“I don’t say I am Norwegian”: Belonging and ethnic/racial categories

by Mari Rysst

In this blog I will address the phenomenon of social classification, here related to experience-near ethnic and racial categories among 12-year-old children in a suburb in eastern Oslo. This suburb has a majority population of families from non-western countries. In Norway as a whole, people from non-western countries are often categorized as foreigners both by themselves and others, as opposed to ethnic Norwegians, or just Norwegians. One boy expressed this well: “I don’t say I am Norwegian, mostly (name of parents’ country of origin). I don’t have any Norwegian blood in me, so I don’t understand why you (ethnic Norwegians) say I am “Norwegian”. I have a Norwegian passport, but”…….He looked upon himself as a foreigner like all the other children of non-western origin. The category foreigner includes only people from various non-western countries with different shades of coloured skin, and the people included in the category appear to experience belonging through this classification. This might be due to previous experiences with racism leading to their “othering” , which they appropriated and made a form of in their identity construction

Boys during soccer practice
credit: pexels | aleksandar069

In a study from 2023, in and around a football club in that suburb, I interviewed 14 boys and five girls, mostly about their football activity and other leisure activities. I also wanted to know about peer culture and friendship networks, and if racism and discrimination were existent issues.  I entered these themes by asking the question: “Which words do you use when you are quarreling or fighting?” The answer from a conversation with three boys, two of them having African origin and the third Asian, brought forth the dynamic character of the social construction of ethnic/racial categories, which I will illustrate below.

Kids playing with a football
credit: pexels | rdne

The boys told me that when quarreling and fighting, racist words were often used, such as the n-word or blackie (svarting), which indicates a possible hierarchy between the countries of origin. Earlier research shows that ranking in hierarchies put light skin on top, that is, the lighter the skin the better, which is also referred to as ‘colourism’ or ‘shadeism’. We were talking about which words and utterances they felt most humiliating when arguing and fighting, and it was motherfucker and the n-word which came out as the worst. However, it came forth that it was contextual whether the n-word was experienced as racist or not. They explained that if two havingorigin from African countries were close friends, they could call each other “negro” without it being racist, then it was only another way of saying “mate”, “friend”. But if a “white” person called them negro, the meaning being black slave, that was really racist. In this area people of Pakistani origin were in majority among the ‘foreigners’, and interestingly, the boys I interviewed defined Pakistanis as “white”:

Boy: Shall I tell you what we understand by ‘white’ person? It is not such ‘Norwegian person’, it is not them we understand here as ‘white’, but all those with white skin colour: Iraqis, Egyptians, Moroccans, Pakistani, all such persons who are white, they haven’t got the right to use the n-word.

Mari: But Pakistanis, are they “white” then?

Boy: They do not have the right (to use the n-word). They are not black.

Boys looking at something
credit: pexels | cottonbro

So, what he is saying, is first, that only people racialized as black, that is mostly those having origin from African countries (but not North African) are justified to use the n-word:

Because we were harassed about it and we can use it because it is something (slavery) that has happened to us, but if you say it, it is a word that denotes nothing that has happened to you, so if you for instance call me negro, it means “black slave”, but if I say this to Moa (the other black boy in the interview), it means “friend”, “mate” only.

In other words, the n-word is understood to belong to people racialized as black, and if all others use it on them, the word is understood as racist. And secondly, what he is implying is that their understanding of white is contextual, or has changed, as those they define as white in this context also are understood as brown in other contexts, and definitely five-ten years ago. The phenomenon may point to a change in categorizations, so that we are in the process of having two categories, white and black, white being more inclusive than before. So, if white becomes more inclusive, the category foreigner may become narrower, to include only people with very dark skin. In other words, the utterance above about who is white suggests that the categories of Norwegian and foreigner also may change with changing contexts. Most interestingly, the utterance is an utmost example of how racial categories are socially constructed and suggests that changes may be motivated by the wish to belong in changing or new social contexts.

Behind the Screens – The Unseen Marketing

by Hanna Seglem Tangen

What do we know about what youth see on their mobile phone? Our mobile phones and social media are highly private and mostly for good reasons. It is our own alternative and digital world. Youth spend hours and hours daily on their mobile phones exploring this world. Unfortunately, there are some cons of this privacy. Our data is not private to commercial actors, and our time and following of different profiles on social media is a part of a huge digital economy. As we do not see what other people see on social media, it is not that easy to regulate unhealthy content, such as the marketing of unhealthy foods and drinks. Furthermore, children often use consumer goods to belong in a group (Pugh, 2011). This phenomenon was demonstrated last summer when popular YouTubers Logan Paul and KSI promoted the sports drink PRIME Hydration in Norway. Thousands of children turned up to the event and the sports drink was flying of the shelves for a long period of time (Eriksen et al., 2023). The sports drink was primarily promoted in social media.

Icons of a phone and people analyzing the content on the phone
credit: pexels | WebTechExperts

Food Environments

Lately, the term Food Environments has been coming up as a relevant subject. From the Public Health Institute of Norway comes the following definition: “Food environments are the physical, economic, political, and sociocultural contexts in which people interact with the food system when making choices about acquiring, preparing, and consuming food. This includes both physical and digital/virtual environments.” (Uldahl & Torheim, 2023). This also means that the foods and drinks we see on social media are a part of our Food Environment. Studies do indicate that advertising for unhealthy food and drink can influence children and adolescents’ choices, as well as change their attitudes and preferences towards different foods and drinks (Buchanan et al., 2018; Cairns et al., 2013; Coates et al., 2019; Harris et al., 2021; Kucharczuk et al., 2022; Lykke & Selberg, 2022; Mc Carthy et al., 2022; Sadeghirad et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2019).

Somebody taking a picture of plates of foods with a phone
credit: pexels | Roman Odintsov

Marketing for unhealthy foods and drinks in Norway

The Norwegian government is now planning to implement a new legislation to regulate marketing towards children and youth under the age of 18 (Innst. 398 S (2022-2023), 2023). However, our understanding of the amount of marketing of unhealthy foods and drinks on social media remains limited because the research methods are still insufficient. Social media platforms are rapidly changing alongside the forms of marketing. This makes it hard to follow the evolution of marketing on social media based on the existing methods. Formerly, my colleague Alexander Schjøll and I explored how much marketing a selection of influencers posted on social media over a period of three months (Tangen & Schjøll, 2023). Our findings revealed that nearly a quarter (24%) of all posts were marketing. The most frequently marketed categories were food and drinks, primarily sports and energy drinks, followed by clothing and accessories. Still, these results can just indicate the current situation, not generalize anything. Other Norwegian studies have shown different types of marketing to be more common (Retriever, 2022; Steinnes & Haugrønning, 2020).

Influencer promoting a drink
credit: pexels | ivan samk

In our study, even though we looked at popular influencers, we do not know what children and adolescents see on their own phones. We could not look into the ads, both traditional and personalized, that are displayed to each person based on their algorithms. Similar studies to ours have been done, but to this author’s knowledge, no other studies have been able to measure marketing in children’s and adolescent’s mobiles in a satisfying and precise way.

Influencer eating a slice of pizza
credit: pexels | ivan samk

Making the unseen marketing visible

Therefore, we are currently working on a project to monitor marketing on social media in cooperation with WHO and The Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Adolescents aged 13-18 are going to download an application developed by WHO. This application will monitor and capture screenshots from Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube when our respondents use it. In this way we can capture and count the real exposure of marketing adolescents witness on social media. SIFO researchers Steinnes & Haugrønning (2020) conducted a study with a former version of the application, where the initial version processed the content of photos and returned text-based data. Their study provided promising results for further development and use of this method. Now, the application is further developed to take screenshots, sort out sensitive images by using AI and includes an analyzing tool who tags brands and commercials. Our continuation of Steinnes & Haugrønning’s (2020) method and a newer version of the application will provide us with new insights into unseen marketing on social media and youths digital food environments.

children sitting looking at a phone
credit: pexels | katerina holmes

Bio

Hanna Seglem Tangen is a research assistant at Consumption Research Norway (SIFO), belonging in the research group Sustainable Textile and Food Consumption. Hanna’s research interests include sustainable food consumption, public health, advertising and marketing, politics, policy, and evaluation. She applies with both qualitative and quantitative methods in her work.

References

Buchanan, L., Yeatman, H., Kelly, B., & Kariippanon, K. (2018). A thematic content analysis of how marketers promote energy drinks on digital platforms to young Australians. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 42(6), 530–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12840

Cairns, G., Angus, K., Hastings, G., & Caraher, M. (2013). Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of food marketing to children. A retrospective summary. Appetite, 62, 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.017

Coates, A. E., Hardman, C. A., Halford, J. C. G., Christiansen, P., & Boyland, E. J. (2019). Social Media Influencer Marketing and Children’s Food Intake: A Randomized Trial. Pediatrics, 143(4), e20182554. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2554

Eriksen, D., Sørnes, A. J., Haugen, K., & Klokkerud Odden, F. (2023, June 27). Tusenvis av fans møtte Youtube-stjerner i Oslo. NRK. https://www.nrk.no/kultur/tusenvis-av-fans-motte-youtube-stjerner-i-oslo-1.16462419

Harris, J. L., Yokum, S., & Fleming-Milici, F. (2021). Hooked on Junk: Emerging Evidence on How Food Marketing Affects Adolescents’ Diets and Long-Term Health. Current Addiction Reports, 8(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-020-00346-4

Innst. 398 S (2022-2023). (2023). Innstilling fra helse- og omsorgskomiteen om Folkehelsemeldinga – Nasjonal strategi for utjamning av sosiale helseforskjellar. Helse- og omsorgskomiteen. https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Publikasjoner/Innstillinger/Stortinget/2022-2023/inns-202223-398s/?m=3&c=False

Kucharczuk, A. J., Oliver, T. L., & Dowdell, E. B. (2022). Social media’s influence on adolescents′ food choices: A mixed studies systematic literature review. Appetite, 168, 105765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105765

Lykke, M. B., & Selberg, N. (2022). Usund digital markedsføring. Effekten af digital markedsføring af fødevarer med et højt indhold af fedt, salt og sukker på børn og unges fødevarevalg – en kortlægning af den videnskabelige evidens. Hjerteforeningen.

Mc Carthy, C. M., de Vries, R., & Mackenback, J. D. (2022). The influence of unhealthy food and beverage marketing through social media and advergaming on diet‐related outcomes in children—A systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 23(6), https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13441.

Pugh, A. J. (2011). Distinction, boundaries or bridges?: Children, inequality and the uses of consumer culture. Poetics, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2010.10.002

Retriever. (2022). Hva kommuniserer norske og utenlandske influensere til norske ungdommer på sosiale medier? Medietilsynet. https://www.medietilsynet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/barn-og-medier-undersokelser/2022/influenseranalyse.pdf

Sadeghirad, B., Duhaney, T., Motaghipisheh, S., Campbell, N. R. C., & Johnston, B. C. (2016). Influence of unhealthy food and beverage marketing on children’s dietary intake and preference: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Obesity Reviews, 17(10), 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12445

Smith, R., Kelly, B., Yeatman, H., & Boyland, E. (2019). Food Marketing Influences Children’s Attitudes, Preferences and Consumption: A Systematic Critical Review. Nutrients, 11(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11040875

Steinnes, K. K., & Haugrønning, V. (2020). Mapping the landscape of digital food marketing: Investigating exposure of digital food and drink advertisements to Norwegian children and adolescents. Consumption Research Norway (SIFO), OsloMet. https://oda.oslomet.no/oda-xmlui/handle/20.500.12199/6510

Tangen, H. S., & Schjøll, A. (2023). Eksponering for markedsføring av usunn mat og drikke. Reklame rettet mot barn og unge i sosiale medier. In 55 (Report SIFO-rapport;14-2023). Forbruksforskningsinstituttet SIFO, OsloMet. https://oda.oslomet.no/oda-xmlui/handle/11250/3107927

Uldahl, M., & Torheim, L.-E. (2023). Metoder og indikatorer for kartlegging og overvåkning av matomgivelser i Norge. Folkehelseinstituttet. https://www.fhi.no/publ/2023/matomgivelser/

How do smartphones shape belonging in a digitalized childhood?

by Øyvind Næss

In Norway, when something is said to have an ‘affective value’ (affeksjonsverdi), it is meant to convey how a thing can have a value that is disconnected from its economic or practical value within a system of exchange. Therefore, ‘affective value’ is a subjective value that always exists in a relation to a specific individual. The term is typically used for objects with an emotional significance or meaning attached to them. For example, you might have an old broken watch that you cannot get yourself to throw away. That probably means it has ‘affective value’. Throwing it away will come with an emotional cost.

picture of a smartphone with a child taking a selfie with a filter on Snapchat
credit: pexels | cottonbro

Not sure how to translate affeksjonsverdi into English, I asked my university’s AI chatbot for a translation and it proposed translating it into sentimental value. But connecting the term to sentimentality creates a binary between a subjective sentimental value and an objective practical, logical, and economic value. Such a binary division is rarely a good way to gain knowledge in a messy world. Instead, I will propose to understand the term as an emotional manifestation produced at the convergence of what Vanessa May on this blog calls the relational and material dimensions of belonging. Then the term instead conveys how value-laden objects draw events, materialities, and bodies together on an individual emotional register – and in doing so, help create a sense of who a person is by what it deems important. In short – where a person belongs. And that is not a question of sentimentality, that is a question of affect.

picture of a child laying on a couch with headphones looking at their phone.
credit: pexels | shkrabaanthony

In my fieldwork with younger children in digitalized childhoods, this convergence of events, materialities, and bodies is in many ways the central pivot that my interlocutors’ lives gravitate around. Even though I don’t engage directly with the concept of belonging in my research, I do engage with how smartphones create shared social experiences – joint spaces where children experience belonging and have their individual feelings of belonging recognized by their peers. For the children in my project, these feelings of belonging induced by digital entities are also connected to a heightened sense of agency through the opening up of novel digitalized ways to explore, be creative, and experiment within the heterogeneous assemblage that contemporary digitalized childhoods draw together.  

Picture of three children hanging out on a couch looking at a phone
credit: pexels | shkrabaanthony

An important part of my PhD project is to explore how children’s social experiences are tied to what I call gravitational forces that emerge as a result of digitalized childhood embeddedness in a global system of economic growth. In a language that perhaps aligns better with other posts on this blog, I explore how the potentialities of belonging are facilitated and constrained by the digital materialities deployed into contemporary digitalized childhoods.

picture of two people on a video call on a phone
credit: pexels | gabby k

One of the things I have found is that in childhood as in life in general, no one can escape gravity. All one can do is to act on it. And that is exactly what the children do. Smartphones laden with ‘affective value’ in digitalized childhoods do not exist in extrinsic relations with their owners. By turning to a Foucauldian view of power, these objects should rather seen as intrinsic parts of children’s identities by being situated as the mediators and catalysts of social connections. Thus, for the children I encountered in my fieldwork, the gravitational power enveloped in digitalized childhoods is not felt as a ‘power over…’ but as a ‘power to…’. However, this should not be taken to mean that no external power is present in digitalized childhoods (Massumi, 2015). It just means that power moves from extrinsic to intrinsic and from constraints to identity. By seeing smartphones and gaming consoles as objects of ‘affective value’, it is now possible to see how individual feelings of belonging in a contemporary childhood are ordered emotions, made to resonate with larger economic logics outside of childhood. Thus, for better and for worse, the potential for belonging in digitalized childhoods is always in-formed by the connections that it is possible to make between the materialities deployed in digitalized childhoods and the children that reside there on account of their social classification (Næss, forthcoming).

picture of two children sitting back to back each on a phone
credit: pexels | ron lach

Bio: Øyvind Næss is a PhD candidate at the Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences. His research explores digitalized childhoods at the intersection of politics, individual experiences, and materialities through a theoretical framework informed by Deleuzeian affect theory.   

Massumi, B. (2015). Politics of affect. John Wiley & Sons.
Næss, Ø. (2025). A matter of logics, reasons, and practicalities: connecting spaces in a digitalized childhood. Forthcoming

Sharenting in Norway

By Clara Julia Reich, Live Standal Bøyum, and Kamilla Knutsen Steinnes

Children in Norway will have on average 1165 pictures of themselves on the Internet by the time they are 12 years old, according to UNICEF (2020). This shows that a lot of content is shared about children in Norway, often by their family members and friends. The practice of parents sharing information about their children is referred to as sharenting, a termderived from the words sharing and parenting. This practice is common both internationally and in Norway (Blum-Ross & Livingstone, 2017; Elvestad et al., 2021; Jorge et al., 2022; Otero, 2017). Analyzing sharenting from the perspective of both children and parents and bringing forth young people’s views is understudied (Lipu & Siibak, 2019; Verswijvel et al. 2019). Further, there is a lack of research in a Norwegian context (Bhroin et al., 2022).

Somebody taking a picture of a family meal
credit: pexels askar abayev

Researching sharenting

The project “Sharenting – in the best interest of the child?” was conducted by Clara Julia Reich, Live Bøyum, Helene Fiane Teigen, and Kamilla Knutsen Steinnes, and the results build on the report they published (2023). The project aimed to fill the identified research gaps by conducting three focus groups and a workshop:

  1. ten children aged 9-12;
  2. seven adolescents aged 13-18;
  3. nine guardians aged 34-47 and
  4. a workshop where five parents brought along one child each to discuss sharenting.

Why do Norwegian parents share?

In the project, we found a variety of motivations behind why parents share. Parents mainly share to collect memories of valued moments, keep in touch with friends and families, show off their kids, and get feedback. Parents may also share to mark special occasions such as birthdays, Christmas, or the first day at school.

A mother taking a picture of her child and partner.
credit: pexels | kampus production

What are the issues?

Children and adolescents are particularly worried about any potential negative effects on their lives from sharenting. They wish to control their own digital identities and are concerned about sharenting leading to bullying. The views on what “good” content is differ between children and their parents which can lead to conflicts. Moreover, parents and their children also acknowledged that sharenting can lead to risks due to the possibility of it being misused in criminal activities such as deepfakes, sexual abuse, or kidnapping. Further, the participants were worried about potential abuse of the shared content in the future. However, parents pointed out that they do not want to harm their children and have good intentions when sharing.

How to improve sharenting?

Children and adolescents want to be asked for consent before parents share content about them. They would like to know what, with whom, and where content about them is shared. Further, children and adolescents would like their parents to ask for their consent from an early age and wish that their parents respect their boundaries when they disapprove of sharing. The young participants also suggested a need to increase their parents’ digital competence, for instance through school programs in Norway. Further, they wish to reduce the amount of sharing to a few selected special moments.

In collaboration with Tenk, a parent meeting guide for Norwegian schools was developed to inspire parents to be good role models in content sharing. The material is free to use and aims at inspiring dialogue and reflections between parents and children Foreldremøte om bildedeling på sosiale medier | Tenk (faktisk.no).

A woman and a child taking a selfie.
credit: pexels | rdn stock project

Authors’ bio

Clara Julia Reich, Live Standal Bøyum, and Kamilla Knutsen Steinnes are all Ph.D. candidates at Consumption Research Norway and have an interest in digitalization and everyday lives.

References

  • Blum-Ross, A., & Livingstone, S. (2017). “Sharenting,” parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. Popular Communication, 15(2), 110-125.
  • Bhroin, N. N., Dinh, T., Thiel, K., Lampert, C., Staksrud, E. & Olafsson, K. (2022). The Privacy Paradox by Proxy: Considering Predictors of Sharenting. Media and communication (Lisboa), 10(1S2), 371-383. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i1.4858.
  • Elvestad, E., Staksrud, E. & Ólafsson, K. (2021). Digitalt foreldreskap i Norge. Institutt for medier og kommunikasjon, UiO/Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge
  • Lipu, M. and Siibak, A. (2019). ‘“Take it down!”: Estonian parents’ and preteens’ opinions and experiences with sharenting’, Media International Australia, 170(1), 1–11. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X1982836
  • Elvestad, E., Staksrud, E. & Ólafsson, K. (2021). Digitalt foreldreskap i Norge. Institutt for medier og kommunikasjon, UiO/Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge.
  • Jorge, A., Marôpo, L., Coelho, A. M., & Novello, L. (2022). Mummy influencers and professional sharenting. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 25(1), 166–182.Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494211004593
  • Otero, P. (2017). Sharenting… should children’s lives be disclosed on social media. Arch Argent Pediatr, 115(5), 412-413.
  • Reich, C. J.; Bøyum, L.; Fiane Teigen, H.; Steinnes, K. K. (2023). «Sharenting» – til barnets beste? Personvern og kritisk medieforståelse knyttet til foreldres deling av egne barn i sosiale medier. SIFO rapport 9- 2023. «Sharenting»- til barnets beste? Personvern og kritisk medieforståelse knyttet til foreldres deling av egne barn i sosiale medier (oslomet.no)
  • UNICEF (2020). 6 råd om deling av bilder av barn. Hentet fra: https://www.unicef.no/norge/oppvekst/eksponering-av-barn-i-sosiale-medier/rad-tilforeldre.
  • Verswijvel, K., Walrave, M., Hardies, K., & Heirman, W. (2019). Sharenting, is it a good or a bad thing? Understanding how adolescents think and feel about sharenting on social network sites. Children and Youth Services Review, 104, 104401. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104401

Children’s unequal use of digital technology – the nuanced role of (socioeconomic) context

A contribution by Leo Röhlke

Television, digital devices, and the Internet have been part of our lives for a considerable time. Their relevance continues to grow, and there is no indication that this trend will slow down soon. Since the advent of television, families worldwide have grappled with common questions, such as:

  • When should children begin consuming screen media?
  • What constitutes suitable content for children, and how much screen time is appropriate?
  • What are the consequences of unsupervised technology use by children?
  • Can children develop technology “addiction”?
  • What educational value can children derive from their use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)?
Picture of a family with video game controllers.
credit: pexels | ketu subiyanto

New developments and ambiguities

During the 2010s, three interconnected developments have increased the significance of such questions for families: First, the introduction of portable touchscreen devices has enabled children to engage with ICTs long before they acquire reading and writing skills. These mobile devices can be used in various settings, both inside and outside the home, such as in the backseat of a car, at a restaurant, or in a waiting room.

Second, an explosion in the development of learning applications and software for all age groups has greatly expanded the opportunities for children’s educational ICT use. This growth offers nearly limitless possibilities for accessing tailored content to suit individual needs. Third, both the educational and occupational systems increasingly require (and foster) the use of ICTs. In combination with ICT-related societal debates (e.g., around fake news), there has emerged a widely accepted social imperative for young people to become “digitally literate”.

As many qualitative studies have reported, parents often perceive high pressure around their children’s ICT use. Calls for fostering children’s digital literacy clash with moral panics around screen time and the dangers of social media and the Internet. Given these ambiguities and the increased salience of the issue, it is an exciting endeavor to investigate the different ways in which children use ICTs. In a way, such differences represent the answers that families give to the questions raised above, given the different contexts and circumstances that they are confronted with.

Boys fixing a computer.
credit: pexels | cottonbro studio

Children’s ICT (non-)use and their social context

Families are unequal, and so are their incorporations of technology into children’s lives. This contribution draws on recently collected survey data from Switzerland, a technologically advanced and wealthy country, where access barriers to ICT (the primary-level digital divide) have largely vanished. My research is focused on middle childhood (7-10 years).

In my exploration of the diverse types of ICT usage among Swiss 8-year-old children, a significant portion falls into the category of non-users. These children have limited interaction with ICTs beyond watching television. Are they simply late starters? To some extent, yes.

However, what makes them intriguing is that their circumstances differ significantly from the other children in my study: Their parents are more critical towards technology, less confident about their digital abilities and they own fewer digital devices. Importantly, the latter cannot be attributed to socioeconomic factors, as non-users tend to come from more, not less advantaged backgrounds. An interesting observation is that non-users frequently tend to be the oldest siblings. This suggests that how children grow up regarding ICTs is determined by a complex combination of influences.

Mother and son in front of a computer.
credit: Julia M. Cameron

Embracing new opportunities

In Switzerland, there appears to be a second group of children who embrace educational usage, while exploring the large diversity of use opportunities of digital media: They use learning apps and games, but also try out video calls, or take pictures and videos. Can these children be expected to be the digital elite of tomorrow? At least these children are mostly from very well-educated backgrounds, and their parents themselves are very confident about their own digital skills and optimistic about the educational opportunities of technology use for their children.

Finally, a relatively small group of children can be considered heavy users. They heavily engage with games and entertainment activities, but also with educational apps or games. Again, this use type is strongly related to children’s broader social context. Their parents are often low-educated, and they are less likely to pursue structured leisure activities, like attending sports clubs.

Mother and child lying in bed with an iPad.
credit: pexels | Nicola Barts

Complex technologies, complex inequalities

An interesting takeaway from a social inequality perspective is this: Yes, socioeconomic background matters, in making certain patterns of ICT use more likely. Regarding the use of educational apps and games, these differences resemble the patterns we have been observing in the past: Children in advantaged contexts tend to play video games less, watch more educational TV, and are more likely to use the computer to support schoolwork. However, when we only look at families with highly educated parents, there are very different ways of children’s ICT use, even on a very general level.

Beyond the digital divide

After the dismantling of most access barriers (the “primary-level digital divide”), the non-use of technology among pre-adolescent children has apparently changed from affecting the less privileged to being a matter of privilege. Arguably, this voluntary disengagement from ICT up to a certain age is in line with a larger development in the 21st century: Since (almost) everybody is connected all the time, being able to disconnect, either from time to time or in this case, up to a certain age, represents the new privilege.

Finally, children’s different ways of using ICT across all levels of parental education mirror the ambiguities around them: There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach in sight, and families lack the unambiguous expert guidance that they may sometimes wish for. Consequently, even the most advantaged families apply different strategies that work best in their individual circumstances.

To what extent these patterns hold for other geographical and societal contexts, remains to be studied. Swiss children tend to start very late with technology use in comparison to children in other countries. In any case, the world that today’s children grow up in is a world full of technology. How to prepare children best for life in this world is a difficult question, and the answers that families as the primary socialization institution give to that question, are fascinatingly varied. Whether certain answers will pay off more for children’s future educational and occupational outcomes, is an important research question to be addressed in the future.

Author’s bio

Leo Röhlke is a Ph.D. student (Sociology) at the University of Bern, Switzerland. In his dissertation, he studies social inequalities in young people’s use of ICT, with a special emphasis on education and learning. As a member of the DigiPrim research team he investigates the ongoing digitalization of Swiss primary schools. He has previously worked on issues of family and educational sociology, with a focus on socioeconomic inequalities.

child drawing from an iPad.
credit: pexels | John MarK Smith

References

Bowles N (2018) The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected. NY Times, 26 October.

Camerini A-L, Schulz PJ and Jeannet A-M (2018) The social inequalities of Internet access, its use, and the impact on children’s academic performance: Evidence from a longitu-dinal study in Switzerland. New Media & Society 20(7): 2489–2508.

Hassinger-Das B, Brennan S, Dore RA, et al. (2020) Children and screens. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology 2: 69–92.

Helsper EJ (2021) The digital disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. Sage.

Hirsh-Pasek K, Zosh JM, Golinkoff RM, et al. (2015) Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Inter-est 16(1): 3–34.

Juhaňák L, Zounek J, Záleská K, et al. (2019) The relationship between the age at first computer use and students’ perceived competence and autonomy in ICT usage: A me-diation analysis. Computers & Education 141: 103614.

Kuntsman A and Miyake E (2022) Paradoxes of Digital Disengagement. University of Westminster Press.

Lareau A (2011) Unequal childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. University of California Press.

Livingstone S and Blum-Ross A (2020) Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives. Oxford University Press, USA.

Mollborn S, Limburg A, Pace J, et al. (2022) Family socioeconomic status and children’s screen time. Journal of Marriage and Family. DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12834.

Oakes K (2022) What’s the right age to get a smartphone? BBC Future, 15 September.

OECD (2021) 21st-Century Readers: Developing Literacy Skills in a Digital World.

Ollier-Malaterre A, Jacobs JA and Rothbard NP (2019) Technology, work, and family: Digital cultural capital and boundary management. Annual review of sociology 45(1): 425–447.

Stiglic N and Viner RM (2019) Effects of screentime on the health and well-being of children and adolescents: a systematic review of reviews. BMJ open 9(1): e023191.

van de Werfhorst HG, Kessenich E and Geven S (2022) The digital divide in online educa-tion: Inequality in digital readiness of students and schools. Computers and Education Open 3: 100100.

van Dijk JA (2020) The Digital Divide. Polity Press.

Using visual methodologies to explore children’s sense of belonging

by Henry Mainsah

In the Belong project we seek to explore how children negotiate a sense of belonging by looking at how they relate to places, social relationships, and things. This implies that we must map the social world of children in their material and socio-spatial contexts such as home, school, and online, and through things such as food, clothes, and digital media devices. For the project to achieve this, we realise that we need to think creatively, and devise methods that activate children’s voices and elicit reflection about the meaning of their socio-spatial and material attachments. Recognizing this, the Belong project is currently devising and planning several children-friendly and participatory visual research methods through a series of workshops.

child standing in front of a wall with many drawings and notes.
credit: pexels | Michel Serpa

Researching with children

When we say that we are adopting a participatory research approach this means we ought to place children at the centre of any investigation into their experiences, understandings, and feelings of belonging. However simple this might seem, such a task is laden with complex interdependent methodological and ethical challenges. Can we really see children “as competent and accomplished research participants that are comparable to adults” (Morrow and Richards, 1996 quoted in White et al. 2010:144) given our tendency to often see them as vulnerable, incompetent, and powerless? How should the multimodal accounts from children be interpreted and who should interpret it? How do we avoid universalist and acultural views of children to consider how the accounts that they give about themselves will be shaped by their gender, age, social class background, and personal characteristics such as shyness, and willingness to engage with adults or other groups of children?

The British sociologist Les Back points out that the most important parts of daily life are left unspoken, and he urges us to turn our attention to “the realm of embodied social life that operates outside of talk (Back, 2007: 95). According to him photography is an important methodological tool as “…the quality of the images operates outside of language and the conventions of The Word (…) We have to listen to them with our eyes” Back, 2007: 100). We orient towards participatory visual research methods because of the desire to draw upon children’s competencies and preferred modes of expression, to create suitable conditions for articulating their voices.

colored paper and the cut out word ART
credit: pexels | Artem Podrez

Collage-making

As part of our participatory visual research methodology, we plan to organise a series of workshops where children participants will be engaged in making collages of photos of things that they associate with different forms of belonging. Furthermore, the children will perform the role of analysts of these collages, as well as provide commentary on preliminary research results and knowledge gaps.

We understand collage as being the practice of cutting and altering images (or other materials) and combining them with other images or materials (Woodward, 2019). Generally speaking, it is an arts-based research approach to meaning-making by juxtaposing of a variety of pictures, artifacts, natural objects, words, phrases, textiles, sounds, and stories. It is a research method that draws on an artistic practice often used by professional artists, but also a creative activity that children can easily engage in. In our case, the practice of making collages consists of making connections or contrasts between images and describes both the technique and the resulting work of art in which children arrange and stick down photographs that have some meaning to them onto a supporting surface. Data from the collage-making workshops will consist of not only the content of discussions during the process but will also include observations of participant interactions and collage artefacts produced by participants.

We wonder what stories children will be able to tell about themselves when they stand before the images that they have put together of things that have meaning in their everyday lives. What meanings would they generate about their experiences and perceptions of being part of social fabric, and their practices, affects, and feelings of inclusion?  When unexpected objects or images are placed together, this might lead, we hope, to surprising, ambiguous, or even uncertain insights, either by those who make or read these image combinations. We place great value in the potential of unusual visual juxtapositions to “jar” our workshop participants and us as researchers, into seeing or thinking differently.

collage making
credit: pexels | George Milton

The challenge of interpreting

Experience tells us that while visual artefacts such as collages made by children represent a potentially rich view on their worlds and an insightful glance on their social universe, researchers often tend to see these with adult eyes.  In addition, researchers tend to view such visual artifacts “as a product (something that can be analysed and its constituent parts picked apart) rather than as a process (a series of creative actions and markings that tell a story in its own right)” (White et al. 2010: 146). We would thus need to pay particular attention to what the children say while they are in the process of making their visual artefacts to enable us better understand the ideas and stories that these artefacts are based upon.  Collages come about as visual artefacts through a process of recomposition or distortion in order to produce specific meanings. The value of image collages as research data lies not so much in the fact that they portray ‘the truth’, as in our ability to record and understand the context in which they are produced.