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.