Ten years after its introduction, the telephone was invented, creating more hype, fear and conflicting emotions about the possible effects on society, and more importantly, the family. Telephones would make people lazy according to some – and that face-to-face communication would decline. The same utopian and dystopian views were championed with the launch of the horseless carriage, the wireless radio, the television, and, it would seem, every new technological innovation.

“Utopian statements which idealised the new medium as an ultimate expression of technological and social progress were met by equally dystopian discourses which warned of (its) devastating effects on family relationships and the efficient functioning of the household” (Spigel 1992, p. 3). While Spigel was referring to the medium of television, the same can be said for most new media and ICTs – each new medium brings with it a concomitant moral panic about its potential social and familial effects.

Is history on continual repeat?

Family 2.0 Communication

‘Family version 2.0’ is utlising omnipresent media and technology to enable the management of busy households, and to negotiate and mediate between traditional and modern family values.

Research commissioned by Yahoo and OMD in 2006:  It’s a Family Affair: the Media Evolution of Global Families in a Digital Age investigated how family life is enhanced by today’s technology. The research project combined results from polling more than 4,500 online families in 16 countries with in-home interviews and scrapbooks tracking media and technology usage by families in seven countries. Consistent global themes include a revival in traditional values, and an acknowledgment that the “always on” nature of technology emphasises the need to also focus on low-tech activities such as playing board games and dining together. Does this mean that families might be doing more activities together, albeit at times separately? Even traditional board games are available as ‘apps’ on the iPad or smart phones – you don’t need to be in the same room to make your moves on the board. In fact, I noticed a young man (late teens/early twenties) with his girlfriend, while waiting for a take away meal (to have dinner with my family) take out his Iphone from his back pocket intermittently during the 20 minute wait. I was sitting beside him and saw that he was making a move on a Backgammon board via his screen – clearly playing a game with someone else. It has been some years since I last played Backgammon – and was delighted at the idea that it is still being played electronically (though I can’t imagine rolling the dice via a phone is nearly as exciting as the real thing – but I’m old fashioned that way)!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technology enhances communication
The Yahoo study found that parents and children, far from being divided by technological advances, were actually taking control of that technology and simultaneously integrating it, using it to increase control of their own lives. Seventy percent of respondents said that technology allowed them to stay in better touch with family. Mobile phones are a means of communication for 29 percent of families, and instant messaging for 25 percent.

And in my own research this finding is being echoed – that mobile devices aid communication in the family context. These devices are also increasing the amount of activities that we are doing at any one time.

The 43 hour day

By combining previously individual pursuits such as watching the TV, surfing the internet, using email and listening to MP3s all in the same room at the same time, the survey claims that families are reporting up to 43 hours of daily activities in each 24 hour period. Multi-tasking extends our daily activities – we pack a lot more into our time (whether this is quality time spent will be discussed in a future blog).

The Yahoo/OMD study was conducted 5 years ago, and a lot can happen in that time.  The picture of Family 2.0 is a paradoxical portrait – where it seems families are more connected due to technology, but spending time apart doing things together. I will provide greater detail to that picture in future blogs.

The Dilemma of the Digital Parent

In an age where digital devices proliferate, how is it changing the way we parent our children? Being a parent requires amazing skills including (but not limited to) being well versed in: management techniques, logistics, creativity, sociability, consultation, culinary endeavours, counselling, as well as dexterity, tolerance, having medical expertise (or at least basic nursing abilities), pragmatics and general knowledge. Factor in balancing work obligations, social connections and maintaining a home life – is it any wonder parents find  escape in their Facebook accounts, tweets and texts? The very same thing that they complain their kids do too much of!

Sherry Turkle has recently published a book ‘Alone Together’ that investigates parental use of technology and how it affects our children. Her study was conducted over 5 years, with 300 interviews of various family members. What she has surmised is that children often feel hurt, jealousy, and competition for attention. The difference in our communication with our kids can be influenced by whether our devices are switched on or off.

As parents we have often complained about the tunnel vision that our children get when in front of a screen (and screens are now as small as the palm of our hands). But we neglect to look at our own behaviour when it comes to digital technology. Are we (as parents) as addicted to our technology and the  connections provided as our kids? Is future family togetherness to be mediated by texts, tweets and social network status updates? Are we becoming less present to our kids?

Here’s an interesting quiz to determine your digital parenting style:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/resources/parents/#b2ans

This was my result on the Protection-Empowerment scale: Although you are concerned with protection, it is more important to you to empower your child and his or her use of digital media. You find ways to get involved and increase the benefits of digital media. You recommend Web sites to your child and suggest age appropriate ways for him or her to participate online.

 

To Blog or Not to Blog

Today I attended the inaugural (for 2011) Collaborative Research Online Psychology Team (CROPT) meeting – given I was co-facilitating this event, it was imperative that I attend! Our first meeting looked at the benefits of blogging for thesis writing (a topic close to my heart).

 Thesis writing and research can be a very isolating experience. As a PhD student I have found that once you take the dive into the rabbit hole, it is an exclusive journey that is conducted in a vacuum. No one can truly share in your experiences. Your topic is unique and ideally, no one else is doing the same research (but serendipitously there is always someone doing something similar somewhere else in the world – many ideas/discoveries are worked on simultaneously without knowledge of the other). The criterion on whether a doctoral thesis proposal is approved is that it is original work that makes a significant contribution to knowledge. By it’s very nature it is a solitary process. In fact, the only people you really get to share part of your journey with is your supervisor(s), who help guide you through the morass, and are there to support, critique, encourage, chide, question and praise you (if you are lucky)!

 My supervisors (wonderful, inspiring women that they are) will be the only people (apart from the examiners) to read my work. All those words (90,000 of them) will only be read by 4 people (and 2 of them – the examiners – are judging me by my work). I am already putting myself off! Although I can hear my optimistic self tell me: it’s the journey, not the destination! The process is likened to being a sorcerer’s apprentice in research. I have digressed….

 Blogging to share the experience

The point of my diatribe is this: blogging is a way of sharing the words, the inklings, the epiphanies and sorrows. It is a way of finding an audience that is interested in my ideas and creating a dialogue so that I am not always operating in an isolated space. It is a means to encourage interaction with my audience. It is also a method for developing routine in the practice of writing.

 

Today I have ‘outed’ myself as someone who desires to be disciplined in the practice of writing (but thwarted by continuously finding (valid?) reasons not to)! This Blog is dedicated to my fellow CROPT colleagues who will be watching for my commitment to write 250 words per day via this blog. THERE! I have committed! Let the writing begin!

(This post was 419 words – can there be too many words???)