The Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society 9780190932596, 0190932597

Required reading for anyone interested in the profound relationship between digital technology and society Digital techn

141 30 6MB

English Pages 799 Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society
 9780190932596, 0190932597

Table of contents :
Cover
The oxford handbook of DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY
Copyright
Preface
Introduction
Challenges
Interdisciplinary Views of the Digital Society
Volume of Literature and Digital Tools
Constant Change
Chapters in the Book
Potential Audiences
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
About the Contributors
Editors
Authors
Section 1: OVERVIEW
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society: Terms, Domains, and Themes
Introduction
Terms and Growth of These Developments
Main Digital Technology and Society Issues and Contexts in Recent Books
Method
A. Theory and Conceptualization
B. Digital Technology
C. Issues
D. Contexts
E. Effects
Summary
Related Work
Purpose and Origins of This Book
Purpose and Domains
Origins
Conclusions and Recommendations from the ESRC Project
Communication, community, and identity
Citizens, politics, and governance
Understanding the platform economy
Data and digital literacies for engaged and included citizens
Everyday digital health and well-being
Digital inequalities
Beyond the ESRC Project
References in Main Text
References of Books for Issues and Contexts Analysis
Chapter 2: ESRC Review: Methodology
Introduction
Participants
Project Team
Stakeholder Engagement
Initial Outline for the Scoping Areas
Domains and Goals
Use of Theory
Use of Methods
Approaches for the Review
Delphi Process
Stakeholder Engagement: Workshops
Systematic Literature Reviews
Conclusion
References
Section 2: HEALTH, AGE, AND HOME
Chapter 3: ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being
Introduction
Initial Comments
Literature Analysis
Topics
Theory, Method, and Approach
Delphi Review
Future Research and Scoping Questions
Research Challenges
Conclusion
Note
References
Chapter 4: Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health: A Computational Scoping Review of an Interdisciplinary Field
Introduction
Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health
Defining Key Constructs
The State of the Research Field
The Present Study: Foci, Hypotheses, and Research Questions
Method
Scoping Review Methodology
Sample
Analytical Approach
Results
Core Topics
Changes over Time
Publication Behavior in the Field
Mental Health Concepts
Discussion
Summary and Contribution
Limitations
Future Research Agenda
References
Chapter 5: Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health and Well-Being in Rural Communities
Introduction
What Is Digital Inclusion?
What Is Information Literacy?
Women’s Health and Well-Being in Rural Communities
Rationale for Review
Methods
Description of the Reviewed Literature
Theory and Methods
Terminology
Digital Inclusion
Information Literacy
Rurality
Approaches to Digital Inclusion Initiatives
Differentiation of Digital Inclusion Initiatives: Levels and Approaches
Examples of Digital Inclusion Initiatives Intended for Women
The Use of Mobile Technology in Digital Inclusion
Digital Inclusion Frameworks, Measurements, and Evaluations
Digital Inclusion Training
Digital Inclusion, Information Literacy, Health, and Well-Being
Discussion
Vague and Inconsistent Terminology
Relations between Information Literacy and Digital Inclusion
Differences between Developing and Developed Country Contexts
Complexity of and Theoretical Approaches toward Initiatives
Conclusion
References Not in Review Database
Chapter 6: Digital Technology for Older People: A Review of Recent Research
Introduction
Scope of the Review
Uses of Mainstream Technologies by and for Older People
Topic 1: Older People’s Interaction with Mainstream Digital Technologies
Topic 2: Older People’s Lived Experience of Digital Technologies
Topic 3: Older People’s Use of Digital Technology for Communication and Social Interaction
Topic 4: Using Digital Technologies to Assist Older People: Monitoring Older People’s Welfare
Reflections on the Research on Uses of Digital Technology for Older People
Particular Subtopics within Topics
Two Themes across the Four Topics
Limitations and Future Research
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 7: A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Domestic Resource Consumption
Introduction: Digital Systems and Natural Resources
Where Digital Development Meets Environmental Crisis
A Nexus of Relationships
Chapter Overview
The Development of Sustainable HCI
Investigating Physical Resource Use
Investigating Rational Choice and Behavior Change
Investigating Attitudes, Values, and Lifestyles
Investigating Practices and Networks
Revisiting Sustainable HCI in a WEF Context
Conclusion: Resource Sustainability, Resilience, and Security
Notes
References
Section 3: COMMUNICATION AND RELATIONSHIPS
Chapter 8: ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships
Introduction
Initial Comments
Literature Analysis
Topics
Theory, Method, and Approach
Delphi Review
Scoping Questions
Topics
Challenges
Conclusion
Note
References
Chapter 9: Media Mastery by College Students: A Typology and Review
Introduction
The Concept of Media Mastery
Definition
Related Concepts
Development of the Concept
Materials and Coding
Scope of the Literature
The Media Mastery Typology
The Coding Process
Description of the Sample
Review: Co-occurrences of Media Mastery Components with Social and Individual Aspects
Access
Boundaries
Constraints
Managing Content
Obstacles
Use Awareness
Conclusion
Note
References from Introductory Material
Chapter 10: Boundary Management and Communication Technologies
Introduction
Terminology
Work-Home Boundaries
Boundary Theory
Work-Home Conflict
Work-Home Enrichment
How Aspects of Communication Technologies Affect Work-Home Boundaries
Work Place and Space Shift
Using Multi-device Ecologies around Work-Home Spaces
Using Multi-platform Ecologies for Work and Personal Roles
Expectations of Work and Personal Availability
Awareness of Work and Personal Availability
Managing Boundaries in the Digital Age
Top-down Boundary Strategies
Bottom-up Boundary Strategies
Conclusion
References
Section 4: ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS
Chapter 11: ESRC Review: Economy and Organizations
Introduction
Initial Comments
Literature Analysis
Topics
Theory, Method, and Approach
Delphi Review
Scoping Questions
Topics
Conclusion
Note
References
Chapter 12: The Changing Nature of Knowledge and Service Work in the Age of Intelligent Machines
Introduction
What Are Intelligent Machines (Artificial Intelligence and Robotics)?
Artificial Intelligence
Robots
Literature Review Methods
Changing Human Relations with Intelligent Machines
Human-Robot Interaction
Human-Robot Hybrid Teams
Adoption and Acceptance of Intelligent Machines
Trust in AI and Robots
Safety and Risks during Human-Machine Relations
Responsibility and Accountability for Intelligent Machines
Agenda for Future Research
Cross-cutting Requirements
Research Priorities for the Three Themes
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 13: Workplace “Digital Culture” and the Uptake of Digital Solutions: Personal and Organizational Factors
Introduction
Understanding and Measuring Technology Acceptance Factors
Survey and Analysis Methods
Defining Digital Solutions
Sample and Analyses
The Extent to which UK Organizations and Sectors Are Digitizing
Presence and Number of Digital Roll-Outs, by Organizational Size and Sector
Increase in Digital Solutions Being Used, by Organizational Size and Sector
Reasons for Digital Roll-outs, by Organizational Size and Sector
Summary
Digital Efficacy: Digital Skills at Home and in the Workplace
Confidence and Use at Home and at Work
Summary
Experiences of Digital Technology Roll-Outs
Knowledge Workers and Digital Roll-Outs
Attitudes toward Number and Success of New Digital Solutions Rolled Out
Experiences and Opinion of Roll-Outs by Job Position
Other General Features of UK Workforce Attitudes to Digital Technology
Organizational Challenges and Communication
Challenges, by Organization Size, Sector, and Successful Roll-Outs
Communication and Leadership
Summary
Building a Model of Workplace Digital Culture
Measures of Organizational Culture
A Model of Factors Leading to Perceived Success in Digital Technology Implementation
Conclusions for Organizations from the Model
Conclusion
Overall Summary
Culture and Strategy
Final Conclusion
References
Section 5: COMMUNITIES, IDENTITIES, AND CLASS
Chapter 14: ESRC Review: Communities and Identities
Introduction
Initial Comments
Literature Analysis
Topics
Theory, Method, and Approach
Delphi Review
Future Research and Scoping Questions
Research Challenges
Conclusion
Note
References
Chapter 15: Digital Engagement and Class: Economic, Social, and Cultural Capital in a Digital Age
Introduction
Defining Digital Inequality
Distinctions among Digital Divides
Why Do We Need to Shift Academic Research away from Questions of Access and Skills?
Digital Inequality and Social Distinctions
The Idea of Digital Capital
Digital Inequalities in the Fields of Everyday Life
Class, Capital, and Digital Media Use
Economic Capital
Cultural Capital
Social Capital
Conclusion
References
Section 6: CITIZENSHIP, POLITICS, AND PARTICIPATION
Chapter 16: ESCR Review: Citizenship and Politics
Introduction
Initial Comments
Literature Analysis
Topics
Theory, Method, and Approach
Delphi Review
Future Research and Scoping Questions
Key Topics
Research Challenges
Conclusion
Note
References
Chapter 17: Digital Ecology of Free Speech: Authenticity, Identity, and Self-Censorship
Introduction
Methodology
Findings
Beliefs, Opinions, and “Alternative Facts”
Content Sharing as a Speech Act
Privatization of Censorship
Deliberate Ambiguity, Voluntary Invisibility, and Self-Censorship
Conclusion: Where from Here?
Central Implications
Avenues for Future Research
References
Section 7: DATA, REPRESENTATION, AND SHARING
Chapter 18: ESRC Review: Data and Representation
Introduction
Initial Comments
Literature Analysis
Topics
Theory, Method, and Approach
Delphi Review
Future Research and Scoping Questions
Research Challenges
Conclusion
Note
References
Chapter 19: Digital Citizenship in the Age of Datafication
Introduction
Citizenship
Definitions of Citizenship
Challenges and Alternatives
From Digital Acts to Digital Citizenship
Digital Acts
Digital Citizenship
Empowerment and New Affiliations
Digital Restrictions
Digital Citizenship and Datafication
The Datafication of Life and Governance
Implications of Datafication
Datafication and Citizenship
Digital Citizenship between Empowerment and Control
Conclusion
Note
References
Chapter 20: Digitizing Cultural Complexity: Representing Rich Cultural Data in a Big Data Environment
Introduction
Defining Pre-Data and the Origins of Data
Pre-Data
Native Data
Raw Data
Source Data
Source Data and Data Quality
Summary
Data Definitions: Theory and Practice
An Introduction to the Challenges of Defining Data
Data Processing and Data Interpretation
Data Definitions and Polysemy
Data Cleaning
Data Variants and Data Treatment
Metadata
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 21: Motivations for Online Knowledge Sharing
Introduction
Framework
Distinctions
Public Goods and Knowledge Sharing Systems
Self-Oriented Motivations
Enjoyment and Entertainment
Altruism
Expertise
Feedback
Reputation
Incentives
Expected Individual Benefits and Costs
Other-Oriented Motivations
Reciprocity
Social Comparison
Social Loafing
Group Belonging and Sociality
Group Identity
Expected Collective Costs and Benefits
Contextual Factors
Self-Efficacy
Trust
Venue
Directions for Future Research
Conclusion
References
Section 8: GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Chapter 22: ESCR Review: Governance and Security
Introduction
Initial Comments
Literature Analysis
Topics
Theory, Method, and Approach
Delphi Review
Future Research and Scoping Questions
Research Challenges
Conclusion
Note
References
Chapter 23: Governance and Accountability in Internet of Things (IoT) Networks
Introduction
Principles of Internet of Things Governance
Considering Governance
Levels of Governance
Legitimacy and Representation
Accountability
Transparency
Use of Themes
Case Studies: Regional/National IoT Governance
Top-down IoT Governance in the European Union
Top-down IoT Governance in the United States
Top-down IoT Governance in the United Kingdom
Case Studies: Local IoT Deployment
Chicago, United States
Songdo, South Korea
New York, United States
Conclusion
Notes
References
Section 9: SYNTHESIS
Chapter 24: ESRC Review: Future Research on the Social, Organizational, and Personal Impacts of Automation: Findingsfrom Two Expert Panels
Introduction
Social and Economic Context
Method and Project Context
Definitions
Proposed Research Areas
Identified Research Topics
Social and Cultural Attitudes toward AI and Automation
Technology Development, System Design, and Adoption
Trust in Automated Systems; Oversight and Governance
Complexity and the Scale of the Topic
Evidence and Research Methods
Global Environments
Education, Skills, and Employment/Organizations, Professions, and Work
Inequalities/Community and Social Issues/Social Impacts
Embodiment and Cognitive Demands/System Design for Being (in) Digital
Ethics
Impactful Social Science
Conclusion
Appendix
1 Detail of the ESRC-DSTL Research Clusters and Questions
1.1 Social and Cultural Attitudes to Automation
1.1.1 Question Set 1: Social Benefits and Attitudes
1.1.1.1 what evidence will this generate? what could this be used for?
1.1.1.2 which disciplines need to be involved?
1.1.2 Question Set 2: Technology Implementation Attitudes
1.1.2.1 what evidence will generate this? what could it be used for?
1.1.2.2 which disciplines need to be involved?
1.2 Community and Social Issues
1.2.1 Question Set 1: Macro-Level Issues (Society)
1.2.1.1 what evidence will this generate? what could this be used for?
1.2.1.2 what disciplines need to be involved?
1.2.2 Question Set 2: Meso-Level Issues (Community)
1.2.2.1 what evidence will this generate? what could this be used for?
1.2.3 Question Set 3: Micro-Level Issues (Individuals and Workplaces)
1.2.3.1 what evidence will this generate? what could it be used for?
1.2.3.2 what disciplines need to be involved?
1.3 System Design for Being (in)Digital
1.3.1 Question Set 1
1.3.1.1 what evidence will this generate? what could this be used for?
1.3.1.2 which disciplines need to be involved?
1.4 Organizations, Professions, and Work
1.4.1 Question Set 1
1.4.1.1 what evidence will this generate? what could this be used for?
1.4.1.2 which disciplines need to be involved?
1.5 Trust and Accountability
1.5.1 Question Set 1
1.5.1.1 what evidence will this generate? what could this be used for?
1.5.1.2 which disciplines need to be involved?
1.6 What Is Human?—What Is the Role of Humans in a Future Society?
1.6.1 Question Set 1
1.6.1.1 what evidence will this generate? what could this be used for?
1.6.1.2 which disciplines need to be involved?
1.7 Technological Limitations
1.7.1 Question Set 1
1.7.1.1 what evidence will this provide? what could this be used for?
1.7.1.2 which disciplines need to be involved?
1.8 “Refuse-nicks”
1.8.1 Question Set 1
1.8.1.1 what evidence will this generate?
1.8.1.2 which disciplines need to be involved?
2 Detail of the ESRC-NSF Research Clusters and Questions
2.1 Trust
2.1.1 Citizen Knowledge and Skills
Original questions
2.1.2 Understanding and Addressing Human–Machine Trust
Original questions
2.1.3 Social Impacts and Consequences of Trust in Algorithms
Original questions
2.2 Complexity and the Scale of the Topic
2.2.1 (Inter/Multi) Disciplinary Issues
original questions
2.2.2 Collating Data, Cases, and Methods
original questions
2.2.3 Managing Scale and Rate of Change
original questions
2.2.4 Undertaking Responsive and Timely Research
original issues
2.2.5 Policy or Managing the Social Impacts and Asking Relevant Questions
original questions or comments
2.3 Evidence and Methods
2.3.1 Methods
2.3.1.1 Valuing different disciplinary perspectives
original questions or comments
2.3.2 Supporting Research Policy and Commercial R&D
original questions or comments
2.3.3 Data and Bias
original questions or comments
2.4 Global Environments
2.4.1 Environment
original questions or comments
2.4.2 Culture
original questions or comments
2.4.3 Economics
original questions or comments
2.4.4 Policy
original questions or comments
2.5 Changing Education, Skills, and Employment
2.5.1 Education
original questions or comments
2.5.2 Training and Skills
original questions or comments
2.5.3 Careers and Employment
original questions or comments
2.5.4 Nature of Digital Work
original questions or comments
2.5.5 Workers’ Rights, Rewards, and Trust
original questions or comments
2.5.6 Disruption and Change
original questions or comments
2.6 Inequalities
2.6.1 Growth in Inequalities
original questions or comments
2.6.2 Using Digital Technologies to Address Inequalities
original questions or comments
2.6.3 How to Support All Citizens Post-Automation
original questions or comments
2.7 Embodiment and Cognitive Demands
2.7.1 Cognitive Demands
original questions or comments
2.7.2 Capabilities
original questions or comments
2.8 Ethics and Research Challenges
2.8.1 Ethics and Social Consequences of Automation
original questions or comments
2.8.2 How Do We Research and Develop an Ethics for Automation?
original questions or comments
2.9 Impactful Social Science
original questions or comments
2.10 Technology Development and Adoption
original questions or comments
References
Chapter 25: Conclusion: Cross-Cutting, Unique, and General Themes in the Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society
Introduction
Cross-Cutting Topics and Challenges in the ESRC Review Chapters
Co-occurring Terms and Cross-cutting Topics
Cross-cutting Research Questions
Cross-cutting Challenges
Missing Areas and Gaps
Cross-cutting and Unique Topics and General Themes in the non-ESRC Chapters
Common and Unique Themes
More General Themes Emerging from Relationships among the Chapters
Conclusion
Note
References
Index

Citation preview

T h e Ox f o r d H a n d b o o k o f

DIGI TA L T E C H NOL O GY A N D S O C I ET Y

the oxford handbook of

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY Edited by

SIMEON J. YATES and

RONALD E. RICE

1

1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2020 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Control Number: 2020938283 ISBN 978–0–19–093259–6 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by LSC Communications, United States of America

Preface Introduction This book is based upon work undertaken as part of the UK Economic and Social Research Council commissioned project “Ways of Being in a Digital Age”—for which Simeon was Principal Investigator and Ronald was a member of the Steering Group. The primary goal of the project was to identify the upcoming research questions and challenges facing the social sciences as they address the impacts that digital media and technologies are having and may have. This included a systematic review of prior work and a “horizon scanning” derived from expert opinion. This book is therefore as full of questions as it is of findings or answers. In particular, it identifies the topics that the social sciences, often in interdisciplinary collaboration, will need to tackle—probably sooner rather than later. The book is structured around the themes of the project—slightly reworked in the light of the findings. We have called these “domains.” The following list presents their initial descriptions, while the last part of Chapter 1 describes the ESRC and subsequent conference and workshops in more detail, the final domains, and their main questions. Initial Domains and Scoping Questions 1.  Citizenship and politics How does digital technology impacts on our autonomy, agency, and privacy—­illustrated by the paradox of emancipation and control? Whether and how our understanding of citizenship is evolving in the digital age—for example whether technology helps or hinders us in participating at individual and community levels? 2.  Communities and identities How we define and authenticate ourselves in a digital age? What new forms of communities and work emerge as a result of digital technologies—for example, new forms of coordination including large-scale and remote collaboration? 3.  Communication and relationships How are our relationships being shaped and sustained in and between various domains, including family and work?

vi   preface 4.  Health and well-being Does technology make us healthier, better educated, and more productive? 5.  Economy and sustainability How do we construct the digital to be open to all, sustainable, and secure? What impacts might the automation of the future workforce bring? 6.  Data and representation How we live with and trust the algorithms and data analysis used to shape key features of our lives? 7.  Governance and security What are the challenges of ethics, trust, and consent in the digital age? How we define responsibility and accountability in the digital age?

Challenges Interdisciplinary Views of the Digital Society The project, the book, and research on the social impacts of digital media and ­tech­nology have faced and will continue to face a number of key challenges. One of the great challenges of working in this field is that of avoiding simplistic “technological determinism”—or what Grint and Woolgar (2013) call “technism”—an inherent or implied reliance on “obvious or intrinsic” features of the technology in explanations of  technology development, use, or effects. Technism falls short of “technological determinism”—an approach that Grint and Woolgar argue is very rarely fully taken— but implies the assumption that technologies have intrinsic features that determine outcomes. We hope that we have sought to avoid this as much as we can, and to have captured the reflective and reflexive nature of the interactions among technologies, social systems and structures, and people. Another major challenge is that of interdisciplinary collaboration. Many questions require multiple disciplinary perspectives—across the social sciences, into health and engineering, but very often in collaboration with computer science and information studies colleagues. How does one understand the uses, implications, and role of the smartphone in any social domain without also understanding the telecommunications infrastructure, hardware, software, security, and design issues underlying the device? As a result, many of the contributions to this book are from very different disciplines (see Chapter 1), and this has enriched the perspective and critical analysis that have been considered. The interdisciplinary perspectives and the way new technologies have been developing have also introduced new ethical challenges in our research objects as well as our practices as researchers. Questions around automation, security, surveillance, and privacy (chapters 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 22) have complicated how we think about the

preface   vii relationship between humans and machines and what are the roles of governments, technology companies, and civil society in their design, use, and regulation. When it comes to conducting research on these subjects or using digital technologies to examine them, researchers also face new ethical challenges of what they can and should access, collect, analyze, and then present or publish. Digital media and technologies, then, have complicated how we do research, how we think about our research objects and subjects, and who is involved in these processes.

Volume of Literature and Digital Tools Another challenge is the volume of work out there needing to be reviewed and assessed. As we note in chapter 2, it is a feature of our contemporary world that the volume of academic work continues to increase at a far greater rate than can be followed. As Petticrew and Roberts note: The problem is not just one of inconsistency, but one of information overload. The past 20 years have seen an explosion in the amount of research information available to decision makers and social researchers alike. With new journals launched yearly, and thousands of research papers published, it is impossible for even the most energetic policymaker or researcher to keep up-to-date with the most recent research evidence, unless they are interested in a very narrow field indeed. (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008, p. 7)

In the ESRC project, and in many of the non-ESRC chapters, we have turned to digital tools to help manage this mass of literature—to extract topics and concepts from close to thousands of articles in few hours rather than in tens of thousands of hours. This is an example of the well-documented fact that digital tools are therefore transforming how we undertake many aspects of social research. The project therefore provided an opportunity to experiment with several of these tools and methods (see chapter 2). Thus, two characteristics of this Handbook of Digital Technology and Society is the broad range of literature covered in most chapters, and the frequent use of computer-based programs and techniques for collecting, analyzing, and displaying the results of that literature.

Constant Change Another key challenge for work in this field is the constantly changing nature of the artefacts, contexts, and social practices as technologies develop and change, and are adapted and socially constructed. This is often a clearly two-way street as social change

viii   preface and regulation change systems and new systems create new opportunities, debates, and challenges. This influences research as scholars seek to address current issues, new technologies, new behaviors, and new implications. The ESRC chapters have reflected on this by contrasting the development of concepts and topics over the period of the sampled literature and through the reflections of the experts involved in the ESRC project. This constant change generates a specific set of challenges for theory and methods: Do we need new theory and methods? Or do our existing tools still work—if slightly modified? We have found in exploring the literature a highly varied mix of work. In many cases the work is inductive, documenting and evidencing digital media and technology use and impacts but not testing or evaluating theory—with a good number of papers being “theory free.” Having said this, many papers draw on key social theories— with the notable re-use and revision of older theory. Uses and Gratifications is one notable “older” social theory that has been given new life by examinations of digital media use (see chapters 8, 9, 18, and 21). In other cases, new theory has had to be developed and honed to explore specific issues or to address challenges specific to digital technology use. An example here would be “unified user acceptance” theory or models (see chapter 13). Questions concerning theory that we might address include, • How is the digital socially and technically conceptualized? • Which theories are predominant in which domains? • What new theory has been developed, and/or is “old theory” adequate to the task of explaining the social impacts and use of the digital? • To what extent is digital research theoretically or empirically driven? • Which concepts and key themes cluster and link regardless of theoretical or empirical approach? • Can a new “theoretical framework” for understanding the digital be generated, and is this needed? • To what extent have interdisciplinary approaches modified or developed theory? • Which methods predominate in which domains of work? • Does the availability of large volumes of digital data change how the digital is studied and/or the approaches taken to the social in a digital world? • Are certain methods intrinsically linked to certain domains or theories? How are methods tied to the social contexts around digital research? • Have interdisciplinary approaches modified or prioritized certain methods in the study of the digital? We hope that by documenting issues of theory and method the book can help colleagues reflect on issues of theory selection and testing, as well as appropriate methodology. In this way, the book provides a snapshot from a brief period in time, assembling what has been studied in the area of digital media and technologies with an eye to the future of this research.

preface   ix

Chapters in the Book The chapters in the book either present the outcomes from the respective domains of the ESRC project or they are developed from responses to an open call as part of the Ways of Being Conference held in 2017 (both of which are described more fully in chapter 1). The non-ESRC contribution chapters represent reviews, reflections on the state of the art, or the application of reviews to various kinds of evidence in each of the domains. The Table of Contents provides detailed listings of the sections of each chapter as a guide to their content and focus. The online versions of each chapter also provide an abstract. All of the chapters should help provide overviews for, and spark ideas for and debates about, future research directions in the broad and evolving area of digital technology and society. As such, we would hope that current and future scholars can draw upon these as a resource when planning their work, using these chapters as foundations and baselines for literature reviews, as well as identifying central concepts and topics and larger research areas that need more attention and explication. We have also provided a range of supporting materials and visualizations via the project website at https:// waysofbeingdigital.com. The production of the materials presented in the ESRC chapters was a complex ­process involving contributions of the core research team, the project post-doctoral researchers, and other colleagues. The ESRC chapters follow a fairly similar and ­standard initial format developed by the core team—especially Sim Yates, Jordana Blejmar, and Elinor Carmi—and revised and finalized by Ron Rice. In listing the authorships of these chapters, we have tried to reflect as accurately as we can the contributions to these chapters from core project team members, either directly or via Delphi or workshop materials. We more generally acknowledge the contributions made by all across the project. Ron conceptualized the structure and flow of chapters, worked with Oxford University Press to develop a shared approach to the book, worked with the chapter authors through multiple versions of all 25 chapters, and developed and continually updated the surrounding material to ensure consistency of text and reference format, correspondence of terms, cross-referencing, and style. Ron and Sim engaged in multiple iterations of the materials, raising questions, resolving questions, and sharing detailed descriptions of all the things going on in our personal and academic lives that continually got in the way of completing the book. Irony, dark humor, encouragement, promises, arcane analysis details, Byzantine university politics, strikes, Brexit, floods, fires, emergency administration meetings, changes in contributors’ affiliations, reshuffling of chapter order, and debates about the proper use of “concept” or “topic” pervaded these email and Skype conversations.

x   preface

Potential Audiences Primary audiences for the Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society are researchers, faculty, and graduate students, in one or more of the seven theme areas. The entire book, and certainly specific chapters, provide required reading for anyone interested in the multifaceted nature of relationships between digital technology and society. Secondary audiences are policymakers, research funding agencies, libraries, and upperlevel college students working on academic projects. The chapters should provide exceptional resources for those working on projects needing literature background and sources for deeper insights, research results, and theoretical foundations. Readers will benefit from this book’s disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary perspectives. Given the seven theme sections—Health, Age, and Home; Communication and Relationships; Organizational Contexts; Communities, Identities, and Class; Citizenship, Politics, and Participation; Data, Representation, and Sharing; Governance and Accountability—as well as a Synthesis section, different portions of the proposed book could be of interest to diverse audiences, including, for example, those interested in sociology, political science, communication, psychology, media policy, management, organizational community, community studies, environment, economics, public administration, political communication, digital design, socio-technical systems, public health, and media research. No prior training or expertise is required to read or benefit from the chapters.

Conclusion This book was born out of a need to understand what the future research challenges will be for social research in understanding the relationships among digital technology and society. It is not meant as a definitive guide to this, but as rather a set of starting points and provocations to fellow scholars (and ourselves) as to the next steps in research, practice, and policy. Simeon J. Yates, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom Ronald E. Rice, University of California, Santa Barbara, United States

Acknowledgments

Particular thanks need to go to our colleagues Jordana Blejmar and Elinor Carmi. Jordana was instrumental in organizing the conference from which the non-ESRC chapters came. Both Jordana and Elinor managed many of the practicalities of getting the ESRC chapters together, and they were quick and detailed in providing additional literature reviews and editorial suggestions for all the ESRC chapters. We obviously need to thank all the contributors to the project and to the book without whose input neither the research nor the contributions to this volume would have been possible. Sim thanks the ESRC, which funded the project, and the UK Defence Science Technology Laboratory and the US National Science Foundation, which funded the workshops. He also thanks Ron, Jordana, and Elinor for their patience as he got distracted over the life of the project and book writing by role changes, a secondment to government, and a university promotion. As ever, thanks to his family: Rachel, Ciaran, Ethan, and Niamh for just being there (and typing up workshop “yellow stickies”—if only for extra pocket money!). Ron thanks the Arthur  N.  Rupe Foundation for funding his UC Santa Barbara endowed professorship, which supported travel and other resources involved in this project. He also thanks Claire for her ongoing tolerance of his frequent late-night editing work, and our cats Tinker and Belle for their frequent occupation of his desk and keyboard during those times. We very much appreciate the enthusiastic initial response to our book proposal by Hallie Stebbins at Oxford University Press, and the ongoing support by the Oxford University Press Editor Sarah Humphreville. Thanks, too, to the copyeditor Suzanne Copenhagen, the production team at SPi Global, and indexer Robert Swanson.

References Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (2013). The machine at work: Technology, work and organization. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Table of Contents

List of Figuresxxi List of Tablesxxiii About the Contributorsxxix

SE C T ION 1  OV E RV I E W 1. Introduction to the Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society: Terms, Domains, and Themes 3 Ronald E. Rice, Simeon J. Yates, and Jordana Blejmar Introduction3 Terms and growth of these developments 6 Main digital technology and society issues and contexts in recent books 9 Purpose and origins of this book 27 References in main text 31 References of books for issues and contexts analysis 31 2. ESRC Review: Methodology 36 Simeon J. Yates, Iona C. Hine, Michael Pidd, Jerome Fuselier, and Paul Watry Introduction36 Participants36 Initial outline for the scoping areas 39 Approaches for the review 40 Conclusion52 References53

SE C T ION 2  H E A LT H , AG E , A N D HOM E 3. ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being 57 Simeon J. Yates, Leanne Townsend, Monica Whitty, Ronald E. Rice, and Elinor Carmi Introduction57 Initial Comments 57

xiv   table of contents

Literature Analysis 58 Future Research and Scoping Questions 72 Research Challenges 75 Conclusion76 References77 4. Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health: A Computational Scoping Review of an Interdisciplinary Field 79 Adrian Meier, Emese Domahidi, and Elisabeth Günther Introduction79 Computer-mediated communication and mental health 80 The present study: Foci, hypotheses, and research questions 83 Method85 Results89 Discussion98 References101 Appendix: Publications analyzed from the topic modeling dataset (N = 1780) used for topic description 105 5. Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health and Well-Being in Rural Communities 111 Sharon Wagg, Louise Cooke, and Boyka Simeonova Introduction111 Methods114 Description of the reviewed literature 115 Theory and methods 116 Terminology117 Approaches to digital inclusion initiatives 119 Digital inclusion, information literacy, health, and well-being 125 Discussion127 Conclusion129 References not in review database 130 Appendix: Publications analyzed: Journal articles (N = 66) and grey literature (N = 16) 131 6. Digital Technology for Older People: A Review of Recent Research 136 Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Introduction136 Scope of the review 137 Uses of mainstream technologies by and for older people 139

table of contents   xv

Reflections on the research on uses of digital technology for older people 150 Conclusion154 References154 Appendix: Publications analyzed 160 7. A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Domestic Resource Consumption186 Nicola Green, Rob Comber, and Sharron Kuznesof Introduction: Digital systems and natural resources 186 The development of sustainable HCI 189 Investigating physical resource use 192 Investigating rational choice and behavior change 194 Investigating attitudes, values, and lifestyles 198 Investigating practices and networks 200 Revisiting sustainable HCI in a WEF context 203 Conclusion: Resource sustainability, resilience, and security 206 References209

SE C T ION 3  C OM M U N IC AT ION A N D   R E L AT ION SH I P S 8. ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships 221 Simeon J. Yates, Rich Ling, Laura Robinson, Catherine Brooks, Adam Joinson, Monica Whitty, and Elinor Carmi Introduction221 Initial comments 221 Literature analysis 223 Topics223 Theory, Method, and Approach 238 Delphi Review 239 Conclusion245 References247 9. Media Mastery by College Students: A Typology and Review 250 Ronald E. Rice, Nicole Zamanzadeh, and Ingunn Hagen Introduction250 The concept of media mastery 251 Materials and coding 256 Review: Co-occurrences of media mastery components with social and individual aspects 266

xvi   table of contents

Conclusion278 References from introductory material 279 Cited analyzed references 281 Appendix: Publications analyzed 286 10. Boundary Management and Communication Technologies 299 Marta E. Cecchinato and Anna L. Cox Introduction299 Terminology300 Work-home boundaries 301 How aspects of communication technologies affect work-home boundaries304 Managing boundaries in the digital age 312 Conclusion315 References315

SE C T ION 4  ORG A N I Z AT IONA L C ON T E X T S 11. ESRC Review: Economy and Organizations 323 Simeon J. Yates, Paul Hepburn, Ronald E. Rice, Bridgette Wessels, and Elinor Carmi Introduction323 Initial comments 323 Literature analysis 324 Delphi review 336 Conclusion341 References342 12. The Changing Nature of Knowledge and Service Work in the Age of Intelligent Machines 344 Crispin Coombs, Donald Hislop, Stanimira Taneva, and Sarah Barnard Introduction344 What are intelligent machines (artificial intelligence and robotics)? 346 Literature review methods 348 Changing human relations with intelligent machines 349 Adoption and acceptance of intelligent machines 352 Ethical issues associated with machine-human collaboration 353 Agenda for future research 356 Conclusion359 References359 Appendix: Publications analyzed 362

table of contents   xvii

13. Workplace “Digital Culture” and the Uptake of Digital Solutions: Personal and Organizational Factors 369 Simeon J. Yates and Eleanor Lockley Introduction369 Understanding and measuring technology acceptance factors371 Survey and analysis methods 372 The extent to which UK organizations and sectors are digitizing 374 Digital efficacy: Digital skills at home and in the workplace 380 Experiences of digital technology roll-outs 383 Organizational challenges and communication 388 Building a model of workplace digital culture 394 A model of factors leading to perceived success in digital technology implementation396 Conclusion399 References401

SE C T ION 5  C OM M U N I T I E S , I DE N T I T I E S , AND CLASS 14. ESRC Review: Communities and Identities 405 Simeon J. Yates, Jordana Blejmar, Bridgette Wessels, and Claire Taylor Introduction405 Initial comments 406 Literature analysis 407 Conclusion421 References423 15. Digital Engagement and Class: Economic, Social, and Cultural Capital in a Digital Age 426 Simeon J. Yates and Eleanor Lockley Introduction426 Defining digital inequality 428 Why do we need to shift academic research away from questions of access and skills? 430 Class, capital, and digital media use 435 Conclusion442 References445

xviii   table of contents

SE C T ION 6  C I T I Z E N SH I P, P OL I T IC S , A N D PA RT IC I PAT ION 16. ESCR Review: Citizenship and Politics 451 Simeon J. Yates, Bridgette Wessels, Paul Hepburn, Alexander Frame, and Vishanth Weerakkody Introduction451 Initial comments 452 Literature analysis 453 Delphi review 460 Conclusion465 References468 17. Digital Ecology of Free Speech: Authenticity, Identity, and Self-Censorship 471 Yenn Lee and Alison Scott-Baumann Introduction471 Methodology473 Findings476 Conclusion: Where from here? 485 References488

SE C T ION 7  DATA , R E P R E SE N TAT ION , A N D SHA R I N G 18. ESRC Review: Data and Representation 501 Simeon J. Yates, Liz Robson, Ronald E. Rice, and Elinor Carmi Introduction501 Initial comments 501 Literature analysis 502 Conclusion523 References524 19. Digital Citizenship in the Age of Datafication 526 Arne Hintz Introduction526 Citizenship527 From digital acts to digital citizenship 530

table of contents   xix

Digital restrictions 535 Digital citizenship and datafication 536 Conclusion541 References542 20. Digitizing Cultural Complexity: Representing Rich Cultural Data in a Big Data Environment 547 Georgina Nugent-Folan and Jennifer Edmond Introduction547 Defining pre-data and the origins of data 549 Data definitions: Theory and practice 554 Metadata565 Conclusion568 References570 21. Motivations for Online Knowledge Sharing 573 Kristin Page Hocevar, Audrey N. Abeyta, and Ronald E. Rice Introduction573 Framework574 Self-oriented motivations 576 Other-oriented motivations 582 Contextual factors 588 Directions for future research 590 Conclusion591 References593

SE C T ION 8  G OV E R NA N C E A N D AC C OU N TA B I L I T Y 22. ESCR Review: Governance and Security 605 Simeon J. Yates, Gerwyn Jones, William H. Dutton, and Elinor Carmi Introduction605 Initial comments 605 Literature analysis 606 Delphi review 621 Conclusion626 References627

xx   table of contents

23. Governance and Accountability in Internet of Things (IoT) Networks 628 Naomi Jacobs, Peter Edwards, Caitlin D. Cottrill, and Karen Salt Introduction628 Principles of Internet of Things governance 630 Case studies: Regional/national IoT governance 636 Case studies: Local IoT deployment 643 Conclusion649 Notes651 References651

SE C T ION 9  SY N T H E SI S 24. ESRC Review: Future Research on the Social, Organizational, and Personal Impacts of Automation: Findings from Two Expert Panels 659 Simeon J. Yates and Jordana Blejmar Introduction659 Social and economic context 661 Method and project context 663 Definitions665 Proposed research areas 668 Identified research topics 671 Conclusion680 Appendix681 References697 25. Conclusion: Cross-Cutting, Unique, and General Themes in the Oxford Handbook of Digital Technology and Society699 Ronald E. Rice, Simeon J. Yates, and Jordana Blejmar Introduction699 Cross-cutting topics and challenges in the ESRC review chapters 700 Cross-cutting and unique topics and general themes in the non-ESRC chapters 708 Conclusion716 References719 Index

721

List of Figures

1.1 Trends over time in mention of four major digital terms in books through 2008, based on Google Ngram Viewer.

11

1.2 Hierarchical clustering of main codes based on co-occurrence (correlation) of main and subcodes within each source text.

25

2.1 Delphi process.

41

2.2 Bubble map of concept pairs.

48

2.3 Tree map of concept pairs.

49

2.4 Interactive topic modelling graph–topic.

50

2.5 Interactive topic modelling graph–keyword.

51

2.6 WordStat topic modelling.

52

3.1 Health and Well-Being 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs.

60

3.2 Health and Well-Being 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs.

61

4.1 Distribution of nine core topics over time.

94

4.2 Top 20 journals.

94

4.3 Distribution of articles per discipline over time.

95

4.4 Distribution of mental health concepts over time.

96

8.1 Communication 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs.

226

8.2 Communication 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs.

227

11.1 Economy 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs.

327

11.2 Economy 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs.

328

13.1 Digital roll-outs (or not) by company size.

375

13.2 Number of digital roll-outs by organization size (area represents proportion of cases).

375

13.3 Roll-outs or not by sector.

376

13.4 Digital solution roll-outs by sector (area represents proportion of cases).

377

13.5 Increase in roll-outs over the last two years by sector.

378

13.6 Reasons for digital roll-outs.

379

13.7 Knowledge worker and number of roll-outs.

384

13.8 Proportion of digital roll-outs UK workforce thought successful.

384

xxii   list of figures 13.9 Level of employment and number of roll-outs experienced.

385

13.10 Positive impacts of new digital tools.

386

13.11 Reasons for a negative attitude.

387

13.12 Organization size and challenges to implementation of digital solutions.

389

13.13 Levels of organizational challenge and successful digital roll-outs.

389

13.14 Communication channels used.

390

13.15 Adequate communication and communication channel.

391

13.16 Communications channels and successful roll-outs.

392

13.17 Leadership and successful roll-outs.

392

13.18 Leadership by sector.

393

13.19 Regression model of perceptions of successful digital roll-outs.

397

14.1 Communities and Identities 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs.

409

14.2 Communities and Identities 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs.

410

15.1 Mean of frequency of social media use by social class (NS-SEC).

437

15.2 Type of Internet user by social class (NRS).

438

15.3 MCA analysis—overall results.

440

15.4 Mean number of social media platforms used by class.

443

15.5 Social media platforms used by social class (NS-SEC).

444

16.1 Citizenship 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs.

453

16.2 Citizenship 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs.

454

18.1 Data and representation 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs.

506

18.2 Data and representation 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs.

507

21.1 Summary of review of motivations for online knowledge sharing.

592

22.1 Governance and security 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs.

610

22.2 Governance and security 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs.

611

23.1 Governance tools and their application at different levels of IoT activity. (Smith, 2012)

632

24.1 Productivity graph.

662

24.2 Clustering of ideas: ESRC-NSF workshop.

665

24.3 Political, economic, social, technical, legal, and environmental clustering: ESRC-NSF workshop.

666

24.4 Final research topic template: ESRC-DSTL workshop.

667

25.1 All seven domains 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs.

701

25.2 All seven domains 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs.

702

25.3 Hierarchical clustering of non-ESRC chapters based on co-occurrence of coded themes.

716

List of Tables

1.1 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Web of Science

7

1.2 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in ScienceDirect

7

1.3 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Nexis Uni (News)

8

1.4 First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Proquest Periodicals Index Online

9

1.5 First Substantive Entries of Four Major Digital Terms in Books, from Google NGram

10

1.6 Themes, Main Codes and Subcodes Used to Identify Issues and Concerns in Recent Books on Digital Technology and Society

12

2.1 Steering Group

37

2.2 Initial Scoping Questions

39

2.3 Example Concept Mapping by Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield

47

3.1 Analysis Concepts Ranked

58

3.2 Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts

59

3.3 Wordstat Analysis of Topics

62

3.4 Comparison between Concepts and WordStat Topics

63

3.5 Epistemological Approach

70

3.6 Empirical Approach

71

3.7 Analytic Approach

71

3.8 Research Method

72

3.9 Study Population

72

3.10 Delphi Review Scoping Questions

73

3.11 Delphi Review Scoping Questions Ranked by Importance

73

3.12 Key Topics Ranked by Percentage of Delphi Survey Responses

74

3.13 Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

74

3.14 Challenges Ranked by Percent of Cases

75

3.15 Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

76

4.1 Search Terms, Databases, and Concept Operationalization

87

xxiv   list of tables 4.2 CTM with 15 Manually Selected Topics Merged into Nine Thematically Overlapping Topic Clusters, Sorted by Aggregated Frequencies ( k = 110, N = 1780, Max. 2 topics/Document, Prob ≥ 0.1)

90

4.3 Mental Health Concepts Distributed over Disciplines

97

4.4 Mental Health Concepts Distributed over Topics

97

5.1 Range of Theories and Methods Identified in Review

117

6.1 Mainstream and Specialist Outlets Included in the Review

138

6.2 Terms Related to Older People Used to Select Papers for Inclusion in the Review139 6.3 The 16 Topics of the Research in the Papers Reviewed

140

7.1 Summary of Approaches, Key Concepts, Methodologies, and Studies in Each Section

190

8.1 Scoping Questions

222

8.2 Analysis Concepts Ranked

224

8.3 Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts

224

8.4 WordStat Analysis of Topics

225

8.5 Epistemological Approach

238

8.6 Empirical Approach

238

8.7 Research Method

238

8.8 Study Population

239

8.9 Delphi Review Scoping Questions

240

8.10 Scoping Questions Ranked by Number of Cases

240

8.11 Scoping Questions Ranked by Importance

240

8.12 Consultation Workshop Scoping Categories and Example Questions

241

8.13 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Cases

242

8.14 Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

243

8.15 Challenges Ranked by Percentage of Cases

243

8.16 Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

245

9.1 Media Mastery Typology Codes and Sublevels

257

9.2 Co-occurrences of Media Mastery Subcodes with Social and Individual Aspects Subcodes

260

11.1 Analysis Concepts Ranked

324

11.2 Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts

325

11.3 WordStat Analysis of Topics

326

11.4 Epistemological Approach

335

list of tables   xxv 11.5 Empirical Approach

335

11.6 Research Method

336

11.7 Study Population

336

11.8 Delphi Review Scoping Questions

338

11.9 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Cases

339

11.10 Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

339

11.11 Challenges Ranked by Percent of Cases

340

11.12 Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

340

13.1 Defining Digital Solutions

373

13.2 Organization Size and Number of Digital Roll-Outs

376

13.3 Confidence at Home

380

13.4 Access to Technology at Home

381

13.5 K-Means Clustering with a Target of Six Clusters

382

13.6 Correlations of Age, Personal Confidence, and Work Confidence

382

13.7 Factor Analysis

394

13.8 Key Predictors of UK Workforce Perceptions of Successful Digital Roll-Outs

397

14.1 Analysis Concepts Ranked

407

14.2 Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts

408

14.3 Wordstat Analysis of Topics

411

14.4 Comparison between Concepts and WordStat Topics

412

14.5 Epistemological Approach

416

14.6 Empirical Approach

416

14.7 Research Method

417

14.8 Study Population

417

14.9 Delphi Review Scoping Questions

418

14.10 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Delphi Survey Responses

419

14.11 Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

419

14.12 Challenges Ranked by Percent of Cases

420

14.13 Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

420

15.1 NRS Social Grades and NS-SEC Classifications

436

15.2 Key Features of Non-users

439

15.3 Key Features of Limited Users

439

15.4 MCA Clustering of Arts Attendance

441

16.1 Analysis Concepts Ranked

455

xxvi   list of tables 16.2 Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts

455

16.3 WordStat Analysis of Topics

456

16.4 Comparison between Concepts and WordStat Topics

457

16.5 Empirical Approach

461

16.6 Research Method

461

16.7 Study Population

461

16.8 Analytic Approach

461

16.9 Delphi Review Scoping Questions

462

16.10 Delphi Review Scoping Questions Ranked by Number of Cases and by Importance

463

16.11 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Delphi Survey Responses

464

16.12 Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

465

16.13 Challenges Ranked by Percent of Cases

466

16.14 Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

466

17.1 List of Keywords Used in the Process of Literature Review

474

17.2 Free Speech Challenges Posed by Digital Technologies and Practices

486

18.1 Analysis Concepts Ranked

502

18.2 Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts

503

18.3 WordStat Analysis of Topics

504

18.4 Comparison between Concepts and WordStat Topics

505

18.5 Epistemological Approach

516

18.6 Empirical Approach

516

18.7 Analytic Approach

517

18.8 Study Population

517

18.9 Delphi Review Scoping Questions

519

18.10 Delphi Review Scoping Questions Ranked by Importance

520

18.11 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Delphi Survey Responses

521

18.12 Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

521

18.13 Data-focused Topics and Challenges

522

18.14 Challenges Ranked by Percent of Cases

522

18.15 Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

523

20.1 Analysis of Journal of Big Data, 2014–2017

559

20.2 NASA’s Earth Observing System Data Information System (EOS DIS)

563

22.1 Analysis Concepts Ranked

606

22.2 Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts

607

list of tables   xxvii 22.3 WordStat Analysis of Topics

608

22.4 Comparison between Concepts and WordStat Topics

609

22.5 Empirical Approach

620

22.6 Research Methods

621

22.7 Analytic Approach

621

22.8 Study Population

621

22.9 Delphi Review Scoping Questions

622

22.10 Delphi Review Scoping Questions Ranked by Importance

623

22.11 Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Delphi Survey Responses

623

22.12 Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

624

22.13 Challenges Ranked by Percent of Cases

625

22.14 Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey

625

23.1 Key Emergent Themes and the Case Studies to Which They Particularly Relate636 23.2 Mapping of Themes in EU Governance

638

23.3 Mapping of Themes in United States Governance

640

23.4 Mapping of Themes in UK Governance

642

24.1 Expertise Represented at the Two Workshops

663

24.2 ESRC-NSF Workshop: Topics by Issues

669

24.3 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Topic Areas by Level of Impact

670

24.4 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Social and Cultural Perceptions by Level of Impact

671

24.5 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Technology Acceptance and Systems Design by Level of Impact

672

24.6 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Trust and Automation by Level of Impact

673

24.7 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Work and Organizational Topics by Level of Impact

678

24.8 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Areas of Inequality by Level of Impact

679

24.9 ESRC-DSTL Workshop: Research Impact Questions by Level of Impact

681

25.1 Main Themes of Concept Pairs, 2000–2004

703

25.2 Main Themes of Concept Pairs, 2012–2016

704

25.3 Cross-cutting Topics in ESRC Themes

705

25.4 Most Frequent Cross-cutting Challenges in ESRC Themes

705

25.5 Non-ESRC Chapters: Number of Themes and Subthemes by Chapters and by Total Instances

709

25.6 Non-ESRC Chapters Including at Least One Instance of Each Theme

715

About the Contributors Editors Simeon J. Yates (PhD, Open University UK, 1993) is Professor of Digital Culture and Associate Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research Environment and Postgraduate Research at University of Liverpool. His research on the social, political, and cultural impacts of digital media includes a long-standing focus on digital media and interpersonal interaction. More recently, he has worked on projects that address issues of digital inclusion and exclusion. He was seconded to the UK Government’s Department of Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) in 2017 to act as research lead for the Digital Culture team. He remains the joint-chair of the DCMS Research Working Group on Digital Skills and Inclusion. His prior work covered topics such as the use of digital technologies in the workplace, digital media use during crises, and ICT use by the security services. The majority of his research has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), EU, and industry. Simeon’s work has often been interdisciplinary and has predominantly involved creative and digital industry partners. He led on a major Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funded interdisciplinary program (Engineering for Life) while at Sheffield Hallam. Simeon has been researching the impacts of the internet and digital media on language and culture since 1990. His PhD thesis (1993) is a large-scale linguistic comparison of speech, writing, and online interaction. Subsequent published work has covered analyses of gender differences in computer-mediated communication (CMC), gender and computer gaming, email and letter writing, and science in the mass media. Simeon has written text books on social research methods—in particular, linguistic and discourse analytic methods. https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/communication-and-media/staff/simeon-yates/ Ronald E. Rice (PhD, Stanford University, 1982) is the Arthur N. Rupe Chair in the Social Effects of Mass Communication in the Department of Communication at University of California, Santa Barbara. Dr. Rice has been awarded an Honorary Doctorate from University of Montreal (2010), an International Communication Association (ICA) Fellow, selected President of the ICA (2006–2007), awarded a Fulbright Award to Finland (2006), and appointed as the Wee Kim Wee Professor at the School of Communication and Information and the Visiting University Professor, both at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore (Augusts 2007–2009 and June 2010).

xxx   about the contributors His co-authored or co-edited books include Organizations and unusual routines: A systems analysis of dysfunctional feedback processes (2010); Media ownership: Research and regulation (2008); The Internet and health care: Theory, research and practice (2006); Social consequences of internet use: Access, involvement and interaction (2002); The Internet and health communication (2001); Accessing and browsing information and communication (2001); Public communication campaigns (1981, 1989, 2001, 2012); Research methods and the new media (1988); Managing organizational innovation (1987); And The new media: Communication, research and technology (1984). He has published over 150 refereed journal articles and 70 book chapters. Dr. Rice has conducted research and published widely in communication science, public communication campaigns, computer-mediated communication systems, methodology, organizational and management theory, information systems, information science and bibliometrics, social uses and effects of the Internet, and social networks. http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/ people/ronald-e-rice

Authors Audrey N. Abeyta (MA, UCSB) is a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Santa Barbara and an instructor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri. Her research explores the creation and consumption of online information, focusing specifically on individuals’ motivations to share information online and their assessment of that information. Audrey teaches courses in public speaking, group communication, research methods, and statistics. Sarah Barnard is an Assistant Professor in Sociology of Contemporary Work and a member of the Centre for Professional Work in Society in the School of Business and Economics at Loughborough University, United Kingdom. Her research focuses largely on gender, organizations, sociology of higher education, and sociological research in Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET). Her research investigates inequalities in society; explores the social impact of construction and engineering; how digital technology can inform and influence professional working practices; and gender and higher education. She has extensive experience applying quantitative and qualitative social research methods over a range of research and consultancy projects. She has written and published 20 conference papers, 7 journal articles and 11 reports on these subjects. She is a member of the British Sociological Association and the Women in Higher Education Management (WHEM) network. Jordana Blejmar (MPhil, PhD as a Gates Scholar, University of Cambridge) is Lecturer in Visual Media and Cultural Studies in the School of the Arts, University of Liverpool, after previously working on an Arts and Humanities Research Center–funded project on Latin American Digital Art. Before Liverpool, she was Lecturer in Hispanic Studies at the Institute of Modern Languages Research, University of London. Her research is

about the contributors   xxxi situated at the meeting point of Latin American visual cultures, memory studies, and digital humanities. She is the author of Playful Memories: The Autofictional Turn in Post-Dictatorship Argentina (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). She has co-edited several books and has also published articles and book chapters on contemporary Latin American, especially Argentine, literature, art, photography, theater, digital artworks, and film. Catherine Brooks (PhD, University of California) is the Founder and Director of the Center for Digital Society and Data Studies (CDSDS), Director of Arizona’s iSchool, and an Associate Professor in the School of Information. Catherine’s primary research interests focus on issues of language and culture, with particular concern about data privacy and digital exclusion. She established the CDSDS as an interdisciplinary research center meant to explore today’s grand challenges related to a digital society and data-driven culture. Catherine has spent more than 20 years in higher education, she developed the new Information Science and eSociety degree program for the School of Information at UA, and has published work on a variety of topics to include supporting faculty online and training students for life and work in a digital society. Elinor Carmi (PhD, Media and Communications Department at Goldsmiths, University of London) is a digital rights advocate, feminist, researcher, and journalist who has been working, writing, and teaching on deviant media, internet standards, feminist-technoscience, sound studies, internet history, and internet governance. Currently, she is a postdoctoral research associate in digital culture and society at Liverpool University (UK), where she works on several ESRC and AHRC projects around digital ways of being, digital inclusion, and digital literacies. In addition to writing her book about spam, she is also working on two special journal issues: One about “sonic publics,” together with Ram Sinnreich for the International Journal of Communication, and the other about (re)designing time, together with Britt Paris, for Theory, Culture & Society. Marta  E.  Cecchinato is an Senior Lecturer at Northumbria University, working in human-computer interaction (HCI). Prior to this, she has worked at the UCL Interaction Centre and at Microsoft Research in Cambridge (UK). She has a BS and MS in Psychology from University of Padua (Italy) and has a PhD in HCI from the UCL Interaction Centre. Her current research focuses on understanding complexities of dealing with digital technologies in everyday life especially for work-life balance, and has been investigating strategies that support people in feeling in control of their digital lives. Her work has been consistently published in top tier HCI conferences and has been featured in the New Scientist, The Conversation, and The Psychologist. Rob Comber is a human-computer interaction researcher working at the Swedish Institute for Computing Science at RI.SE, where he is an ERCIM Fellow. His research explores the ethics, methods, and tools to promote citizen participation in social and civic issues. His current research examines topics such as activism, citizen science, community education, and food and technology, all through a lens of designing for community.

xxxii   about the contributors Louise Cooke is Professor of Information and Knowledge Management in the School of Business and Economics at Loughborough University. Her main research interests focus on the ethical aspects of information, data and knowledge use, and the societal value of access to information. In particular, her work has focused on challenges to freedom of expression in the online environment. She led the Arts and Humanities Research Center–funded MAIPLE (Managing Access to the Internet in Public Libraries) and JISC-funded staff access to Information and Communication Technology in UK Further Education and Higher Education projects. Her PhD thesis investigated the impact on freedom of expression of measures taken to regulate internet access and content. She has published widely in the field of information science. Crispin Coombs is a Reader in Information Systems (Associate Professor) and Head of the Information Management group in the School of Business and Economics at Loughborough University, UK. He is an expert in the organizational impacts of new technologies, their successful implementation, and people’s attitudes and behaviors towards IT. Particular interests include the robotization of knowledge and service work, the behavioral impacts of new technologies, and benefits realization management from information systems. He has led several externally funded research projects from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), British Academy, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and Department of Health. He has published over 80 outputs and is a senior editor for Information Technology and People and associate editor for the European Journal of Information Systems. He was appointed to the Board of the UK Academy of Information Systems in 2015 and is a Visiting Professor at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Caitlin  D.  Cottrill is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Geography and Environment at the University of Aberdeen. Her primary research interests span the interrelated topics of transport, individual behavior, technology, and data, linked by an underlying commitment to encouraging sustainable and efficient mobility. Her work has a strong focus on facilitating data sharing between transport service providers and travelers in a privacy-preserving manner, in order to encourage better decision making. She has, additionally, worked to ensure that this research takes place in a multidisciplinary context, with collaborators from the areas of computing science, engineering, statistics, and information sciences. Anna L. Cox is Professor of Human-Computer Interaction at the University College London Interaction Centre. Her research focuses on productivity at work, work-life balance, and well-being. She has published nearly 200 papers, many of which in toptier HCI conferences and journals. She co-edited the first textbook on Research methods for human-computer interaction. Her work has been featured, among others, in The Conversation, The Psychologist, Men’s Health, BPS Occupation Digest, and most recently in the Guardian.

about the contributors   xxxiii Jenny S. Darzentas was the Marie Curie Advanced Researcher Fellow in the Department of Computer Science at the University of York 2016–2018 during the writing of the chapter. She is currently Assistant Professor at the Department of Product and Systems Design Engineering, University of the Aegean, Greece. Her research interests are in accessibility, service design and systems thinking, and information design. She has worked on collaborative research projects funded by the European Union on HCI, intelligent tutoring, decision support, library and information systems, and universal design. She also has an interest in accessibility issues in international (ISO) and European (CEN/CENELEC) standardization efforts through her voluntary work with ANEC (www.anec.gr). She has published widely on all these subjects. Emese Domahidi is an Assistant Professor for Computational Communication Science at the Technische Universität Ilmenau in Germany. Her research focuses on the psychosocial consequences of online media use and on (biased) information processing in digital media. Emese is especially interested in computational communication science methods and their use to gain insights into her research questions. She is an expert in computational systematic reviews and meta-analysis. William H. Dutton is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Southern California, Senior Fellow of the Oxford Internet Institute, and Oxford Martin Fellow with the Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford, and Visiting Professor in the School of Media and Communication at the University of Leeds. He was the Quello Professor of Media and Information Policy in the Department of Media and Information, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, where he was also Director of the Quello Center. Jennifer Edmond is Associate Professor of Digital Humanities at Trinity College Dublin and the co-director of the Trinity Center for Digital Humanities. She holds a PhD in Germanic Languages and Literatures from Yale University, and applies her training as a scholar of language, narrative, and culture to the study and promotion of advanced methods in and infrastructures for the arts and humanities. Jennifer is President of the Board of Directors of the pan-European research infrastructure for the arts and humanities, DARIAH, and was the Principal Investigator for the European Commission-funded KPLEX Project. Peter Edwards is Professor of Computing Science at the University of Aberdeen. Between 2009 and 2015 he was Director of the RCUK Digital Economy Hub dot. rural—a large interdisciplinary research effort which explored how digital technologies could transform rural life; from 2006 to 2012 he was Director of the ESRC Digital Social Research Node, PolicyGrid—exploring the role of computational models of provenance in documenting social policy formulation. He has over 25 years of experience of research into distributed information systems and their applications, working in domains as diverse as transport, health care, environmental modelling, and food safety.

xxxiv   about the contributors Alexander Frame is an Associate Professor in Communication Science at the Languages and Communication Faculty of the University of Burgundy (Dijon, France), where he runs the MA course in Intercultural Management. Born in Britain, he graduated from the University of Oxford in 1998, before settling in France and completing his PhD in Communication Science at the University of Burgundy, in 2008. He is a member of the TIL (“ Text, Image, Language”) research group (EA 4182), where he specializes in intercultural communication, political communication on Twitter, organizational communication, and comparative cross-cultural communication studies. Recent publications include Citizen participation and political communication in a digital world (Routledge, 2015). Jerome Fuselier has been an Associate Researcher at the University of Liverpool since 2008. Before that he was a Postdoc at Xerox Research Centre Europe. He was awarded his PhD in 2006 at the Université Savoie Mont Blanc. Nicola Green is a Research Associate with the OpenLab, Newcastle University. She is a sociologist by trade and a qualitative interdisciplinary researcher by inclination. Her background has run the gamut of social sciences, HCI, science and technology studies, media and cultural studies, and surveillance studies; all intersecting via projects on digital media technologies and/or sustainabilities of various sorts. Her projects have included work on virtual reality technologies; mobile devices and everyday mobilities; the rise and spread of mobile data and “big data”; digital trust, risk, and privacy; and lifestyles, consumption, and environment. Issues explored across these projects have included embodiment and identity, organization and discourse, popular media and culture, as well as the development of qualitative research methodologies and their use in both HCI research and within social sciences more generally—particularly in respect of ethnographic, mixed, feminist, and participatory methodologies. Elisabeth Günther is a PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, University of Münster, Germany. Her research interests are in computational methods, especially topic modeling, and online journalism. Elisabeth works as a data scientist at Axel Springer Digital. Ingunn Hagen (PhD) is a Professor in Psychology at the Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. Her main research interests include topics related to media and communication psychology, such the role of media and ICT in children and young people’s lives. She has been involved in research projects on Internet-related risks (EU Kids Online). Her research also includes such fields as audience reception studies, political communication, consumption of popular culture, children and consumption, and yoga and well-being. See https://www.ntnui.edu/employees/ingunn.hagen Paul Hepburn is a Research Associate at Heseltine Institute for Public Policy and Practice, University of Liverpool. His research interests lie in exploring the potential of the new digital media to enhance local democracy and local governance. He is also

about the contributors   xxxv interested in methods and tools for analyzing and explaining the structure of online networks. Prior to pursuing an academic career, Paul worked in local government conducting research, developing policy, and, lately, implementing an e-government program. Iona C. Hine is a postdoctoral researcher at the Urban Institute at the University of Sheffield. Together with Digital Humanities developers and colleagues in the School of English, she has modelled discursive concepts in text collections ranging from the earliest English print to comments on YouTube videos. She has a particular interest in context and translation, as well as the challenges of unruly metadata. Her work spans several disciplines, including biblical studies, early modern literature, and translation studies. Arne Hintz is Senior Lecturer at the School of Journalism, Media and Culture at Cardiff University, where he leads the MA Digital Media and Society, and co-directs the Data Justice Lab. His research addresses questions of digital democracy, datafication, and communication policy. He has led several collaborative research projects, including Digital Citizenship and Surveillance Society: State-Media-Citizen Relations after the Snowden Leaks and Towards Democratic Auditing: Civic Participation in the Scoring Society. His publications include, among others, Beyond WikiLeaks (Palgrave, 2013) and Digital Citizenship in a Datafied Society (Polity, 2018). Donald Hislop is Professor in the Business School at the University of Aberdeen. Prior to this he worked at Loughborough University and Sheffield University. His research interests are in two main areas: knowledge management and mobile working. He has published on knowledge management in a range of journals, including Management Learning, Journal of Information Technology, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, and the Journal of Knowledge Management. He is also the author of a popular and well-regarded textbook called Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction (now in its fourth edition, published in 2018). He is on the editorial board of the journal New Technology, Work and Employment. Kristin Page Hocevar (PhD, UC Santa Barbara) is an Assistant Professor at Southern Oregon University. She has worked in television, documentary film, and web production for multiple Public Broadcasting Service stations and affiliated organizations. Her current research focuses on online health information sharing, selection, and evaluation, and the social and health implications of the interactions, communities, and pooled information facilitated by the Internet. Naomi Jacobs is a Research Fellow currently based at the University of Aberdeen, whose interdisciplinary work focuses on social impacts of technology for interaction in digital and physical spaces. Her research to date has included examining the nature and impacts of the digital public space, developing new tools for interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge exchange, and using design ethnography and speculative design to investigate factors affecting trust by citizens and communities with regard to the Internet of Things.

xxxvi   about the contributors Adam Joinson is Professor of Information Systems at the University of Bath. He conducts inter-disciplinary research on the interaction between human behavior and technology, with specific foci on issues of how the design of systems influences behavior ranging from privacy and self-disclosure, cyber-security, social relations, and patterns of influence. He is a program lead for the national Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats, as well as currently running funded projects on individual susceptibility to malevolent influence techniques (e.g., scams, phishing), communication accommodation, and behavioral change and technology. Adam’s work has been funded by the ESRC, EPSRC, EU, British Academy, DSTL, and UK Government. He also has an interest in “big data” generally and the use of computational social science to gain insights into social and workplace behaviors. Gerwyn Jones is a Senior Research Fellow working at Liverpool John Moores University’s Screen School. He is currently program leader for the MA in Cities, Culture, and Creativity. Gerwyn has over 15 years academic and consultancy experience relating to urban policy, governance, and regeneration. In recent years, Gerwyn has undertaken ESRC funded research and published articles on the impact of austerity on the cities of Liverpool and Bristol. Sharron Kuznesof is a Senior Lecturer and applied qualitative social scientist working in an interdisciplinary environment in the School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University. Her research focuses on conceptual exploration of the behaviors and practices of food consumers and innovative research methods to support that endeavor. Related research includes Food Standards Agency–funded research with HCI staff at Newcastle University’s OpenLab to examine domestically situated food safety practices. Yenn Lee (PhD, University of London) is a widely published researcher in the sociology of digital technologies, participation, and social change, with a special interest in the Asia–Pacific region. She has also long collaborated with various activist and non-profit organizations outside academia, including Freedom House for its annual report Freedom on the Net since its first edition in 2011. In her current position as Senior Lecturer in Research Methodology at SOAS University of London, she teachesPhD students. interdisciplinary and technology-enhanced research methods. Rich Ling (PhD, University of Colorado) has focused his work on the social consequences of mobile communication. He was a professor at the IT University of Copenhagen, where he has served in department management, and he works at Telenor near Oslo, Norway. Ling has been the Pohs visiting professor of communication studies (2005) at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, where he has an adjunct position. He is the author of the book Taken for grantedness (2012 MIT Press), which was recently the subject of a complementary review in the journal Science. He has also written New tech, new ties (2008, MIT), The mobile connection (Morgan Kaufmann) and, along with Jonathan Donner, he has written the book Mobile phones and mobile communication (2009, Polity). Ling is a founding co-editor of the Sage journal Mobile Media and

about the contributors   xxxvii Communication. He is the co-editor of the Oxford University Press series Studies in Mobile Communication with Gerard Goggin and Leopoldina Fortunati. Along with Scott Campbell he is the founding editor of The Mobile Communication Research Series and he is an associate editor for The Information Society, The Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, and Information Technology and International Development. Eleanor Lockley is Research Fellow and Associate Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University. Her research falls broadly under communication studies and information studies, and working in C3RI means that she has worked on a variety of different interdisciplinary projects since 2008. One day she can be a human-computer interaction researcher—the next she can be investigating issues associated with user centered design! Her previous role in C3RI involved engaging with knowledge transfer activity— meaning that she has worked on commercial consultancy, as well as on academic projects. She has recently worked on several European-funded projects; two of note are COURAGE (2014–2016) and ATHENA (2013–2016). The former involved developing a research agenda for cybercrime and cyberterrorism based upon user-centered research. Her role in the latter focused upon human factors and best practices for crisis sensemaking and communication and, in particular, how social media can be best used for crisis and disaster management. ATHENA is creating a prototype to enhance the ability of Local Education Agencies of police, first responders, and citizens in their use of mobile and smart devices in crisis situations. Adrian Meier is a PhD candidate at the Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany. His research revolves around the question of whether and how communication technologies can improve or impair mental health and well-being. Specifically, he investigates the relationship between technology usage and mental health through the lens of self-regulation processes, using intensive longitudinal surveys (e.g., diaries, experience sampling), and systematic review methodology. Georgina Nugent-Folan is Assistant Professor of Modern English Literature, Department of English and American Studies, Ludwig Maximillians University of Munich, Germany. She completed her PhD on the works of Samuel Beckett and Gertrude Stein at Trinity College Dublin in 2016. Georgina is currently preparing a digital genetic edition of the Compagnie/Company module as part of the Beckett Digital Manuscript Project (forthcoming, 2020). Articles on Beckett, Stein, and/or James Joyce have been published in the Journal of Beckett Studies, The Southern Review, Samuel Beckett Today/Aujourd’hui, and the James Joyce Quarterly. Her article, “Samuel Beckett: Going On in Style,” received a Special Mention in the 2017 Pushcart Prize. Helen Petrie is Professor of Human Computer Interaction in the Department of Computer Science at the University of York in the UK. Her research centers on the use of new technologies for people with disabilities and older people, particularly the web. She has been involved in many British and international projects and has published extensively. She has advised numerous private and public sector organizations on web

xxxviii   about the contributors accessibility and accessibility issues of other new technologies. She directed the largest study in the world on web accessibility for the Disability Rights Commission of Great Britain and a similar study for the UK Museums, Libraries, and Archive Council, and she has conducted many smaller studies of web accessibility. In 2009 she was awarded an Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Award for the social impact of her research, and in 2017 she was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Royal National Institute for Blind People. Michael Pidd is Digital Director of HRI Digital at the Humanities Research Institute, University of Sheffield, one of the United Kingdom’s leading Digital Humanities centers. Michael has over 20 years of experience in developing, managing, and delivering large collaborative research projects in the humanities and heritage subject domains. Laura Robinson is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Santa Clara University. She earned her PhD from UCLA, where she held a Mellon Fellowship in Latin American Studies and received a Bourse d’Accueil at the École Normale Supérieure. In addition to holding a postdoctoral fellowship on a John  D.  and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation–funded project at the USC Annenberg Center, Robinson has served as Visiting Assistant Professor at Cornell University and Affiliated Faculty at the UC Berkeley Institute for the Study of Societal Issues. She is a series coeditor for Emerald Studies in Media and Communications and previously served as the Chair of CITAMS (formerly CITASA). Her research has earned awards from CITASA, AOIR, and NCA IICD. Robinson’s current multi-year study examines digital and informational inequalities. Her other publications explore interaction and identity work, as well as new media in Brazil, France, and the United States. Liz Robson is a Research Associate at the University of Newcastle. She has a background in economic development with expertise in understanding labor markets, employment, and skills. Liz Robson joined Center for Urban and Regional Development Studies in September 2000 as a research associate, leaving in 2004 to work for the Regional Development Agency as a skills and employment analyst. She returned in 2011 as a Visiting Fellow supporting the work of Ranald Richardson and the SIDE (Social Inclusion through the Digital Economy) project to better understand how young people might access the life-changing benefits offered by digital technologies. Her recent research at CURDS has focused on the digital age, which throws up all kinds of questions regarding how technology, social media, and the so-called fourth industrial will impact on institutional and organizational arrangements. In June 2017, she joined the department of sociology to work on a prestigious AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council) project, which is investigating the different ways audiences engage with specialized film outside of London. Research questions encompass the range of specialized film venues and events within regional provision, as well as how digital platforms feature in the venue and event-based film experience. Karen Salt is Director of the Centre for Research in Race and Rights (C3R) and Assistant Professor at the University of Nottingham. She is an interdisciplinary scholar with

about the contributors   xxxix strong interests in transnational American studies and Afrodiasporic studies. A significant portion of her work investigates how black nation-states have fought for their continued existence within a highly racialized world. As this work has developed, Dr. Salt has considered the relationship of sovereignty and race to environmental consumption and protection, enabling her to craft new research on racial ecologies. In addition to this work, she currently leads or co-leads projects on reparative trust, collective activism, racial equity, and transformative justice politics. Alison Scott-Baumann is Professor of Society and Belief in the Department of Religions and Philosophies at SOAS University of London. She is a scholar with an international reputation in Islam in Britain, and her recent book Islamic Education in Britain, with Cheruvallil-Contractor (2015), is highly regarded in British Muslim communities. She recently completed her leadership of Re/presenting Islam on Campus (2015–2018), a major project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council of the United Kingdom. In 2017 she gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their investigation of freedom of speech in universities. Boyka Simeonova is Lecturer in Information Management at Loughborough University, United Kingdom. Boyka is Director of the Knowledge and the Digital Economy Network and Deputy Director of the Centre for Information Management at Loughborough University. Boyka is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Boyka is the recipient of the Dean’s Early Career Researcher Award at Loughborough University and has published in Information Systems and Management. Stanimira Taneva is currently Senior Researcher and REF Impact Officer, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. During the work on her chapter, she was a Senior Research and Enterprise Associate and a member of the Centre for Professional Work and Society at the School of Business and Economics at Loughborough University. Her background is in developmental and work/ organizational psychologies, as well as psychometrics. Stanimira’s work experience is a combination of academia and practice—she has been in academic, research, management, and expert roles in the public, private, and third-sector. Stanimira has conducted a variety of academic and applied research programs in areas such as developing and managing careers, (age-) diversity, well-being, and performance in organizations. In 2013 she was awarded a Marie Curie Fellowship from the European Commission for her cross-cultural research on successful aging at work. Stanimira’s most recent research interests include cross-disciplinary research impact and the exploration of the impacts of new technology (e.g., AI) on work. She is a fellow at the UK Research and Innovation Future Leaders Fellowships program Peer Review College. Claire Taylor is Gilmour Chair of Spanish and Professor of Hispanic Studies at the University of Liverpool. She is a specialist in Latin American literature and culture and has published widely on a range of writers, artists, and genres from across the region. Her particular geographical areas of interest are Colombia, Argentina, and Chile, although she also worked on literature, art, and culture from other regions. Within

xl   about the contributors Latin American Cultural Studies, she takes a particular interest in the varied literary and cultural genres being developed online by Latin(o) Americans, especially hypertext novels, e-poetry, and net art. She has published numerous articles and book chapters on these topics, and she is the co-author of the recent volume Latin American identity in online cultural production (New York: Routledge, 2012) and author of the recent monograph Place and politics in Latin America digital culture: Location and Latin American net art (New York: Routledge, 2014). She is currently working on an AHRCfunded project focusing on memory, victims, and representation of the Colombian conflict. Leanne Townsend is a Senior Social Scientist working within the Social, Economic, and Geographical Sciences Group at the James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland. Leanne leads research on a number of projects exploring digitization and innovation in various rural contexts, including agriculture, rural entrepreneurship, and rural community development. Sharon Wagg is a doctoral researcher in the Centre of Information Management, part of the School of Business and Economics at Loughborough University, United Kingdom. She is the recipient of the Mark Hepworth PhD scholarship, and her research interests include digital inclusion and social change, information literacy, and lifelong learning. Sharon worked as part of the research team at the digital inclusion charity Good Things Foundation, and has a master’s degree in Librarianship (Distinction) from the University of Sheffield. Her PhD dissertation investigated digital inclusion initiatives in the context of rural communities in the United Kingdom. Paul Watry is Principal Investigator for the Multivalent Digital Preservation Architecture project and the Cheshire digital library system. His primary area of interest is in computational linguistics and in bibliographic analysis. A core activity is to develop and implement a strategy which will embrace both electronic and traditional information resources and address the needs of both research and learning. Vishanth Weerakkody joined the School of Management at University of Bradford in March 2017 as Professor in Management Information Systems and Governance. He was previously a Professor of Digital Governance at the Business School in Brunel University, London, where he held several leadership roles. Prior to his academic career, Prof. Weerakkody worked in a number of multinational organizations, including IBM UK. He has a successful track record of research and enterprise and has secured numerous research grants from funding bodies such as the European Commission (FP7 & H2020), Economic and Social Research Council, Qatar Foundation, and UK Local Government. His R&D expertise spans several disciplines, including management decision making, ICT evaluation, public administration, social innovation, and process transformation. He is the editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Electronic Government Research and a handling editor for Information Systems Frontiers. He is a chartered IT professional and fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.

about the contributors   xli Bridgette Wessels is Professor of Social Inequality, Department of Sociology, at the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow. Her research focuses on the innovation, development, and use of digital technology and services in social and cultural life. Recent books include Open data and knowledge society (2017, Amsterdam University Press) and Communicative civic-ness: Social media and political culture (2018, Routledge). She is a co-investigator on the ESRC project Ways of Being in the Digital Age, and she is Principal Investigator on the AHRC funded project “Beyond the Multiplex: Audiences for Specialized Film in English Regions,” which is using digital humanities methods. Other examples of funded work include research on telehealth, social media, digital social research methodologies, women, work and technology (NordWit project), journalism in the digital age (REGPRESS project), and mobile networks (COST network: Social Networks and Travel Behaviour). Monica Whitty is Professor of Human Factors in Cyber Security at the University of Melbourne, Australia and the University of Warwick, WMG, United Kingdom. She is also on the Global Futures committee for cybersecurity for the World Economic Forum. Her research over the last 20 years has focused on the ways individuals behave in cyberspace. Her work, in particular, examines identities created in cyberspace, cyberscams, online security risks, behavior in cyberspace, insider threat, as well as detecting and preventing cybercrimes. Monica is the author of over 100 articles, and five books, the latest being Cyberpsychology: The study of individuals, society and digital technologies (Wiley, 2017, with Garry Young). She is currently leading an interdisciplinary project funded by TIPS (ESPRC) titled, Detecting and Preventing Mass-Marketing Fraud. Nicole Zamanzadeh received her PhD from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research interests include new media, stress, and family resilience. Her current work investigates questions about media use habits such as media multitasking as a potential source of stress or resilience for individuals and the family system.

section 1

OV E RV I E W

chapter 1

I n troduction to th e Ox for d H a n dbook of Digita l Tech nol ogy a n d Societ y Terms, Domains, and Themes Ronald E. Rice, Simeon J. Yates, and Jordana Blejmar

Introduction Many developed countries have become information or knowledge societies, whereby cognitive activities, symbolic and data analysis, and information resources are replacing agriculture and manufacturing as the primary sectors of developed countries’ economies. This idea of the information society or economy has been identified, discussed, and analyzed since the 1960s. For example, Machlup’s (1962) analysis of the US economy identified an information sector, primarily devoted to information activities necessary to produce physical goods and services. Porat (1971) reanalyzed Machlup’s data to define the key components of the growing information society. Bell (1973) explained the post-industrial economy, whereby knowledge becomes the primary resource, allowing freedom from constraints of labor, land, and machines. But we can argue that the concept of an information society does not, in itself, require computers or digitization (Beniger, 1989). The extensive collection and analysis of information, especially about transactions and inventory, but also about local and regional administration, has existed from early civilizations (Egypt, Mesoamerica, Mesopotamia). Nevertheless, it can be argued that the information society as we see it now has roots in the growth of the British Empire and systematic organizational management (Yates, 1993); the need to control and market industrial revolution technologies and products

4   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. (Beniger,  1989); and even the development of dictionaries, maps, and classification schemes during the “age of enlightenment” (Headrick, 2002). The core argument is that the basis of wealth is shifting to the collecting, management, analysis, and application of data and information (Daley, 2015; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This shift is also a manifestation of the rise of information capitalism and the exploitation of knowledge labor (Castells,  2000; Curtin & Sanson,  2016; Fuchs,  2014). Thus, information is a crucial aspect of modern economies, as well as everyday life, in most countries, although with considerable disparities across countries and even within regions, cities, and towns. But the digital society involves additional dimensions. While mainframe digital computers had played major roles in WWII and after in telephone switching, office automation, and manufacturing in the 1960s and 1970s, the advent of end-user computing, widescale social uses of computing, and networked communication such as email and the Internet required the interaction of several factors. Although literature on the history of computing, transmission networks, the Internet, and programming is vast, we need to note only four basic components that underpin the transformative nature of the digital world. The first is digitization, or more specifically, the encoding of information into bits (binary digits). Negroponte (1995) was an early (but not the first) popularizer of the understanding that “being digital” was the foundation for widespread, pervasive, and unique changes in our social, economic, and political world. He articulated the main difference between the analog and digital world: the first, traditional, world was based on atoms (physical material), while the second, digital, world was based on bits, standing for “binary digits”: symbolic or electronic signals indicating presence or absence, “on” or “off,” or more colloquially, “0s” and “1s.” By converting information from analogue to digital representation the information contained within or collected about a process or artefact (Zuboff, 1985), one could “free” the information from its material “packaging.” For example, in the analog world, a book means the paper-based bound set of pages on which words and images are printed. However, in the digital world, the content becomes independent of any particular physical form. So digital information is freed from the analog, material world. In 1987 (though he had earlier raised this point in a 1984 Hacker’s Conference; http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/IWtbF.html), Brand (1987) claimed that “Information wants to be free,” in a slightly different way. First, its cost approaches zero because it is freed from material resources and so is easily storable, copyable, and distributable—although today we can recognize the infrastructural and environmental costs of moving data around. He also noted at the same time that information wants to be expensive because it may require exceptional resources to create initially, and can be extremely valuable if held privately or used in combination with other information. Importantly, he noted that there seemed to be a tension between these two tendencies, which may rise or fall in different contexts. He also noted that information sought to be politically free as access to high-quality information and free speech fosters political freedom—though we might today note that propaganda and misinformation are just as easily distributed. The key point is that digitizing information—converting frequencies, symbols, material dimensions, etc. to bits in a flow of information—means that content

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   5 in general is wholly or partly independent from the material used to convey the information (such as a the text in a printed book). This is one of the foundations for digital convergence: the same or different portions of content can appear via multiple devices, at the same or different times; and all digital media can partake of the same content in different forms. The second component is computing. Digitization also means that this content can now be treated as data by computer processes, vastly increasing what can be done with, or by, that content. For example, instead of one or two “see also” cards in a library’s card catalog associating a given book with other books, now almost any content in a digitized source can be searched and associated with similar or related content in the same or other sources. At present it is not perfect for all content (such as images, sounds, smells) but iterations of improved computing power and algorithms make this easier and easier. Thus, any kind of content (information in various forms) can be processed through computing programs. Information becomes a powerful raw resource and can be transformed, combined, integrated, and analyzed. This is the essence of datafication and digitization: anything that can be formally and systematically represented in a digital form can then be processed, combined, and analyzed, for a vast and growing range of purposes. Practically related but conceptually distinct, the third component is microprocessors via integrated circuits, the increasingly small and powerful devices for performing a wide array of computer processes. The integration of basic computing functions into one chip increased computing functionality, speed, and power, yet reduced computing size and computing power cost, leading to the ability to embed computing power into ever smaller objects. Current smartphones and games consoles easily outperform super computers of the 1980s and early 1990s (as measured by calculations per second). Recent developments in massive multiprocessing and quantum computing, and embedding of computing power onto and into tiny devices and our bodies, will extend this growth in power and decrease in size. The fourth component is digital networking, or transmission of digitized information among nodes that are themselves computers. Information can be conveyed in analog form, through material carriers (books, photographs), and amplitude or frequency modulation (pre-digital radio, television). But digital networks allow much faster, more error-corrected, more distant, and more robust ways of processing, accessing, and distributing information (content of any form). Digital networks can interconnect with local, “last-mile” analog transmission lines. The Internet is a vast interconnected set of subnetworks, using various protocols to standardize and facilitate exchange of digital information from source to receiver. Wireless networking allows devices and people to communicate with each other without constraints of physical wiring, also enabling computing power to be distributed throughout space (such as in the Internet of things, radio-frequency identification [RFID], and mobile phones). The transformative power of the digital comes from combining these elements. If we put these together, we can move artefacts and ideas around the globe, and at increasing speed. We can undertake a 3D scan of a contemporary artwork or new product, send the data around the world, and print it out on a 3D printer minutes later. Citizen journalists

6   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. can live-stream news events as they happen. Doctors can diagnose patients from thousands of miles away. Consumers can watch almost any film or listen to almost any music ever recorded. Grandparents can see and talk to the grandkids in Australia. Politicians can directly message followers to their heart’s content. The examples are ever expanding.

Terms and Growth of These Developments The smart mobile phone has become the most general exemplar of the integration of these four transformative components in one device. However, our focus in this book is not on these four crucial components of digital technologies, or any one technology, but, rather, on how their integration shapes, and is shaped by, social factors. Hence the title is the Handbook of digital technology and society. While technology has developed, and continues to evolve over time, we become more aware of the implications of these changes—positive and negative, intended and unintended, short-term and long-term, individual and collective, and straightforward and contradictory—for digital technology, individuals, groups, communities, organizations, societies, nations, and the world. So along with increasing mention of the technologies in the academic and general literature, ways of characterizing the role and implications of digital technologies have also arisen. The four primary terms that have been used to refer to such changes are digital age, digital era, digital society, and digital technology. In the spirit of some of the literature analyses to follow that utilize digital tools to extract and evaluate academic discussions about the social impacts of digital, we have used databases to explore how these terms were first used. Tables 1.1 through 1.4 show the first entries that used these terms in major academic reference, news, and periodicals databases (Web of Science, Science Direct, Nexis Uni News, and Proquest Periodicals Index Online, respectively). While in general all four terms began being mentioned in publications covered by these four sources between 1972 and 1983, the earliest terms used were “digital technology” (1967) and “­dig­ital society” (1968), followed by “digital era” (1970) and then “digital age” (1982). Naturally, most were mentioned in reference to the growth and development of ­computers and digitization. For example, “digital technology” typically referred to computers, computerized control, data flow, and the computer-based telephone switching network. “Digital society” noted the diffusion of technology use in everyday contexts. “Digital era” highlighted the introduction of the personal computer, digital satellites, and industrial automation; while the “digital age” referenced the transition of technology to digital forms, and twice with specific reference to analog models. However, not all mentions of these terms related only to new technological developments at the time. Both “digital technology” and “digital society” were associated with new training and education, and the first discussion of “digital technology” (in 1967) specifically emphasized its potential social and economic impacts. Some of these

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   7 Table 1.1  First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Web of Science Term

First-year entries

digital age

Zenman, M. J. (1982). Even in a digital age, scopes remain the instrument. Electronic Design, 30(18), 129ff.

digital era

Electronics. (1970). Bold new inroads for computer as digital era gets under way. Electronics, 43(1), 105 ff.

digital society

Cazes, B. (1984). The digital society: New technologies in everyday use. Quinzaine Litteraire, 421, 8–9.

digital technology

Fenik, F., & Stopper, H. (1968). Rapid switching circuits in digital technology. Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift B-Ausgabe, 29(7–8), 229ff. Ulrich, G. (1968). Comparison between analogue and digital technology in information flow. Periodica Polytechnica Electrical Engineering, 12(2), 145ff.

Note: Based on Topics (in title)

Table 1.2  First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in ScienceDirect Term

First-year entries

digital age

Geballe, T. H. (1984). Materials: Analogue answers in a digital age. Physica B&C, 172(1–3), 50–58.

digital era

Dement, D. K. (1980). Developing the next phase in NASAs satellite communications program. Acta Astronautica, 7(11), 1275–1286. “In the coming digital era, maximizing the use of frequency spectrum allocations will require special techniques for transmitting television signals within allowable bandwidths . . . ” Latour, P. R. (1980). S2: Requirements for successful closed-loop optimization of petroleum refining processes. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 13(9), 11–23. “DIGITAL ERA: Adequate Hardware and General: Software for Automation of Industrial Plants. Costs are still Dropping. . . . ”

digital society

Delorme, J-C. (1985). Education in a digital world. Education and Computing 1(2), 117–124. “These questions not only have pertinence from the perspective of or as a consequence of the emergence of the digital society . . . ”

digital technology

Beaverstock, M. C. & Bernard, J. W. (1977). Advanced control: Ready able accepted? IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 10(16), 335–341. “Further application of more advanced control systems to industrial processes is limited by acceptance of the newer digital technologies.” Rony, P. R. & Larsen, D. G. (1977). Teaching microcomputer interfacing to non-electrical engineers. Euromicro Newsletter, 3(2), 57–62. “Rather, we are providing them with specific training in digital technology that may be useful to them professionally.” Benvenuto, F., DiTomaso, C., Donati, L. F., Sbragia, D., & Valcada, A. (1977). Digital control system for uninterruptible power supply. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 10(10), 973–979. “The most peculiar characteristic of the system just described consists in the fact that the control has been carried out using the digital technology in almost every part of it.” (continued )

Table 1.2  Continued Newstead, A. (1977). Australia’s telecom 2000. Telecommunications Policy, 1(2), 158–162. “Continue network studies on optimum rate of transition to digital technologies in transmission and switching . . .” Schnieder, E. (1977). Control of DC-drives by microprocessors. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 19(10), 603–608. “The current signal is the only analogue variable requiring A/D conversion, since speed measurement can be performed by digital techniques thus disposing of analogue transmitters such as DC tachometers.” Fujii, K., Takeda, N., Kogure, Y., Neda, T., . . . Abe, M. (1977). Recent computerized power generation plant automation and advanced man-machine interface system. IFAC Proceedings Volumes,10(1), 16–20. “In the future, their reliability will have to be highly improved using microcomputerized digital technology for example.” Nyborg, P. S. (1977). Computer technology and US communications law. Telecommunications Policy, 1(5), 374–380. “Significant technologies, among others, are large-scale integration, software control of switching devices and terminals, digital technology, and new services and techniques relating to audio transmission (including satellite).” Owen, E. W. & Moseley, E. C. (1977). A user-compatible terminal for medical applications. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 7(2), 165–176. “He is currently working on the application of microprocessor and related digital technologies to these fields.” Note: Based on Abstract, Title, Keywords, Text in Research Articles

Table 1.3  First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Nexis Uni (News) Term

First-year entries

digital age

Williams, E. (1982). Comdial system ready for switch to the digital age. Financial Times. Mulligan, H. A. (1982). [no headline]. The Associated Press. “Urchins raised in this digital age do not know which direction is clockwise.” Safire, W. (1982). Watch what you say. The New York Times. “ . . . moving finger has written that we are now in the Digital Age.”

digital era

Heine, C. (1970). This diabolical hipster hoodwinker almost sold a bag of Brooklyn air for $20,000. Adweek. “ . . . scenario could be that it was modern art for the digital era, an existential exhibit, if you will.”

digital society

Salisbury, D. F. (1983). Life in the computer age: Social choices in a futuristic world. The Christian Science Monitor. “In its extreme form, a ‘Digital Society’ would become simply a giant, clean, well-ordered Disneyworld, Vallee warns . . . ”

digital technology

Chapman, W. (1978). High stakes race: Japanese search for breakthrough in field of giant computers. The Washington Post. “It [Japan] took transistors and digital technology, added automation and superior quality control, and transformed those innovations into profitable exports.” Anon. (1978). Scientific and technical exchanges in China. Xinhua General Overseas News Service (China). “. . . the first conference on digital technology was recently held in Kochiu in Yunnan province.” Ostry, B. (1978). The Mermaid Inn: The wiring of Canada: A danger, a challenge, a certainty. The Global and Mail (Canada). “One writer insists digital technology will turn the international telephone network into the biggest blooming computer the world has ever seen.”

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   9 Table 1.4  First Appearances of Four Major Digital Terms in Proquest Periodicals Index Online Term

First year entries

digital age

Julesz, B. (1983). The role of analog models in our digital age. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(4), 668–669.

digital era

Stauffacher, J. (1985). The Transylvanian Phoenix: The Kis-Janson types in the digital era. Visible Language, 19(1), 61–76.

digital society

Bixby, J. L. (1968). Public opinion and school music. Music Journal, 26(3), 48–53. “Effects of reduced privacy, restrictions on individualism (in a computerized digital society; shall we tattoo the Social Security number on the newborn?)”

digital technology

Baran, P. (1967). The future computer utility. The Public Interest, 8(summer), 75–87. “These new developments in computer technology are of such significance as to affect materially the nature of our economic and social life.”

impacts of the “digital age” were quite novel: for example, an early concern about the switch to digital clocks was that people would no longer know what “clockwise” meant. So we see that right from the beginning that social aspects and implications (both positive and negative) were part of the discussion, even though the very first uses of these four terms were stimulated by technological developments. Table 1.5 lists the earliest mentions of these same four terms in books that Google has digitized and indexed, and that were retrieved through their Ngram Viewer (https:// books.google.com/ngrams). For some of these, the plots do indicate entries before 1967, but either those do not retrieve an entry, do not retrieve a book entry, or are snippets from journals whose starting publishing date was in that time range, but the document with the term occurred in a much later issue. Ngram Viewer provides results through 2008. Figure 1.1 shows the trends in these four sets of terms over time. In books, the “digital technology” focus is the most frequently mentioned over time, really increasing during 1975–1995. However, the terms “digital society” (1965) and “digital era” (1969) appeared a bit earlier. The term “digital age” was the last to be introduced, around 20 years later, but quickly became the most used term indicating the societal aspects of dig­ital technology.

Main Digital Technology and Society Issues and Contexts in Recent Books Method Presuming that books integrate and distill considerable prior work, and represent topics that are important, salient, and likely of broad and timely concern, we turn to recent

10   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Table 1.5  First Substantive Entries of Four Major Digital Terms in Books, from Google NGram Term

First substantive entry

Percentage of all Ngram entries that year; in 2008; and times greater

digital age

Watkinson, J. (1990). Coding for digital recording. Focal Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=cjBTAAAAMAAJ “Perhaps some future historian will classify this as the digital age, when everyday processes increasingly came to be performed using discrete numbers.”

.00000040; 0.00000770; 18.25

Unites States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Subcommittee on Communications. (1990). Hearings on . . . Digital Audio Tape Recorder Act of 1990. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://books.google.com/books? id=DTGqJhRf4jsC With the passage of S. 2358, such synergy will extend into the digital age, to the benefit of everyone.” digital era

Parrish, L. (1969). Space flight simulation technology. H. W. Sams. https://books.google.com/books?id=k7NZAAAAYAAJ “ . . . the accomplished simulation designer . . . will, of necessity, have qualified as a digital-computer programmer (this latter accomplishment being a forced requirement of the digital era).”

.00000002; 0.00000140; 69

digital society

White, T. H. (1965). The making of the president 1964. Antheneum. https://books.google.com/books?id=NIVkmNgX7_UC “The emotions of normal people resist the general condition of a Digital Society—digits for the boys who are drafted, digits for Social Security and income-tax people, digits on credit cards and union cards, digits replacing familiar telephone exchanges, the electronic recordings that answer the telephone at airports and railway stations.”

.00000000; 0.00003800; 3800+

digital technology

Canada. Department of Communications. (1971). The future of communications technology. Department of Communications. https://books.google.com/books?id=lBe4AAAAIAAJ “6.5 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY The evolving carrier network will be composed mainly of digital sub-systems, which can offer the complete range of digital and analogue capability required by any user on a switched network basis.”

.00000100; 0.00004700; 46

books for indicators of the main issues and contexts about digital technology and society. Using the same four sets of terms, we searched Amazon Books for relevant titles, and relevant recommended titles, in the past decade. We ended up with 89 books, from 2009 to 2018 (M = 2015.2). There are of course many more books related to various aspects of digital technology and society, both those retrievable through other terms and from earlier

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   11 0.0000550% 0.0000500%

digital technology (All)

0.0000450% 0.0000400%

digital age (All)

0.0000350% 0.0000300% 0.0000250% 0.0000200% 0.0000150% 0.0000100%

digital ora (All)

0.0000050% 0.0000000% 1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

digital society (All)

Figure 1.1  Trends over time in mention of four major digital terms in books through 2008, based on Google Ngram Viewer.

years, but this seems a reasonable sample (in both size and source) to represent the most frequent and important issues and contexts. Within this sample 77 were (co)authored, and 12 were edited (including one encyclopedia); 16 were general (i.e., textbook, overview or coverage of many issues), and 73 were specific (about an identifiable issue or topic; e.g., youth and media, or Internet governance). Again, as our goal was to identify main issues and contexts, we did not analyze the text of each book; rather, we collected information about each book, including summaries, reviews, prefaces, and table of contents; that is, what do the authors and others think the book is “about,” or what topics do they emphasize? We combined all those materials about each book into a file for each book. The total text across all books constituted around 29,000 words. We read each file, compiling a list of possible issues and contexts from each one. We then reviewed that compilation, reorganizing, regrouping, and combining terms into an alphabetized list of main codes and subcodes. This grouped list provided our initial a priori coding scheme. Needless to say, others might have developed a more or less different list, many of the subcodes could have been included with other main codes, and more or less different main codes could have been developed. We will return to a possible different grouping of the main codes later on. The purpose of the following overview is to identify some of the primary themes and topics of recent books in this domain. We entered those 89 book summary files and the initial coding taxonomy into NVivo 11. Then we re-read each book file and coded the materials using the initial codes, as well as adding new codes as they arose. After coding all files, we revisited the coding taxonomy and again reorganized, regrouped, and combined terms, and then re-coded the book files. For the following overview of the issues and contexts covered in these books, we re-organized the main codes by general themes: (A) Theory and Conceptualization, (B) Digital Technology, (C) Issues, (D) Contexts, and (E) Effects. Table 1.6 lists the general themes, their main codes and their subcodes, along with the number of sources that used that code and the number of times (references) that code was used.

12   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Table 1.6  Themes, Main Codes and Subcodes Used to Identify Issues and Concerns in Recent Books on Digital Technology and Society Theme, Code, and Subcodes A. Theory and Conceptualization

B. Technology

A1. Theory [17] Actor-network theory (48) Critical studies, theory (9,22) Diffusion (39) Digital divide (38) Digital media & social change (51) Mediation theories (23, 31, 33) Model of digital coping with illness (68) Network theory (35, 39, 51) Public good (23) Science & technology studies (33) Social capital (54) Sociological (4, 21) Socio-technical (4, 10, 26) Various (51, 53)

B1. Technology venues [68] 3D printing, fabrication (32, 77) Algorithms (10, 19, 24, 29, 33, 51, 63, 84) Artificial Intelligence (13, 30, 49) Blockchain (81) Cloud computing (4, 11, 39, 42, 59) Constant change and development of technology (4, 11) Data storage (24) Drones (59, 77) Gaming (57, 69, 71, 82) Internet of things (11, 15, 26, 56, 59, 81) Mobility (11, 26, 51, 84) Robots & social robots (30, 49, 59, 82) Search engines (63) Smart homes, cities, e-government (5, 11, 37, 39, 41, 77, 81) Social media-networking sites (4, 11, 39, 51, 57, 79, 80, 85) Ubiquitous computing (26, 59) Wearable computing, devices, sensors (26, 59, 77, 79)

A2. Names for new digital technology and society era [49] Age of big data (56) Attention economy (89) Culture of connectivity (85) Digital age/society/revolution (6, 7, 9, 51) Digital natives, immigrants (12, 64) Ecosystem of connective media in a culture of connectivity (85) Fourth industrial revolution (77) Fourth wave (digital health) (79) Global information society (58) Global network society (17, 48) Information society (14, 38) Integrate technological, social, political, cultural, economic dimensions (4, 9, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26, 28, 33, 39, 41, 47, 57, 58, 69) Marketplace of attention (86) Mass surveillance society (75) Media ecologies (44) Mediation (interrelated technical, social, biological processes) (4, 22, 23) Network as “defining concept of our era” (20) New mobile age (49) Next Internet (59) Participatory condition (5) Second machine age (13) Softwarization of society (9) Superconnected society (18) Third wave of computing technologies (25, 32)

B2. Technology characteristics [9] Affordances (68, 71, 82) Habitual, updating (20, 82) Materiality (33, 42) Mediation vs. objects, devices, apps (47) C. Issues C1. Content, creation [33] Art, performance (5, 10, 23, 40, 52, 54, 81) Collective intelligence (70) Creative production, industry, digital media production (44) Crowdfunding (7) Design (5, 71) Humor & memes (46, 66, 78) Online expression (66) Producers, users, produsers (2, 5, 28, 43, 69, 76) Public, online debate (66) Storytelling (5, 7, 66) C2. Big data, data mining, data storage, analytics, user data [56] Attention industry, marketplace, merchants, customers (2, 13, 24, 39, 50, 75, 83, 84, 86, 89)

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   13 Audience behaviors and meaning changing, fragmentation, overlap (7, 33,62, 86) Big data, data mining, data analytics (5, 11, 14, 29, 39, 51, 56, 59, 71, 84) Data user, personal, online, digital traces (22, 35, 51, 55, 61, 73, 75, 83, 84) Privacy, surveillance, security, anonymity (5, 10, 12, 15, 18, 19, 26, 39, 40, 45, 48, 53, 59, 61, 64, 69, 82, 84, 87)

Families (38, 44, 54, 72, 80) Friendship (44) Identity, selfhood (12, 18, 19, 22, 38, 40, 43, 44, 51, 54, 64, 65, 82, 87) Individual, collective; public, private (35, 70, 87) Intimacy (44, 82) Sex, sexuality (69) Social (interactions, relationships, networks (6, 18, 35, 46, 54, 70, 72, 82)

C3. Civic issues [50] Civic media, citizenship, democracy, public sphere, the news press (3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 29, 33, 39, 40, 51, 59, 65, 69, 81, 87) Digital countercultures, underground (52) Engagement, participation civic (3, 5, 27, 37, 46, 53, 59, 65) Political, politics (17, 21, 25, 39, 55, 69) Power (5, 7, 21, 42, 51) Social movements & digital activism (incl. feminist activism, play as resistance), collective action (5, 17, 25, 31, 37, 39, 51, 69, 87)

D4. User groups [19] African-Americans (38) College students (72) Elderly (68, 71) LGBTQ (31, 37) Worshippers (8) Youth (6, 12, 39, 44, 45, 53, 54, 64, 69, 80)

C4. Participation, engagement [7] (5, 12, 27, 45, 48, 70) C5. Inclusion, exclusion, discrimination [26] Digital divide (6, 38, 39) Disability (22, 69) Discrimination (19, 29, 63) Gender (25, 39, 63, 69) Inclusion, exclusion; equality, inequality (7, 18, 37, 53, 54, 59, 69, 81, 88) Race (39, 63, 69)

D5. Culture, everyday life, education, learning [35] Culture (6, 10, 25, 37, 39, 51, 69, 88) Domesticity (26) Education, learning (5, 13, 30, 37, 41, 44, 53, 54, 64, 69) Everyday life, practice (4, 9, 21, 26, 38, 39, 53, 54, 58, 80) Literacy (46, 53, 70, 88)

C6. Ethics, ethical issues [6] (28, 29, 45, 47, 64)

D6. Work and organizations [37] Business models (7, 24, 49, 81, 89) Innovation (11, 27, 37, 71, 77, 79) Labor, creative, digital, employment (7, 13, 30, 33, 39, 76, 77) Organizations & business (10, 21, 24, 39, 41, 57, 71, 79, 81) Work, work-life boundaries (1, 44, 46, 71, 77, 82)

C7. Manage digital experience [8] (23, 29, 35, 38, 39, 41, 53, 57, 60, 79, 81)

D7. Law, policy, regulation [12] (23, 29, 35, 38, 39, 41, 53, 57, 60, 79, 81)

D. Contexts

E. Effects

D1. Digitization of self & others [13] Biosensing, quantified self & animals (5, 10, 47, 49, 52, 55, 59, 61, 67, 84) Qualified self (45) D2. Health [12] Digital health (13, 30, 61, 71, 79) End of life (68) Healthspan and lifespan (49) Online information, interventions (68) Support, coping (68, 82) D3. Relationships [40] Community (4, 51)

E1. Effects negative [25] Addiction (1, 82) Attention, brain, overload (6, 16, 64, 70, 82) Cyberbullying (6, 12) Danger, harm, risk (6, 12, 46, 53, 56, 82) Disconnection (among people) (54) Multitasking (82) Online hate and shaming (72) Pressure for access, connectedness, response (82) Wasting time (34, 82) E2. Effects positive [13] Collaboration, cooperation, sharing (5, 12, 13, 34, 70, 71) (continued)

14   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Table 1.6  Continued Connectivity, connectedness (1, 2, 38) Creativity (34) Safety (12, 82) Social capital (38) E3. Effects societal [23] Crime (36) Economy, economics (13, 30, 39, 41, 58, 71, 81, 87)

Environment implications of digital media (23, 42, 59, 69) Global impacts (17, 18, 22, 58, 69, 71) ICTs for development (41, 57, 87) Institutions (18, 41) E4. Effects contradictions, paradoxes, tensions, unintended [21] (1, 6, 9, 10, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 41, 48, 50, 52, 66, 69, 82, 86)

Note: [# times code was referenced], aggregated from # times each subcode was referenced (number of the specific publication referenced); see References of Books for Issues and Contexts Analysis for correspondence between number and reference.

A.  Theory and Conceptualization A1. Theory. Theoretical perspectives are not likely to be highlighted in book summaries or reviews, especially in edited books. However, of those mentioned, several appear multiple times. A socio-technical approach appears in Athique’s (2013) overview of dig­ital media and society; Beyes, Leeker, and Schipper’s (2017) analysis of digital performance: and Dourish and Bell’s (2011) discussion of ubiquitous computing. Network theory is an obvious framework for considering digital technologies due to their networked nature and the rise of a global network society, and how they connect people through social networks and social networking sites (González-Bailón, 2017; Graham & Dutton, 2014; Krieger & Belliger, 2014; Lindgren, 2017). Similarly, as digital technologies provide mediated communication, representation, and interaction, mediation and materiality theories are relevant (Cubitt,  2016; Fotopoulou,  2017; Gillespie, Boczkowski, & Foot, 2014). Other specified theoretical approaches include critical studies, sociological theories, and others ranging from public goods and social capital to diffusion of innovations and digital divide. Several books emphasize multiple theories, related to areas such social media, cyber-optimism, social interaction, social change, identity, development, education, and participation (Lindgren, 2017; Livingstone, 2009). Names for new social era. Based on the article and NGram analysis, we might refer to the emergence of relationships between digital technology and society as the “Digital Age.” Indeed, several books use some variant of that (Bauerlein, 2011; Bennett, Chin, & Jones, 2015; Berry, 2015; Lindgren, 2017). However, in recent books authors have used a wide variety of terms. Some refer to a broad phenomenon (culture of connectivity, dig­ital age/society/revolution, ecosystem of connective media in a culture of connectivity, fourth industrial revolution, global information/network society, the familiar term

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   15 information society, next Internet, the participatory condition, second machine age, super connected society, and third wave of computing technologies). Several of these emphasize the increased opportunities for connecting, communicating, and networking (Barney et al., 2016; Castells, 2015; Chayko, 2017; Chun, 2017; James, 2014; Van Dijck, 2013). Barney et al. (2016) refers to this as the “participatory condition,” whereby participation has become the theme for most everyday activities; similarly, Van Dijck (2013) shows how social media in particular have created a “culture of connectivity,” and Chayko (2017) argues that the Internet and digital media in general have made social life “superconnected.” Others indicate more specific aspects (age of big data, the attention economy, mass surveillance society, new mobile age, and the “softwarization” of society; Berry, 2015; Kvedar, Colman, & Cella, 2017; Lynch, 2016; Schneier, 2015; Wu, 2017). Note that all but one of these are concerned with how large-scale collection of user behavior both fuels the economy as well as enables individual, corporate, and government surveillance. More common, however, is a general reference to the integration of biological, cultural, economic, environmental, political, psychological, social, and technological dimensions. Athique (2013) and Berry (2015), for example, discuss how digital systems pervade all aspects of our lives, especially given vast global information and communication networks (Castells, 2015). Many of these broader approaches emphasize how the technological and the social are interrelated (e.g., Graham & Dutton, 2014).

B.  Digital Technology B1. Technology venues. Many other books explain and study specific digital technologies, but those mentioned in the context of societal concerns in these books range from 3D printing/fabrication to online gaming and ubiquitous computing. More frequent are associations with algorithms, cloud computing, Internet of things, mobility, robots (including social robots), smart homes and cities, social media, and wearable computing devices/sensors. Algorithms are both based on, and influence, our search behaviors, news viewing, online friends, and shopping (Cheney-Lippold, 2017; Turow, 2017), shape who gets access to social services (Eubanks, 2018), and affect how race and gender are portrayed in search engine results (Noble, 2018). Cloud computing seems abstract and ethereal, yet requires massive infrastructure and energy (Hu, 2015), and raises issues of privacy (Graham & Dutton, 2014). The miniaturization of computing power and the increasing reach and strength of wireless networking provide the foundations for the Internet of things (Bunz & Meikle,  2017), ranging from interactive refrigerators to worldwide tracking of shipping containers (Dourish & Bell, 2011), as well as “smart” cities and governments (Barney et al., 2016; Hanna, 2016). Robots have already replaced many manufacturing jobs (Ford, 2015), while social robots can provide physical, and emotional support to patients, the elderly, and coworkers (Mosco, 2017). Turkle (2011) argues that mobile phones are social robots.

16   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. B2. Technology characteristics. While not much mentioned at the general level of our source documents, some work does approach digital technologies not from their purely physical or technical aspects, but, rather, from their main functions or capabilities, the ways in which they mediate. The argument here is that particular technologies and their manifestations are always changing, so a more conceptual approach is more enduring and generalizable. This approach is variously labeled here as affordances, habit, materiality, and mediation. For example, from a patient’s or a physician’s perspective, persistent awareness of the patient’s condition is more crucial than a particular medical device (Rains, 2018), or from a project team’s perspective, searchability of a database in order to share knowledge is critical independent of the system used (Rossignoli, Virili, & Za, 2017). Continuing, everyday use of a digital technology may, however, make these capabilities and affordances become taken-for-granted, habitual, and invisible (Chun, 2017).

C. Issues C1. Content, creation. Digital technologies make it possible for all kinds of people to find, create, share, reshape, and link a dizzying array of existing and unforeseeable content. Familiar content issues include produsage, crowdfunding/sourcing, digital media production, and online expression. Yet less common topics are discussed as well. Software, computing, devices, and networks enable new kinds of and ways of presenting, art, performance, dance, music, and design (Beyes, Leeker, & Schipper, 2017; Gronlund, 2016). New kinds of digital images (from space and the deep sea) may foster more engaged responses to environmental threats (Cubit,  2016). A major motivation for creating, viewing, and sharing online content is its humorous nature (Phillips & Milner, 2018), while considerable research attempts to understand the power and rapid diffusion of certain memes (Shifman, 2014). Digital storytelling can be multi-modal, collaborative, and interactive (Barney et al., 2016). C2. Big data, data mining, data storage, analytics, user data. Transforming information and communication from analog to digital has a major, inherent implication: the content is (potentially, depending on the context and laws) now easily captured, stored, analyzed, associated, separated, (re)combined, transmitted, and networked. Thus, there is considerable recent coverage of issues relating to both specific and very large scale (big) user data. Such data capture and mining provide the economic model for much digital media, marketers, and vendors (think social media and search engines, especially), leading to terms such as the attention economy or the attention market, and fundamental changes in the nature of media audiences (Anand,  2016; Daley,  2015; Napoli, 2011; Schneier, 2015; Turow, 2012, 2017; Webster, 2014). But big data, from personal biosensors to Google searches, also allow both scientific and commercial analyses of topics otherwise not possible (González-Bailón,  2017; Graham & Dutton,  2014; Lupton,  2016; Rudder,  2014). For example, Webster (2014) argues that the expansion of multiple media sources and content allows audiences to

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   17 both concentrate attention on, as well as overlap with other audiences across, some outlets and content. The generation, access, analysis, and selling of such personal data also lead to concerns about anonymity, privacy, and surveillance. Several have noted the irony in the fact that while digital technology inspires so much participation and sharing, that very participation generates information that may be used to control, influence, or otherwise shape us and our possibilities (Barney et al., 2016; Bunz & Meikle, 2017). As Turkle (2011, p. 243) wrote, “Facebook looks like ‘home,’ but you know that it puts you in a public square with a surveillance camera turned on.” C3. Civic issues. For some, civic issues are at the heart of debates about digital technology and society. Awareness, participation, freedom of speech, and exposure to diverse ideas are crucial for the practice and maintenance of democracy. The public sphere is now online, but not necessarily civil. Digital and online technology can both facilitate and constrain, improve and harm, these activities. It provides opportunities for political engagement and citizen marketing as well as tools for political message targeting, and opinion control by both governments and corporations (Anduiza et al.,  2012; Athique, 2013; Penney,  2017; White, 2014), but increasingly also by interest groups and individuals. Offline divides by class, disability, ethnicity, gender, and race potentially may be overcome online, but often are reinforced (Reed, 2014). Online spaces provide meeting ground, support, and solidarity for countercultural communities (Lingel, 2017), and citizen and political activism and collective action, from small towns to governments, and from nations to global regions, sometimes successful, sometimes not (Castells, 2015; Graham & Dutton, 2014). Online citizen engagement also represents opportunities for and means of identity expression (Penney, 2017). Some work discusses implications of site and system design, accessibility, and use on the nature of civic engagement (Godron & Mihailidis, 2016). Underlying these civic issues are questions about power and politics shape and are shaped by new forms of participation and their actors (Barney et al., 2016; Hu, 2015). C4. Participation, engagement. As noted in the overview about labeling this changing social condition, a central underlying theme is the increased amount, diversity, forms, and actors in online participation in general (i.e., other than civic or political). Social media in particular enable people to engage in communication and activities in multiple ways, continuously (boyd, 2014), often leading to over-dependence and disconnection from ethical and moral behavior (James, 2014). Yet features and designs, as well as online attitudes and behavior, still limit participation by those with disabilities (Ellcessor, 2016). C5. Inclusion, exclusion, discrimination. Thus an explicit or implicit thread running throughout much of the discussions about digital technology concerns inclusion, exclusion, and discrimination, both in terms of accessing and using these technologies, as well as in how designs, data mining, site features or policies, and other users affect which people and what content are allowed online. The major throughline here is about the general digital divide (Graham, 2014, discussing African Americans’ digital practices; Graham & Dutton, 2014); but other specific distinctions appear too, such as disability, ethnicity, gender, and race (Ellcessor, 2016; Reed, 2014). And a wide variety of factors

18   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. affects forms of inclusion and exclusion, including algorithms shaping data mining and search engine results (Cheney-Lippold, 2017; Eubanks, 2018). Noble (2018), for example, shows how algorithm design, commercial interests, and oligopolies of search engine and social media companies serve to privilege whiteness while discriminating against people of color (especially women). Young users, while nearly continuously online, nonetheless experience exclusion and disconnections due to their pre-existing networks, digital literacy, and attitudes (Livingstone, Sefton, & Green, 2016; Wiesinger & Believau, 2016)). However, online communities and social media provide opportunities for digital activism on the basis of gender, feminism, LBGTQ, among others (Dey, 2018; Fotopoulou, 2017; Gordon & Mihailidis, 2016), and are empowering people around the world (Mosco,  2017). Blockchain technology may both increase and circumvent exclusion (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2018), by concentrating wealth and increasing energy demands, while bypassing control by financial institutions and intermediaries. C6. Ethics, ethical issues. As most commenters note, ethical issues receive limited coverage in digital technology discussions. The online environment provides extensive and new challenges to professional journalism ethics (Elliott & Spence, 2017), data mining and algorithms distance consequences from ethical criteria (Eubanks, 2018), and youth users seldom make connections between their online behaviors and more general moral ethical implications, experiencing ethical blind spots (James, 2014). The very proc­ess of mediation often distances awareness or knowledge of ethical implications (Palfrey & Gasser, 2016), and the beneficial use of social robots nonetheless has ethical implications such as emotional dependency and privacy (Kvedar, Colman, & Cella, 2017). C7. Managing the digital experience. While nearly all books on digital technology and society have sections on policy, implementation, and individual recommendations, some specifically focus on advice, based on research, on how to manage and improve one’s digital experience. James (2014), for example, explicates the concept of conscientious connectivity, which involves both ethical thinking as well as awareness of and sensitivity to online dilemmas. Other approaches include exercises for mindful technology use (Levy, 2016), and thriving online (Rheingold, 2012). Johnson (2015) develops the idea of an information diet, or how to evaluate and balance one’s online behaviors and use of information. Other guides are designed for parents interested in protecting their family from the negative aspects of the digital age (Steiner, Adair, & Barker, 2013), attempting to protect your online data and identity (Schneier, 2015), and reducing online shame and hate (Scheff & Schorr, 2017). Rowan-Kenyon, Aleman, and Savitz-Romer (2018) specifically honed in on how universities can improve the experience and retention of first-generation college students through their engagement with digital technology.

D. Contexts D1. Digitization of self and others. As devices become smaller, and more powerful, wireless, and connected, very personalized uses have developed, creating the quantified

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   19 self movement. People use biosensors (such as fitness trackers, smartphones, eye- and face-scanners, and even implants) to record their activities and responses, both for personal interest and health monitoring (Kvedar, Colman, & Cella, 2017; Lupton, 2016), but also for advertising and consumer user behavior (Turow, 2017). Interestingly, while in one way this allows people to develop a more detailed sense of their own identity, shared quantified self data creates online communities who compare and even compete (including, for example, brain scans; Barney et al., 2016). To some extent, this is one form of the cyborg or the singularity, or the melding of humans and machines (Beyes, Leeker, & Schipper, 2017; Kember & Zylinska, 2012; Mosco, 2017). Further, large-scale collection of such data can be used for medical diagnoses, genetic and epidemiological analyses, and possible threats to insurance and employment. As a form of the Internet of things, these applications extend to animals as well, for tracking their diet and health, as well as provenance, ownership, location, and migration, from cats to cattle to whales (Pschera & Lauffer, 2016). As a complement to this digital data collection via bodily devices and social media, Humphreys (2018) shows how people have been recording and commenting on their personal information for ages, through baby books, photo albums, pocket diaries, and postcards, to account for their everyday lives. D2. Health. Health is another major context for digital technology, including computerized medical instrumentation, digital device implants, data collection and analysis, health information monitoring, digital records, network sharing of medical information, online health information seeking, and mediated communication within support communities and between patients and caregivers (Rains, 2018; Turkle, 2011). Such technologies can be used for large-scale as well as personalized health interventions, improve one’s life-span and health-span (Kvedar, Colman, & Cella, 2017), as well as help manage end-of-life and bereavement (Rains, 2018). D3. Relationships. From a communication and interaction perspective, personal and social relationships are a major context for the use and implications of digital technologies. A frequent focus is on how people create, manage, promote, and try to protect, their (multiple) online identities and selfhood (Lindgren, 2017). This is especially salient for youth users (boyd, 2014; Ito et al., 2009; Palfrey & Gasser, 2016; Turkle, 2011), in their social and classroom lives (Livingstone, Sefton, & Green, 2016). Other central foci are about online ethnic, gender, racial, and sexual identities (Graham, 2014; Reed, 2014), and about how data mining entities construct and constrain our online and even offline identities (Cheney-Lippold, 2017). Online communities and services also hold the promise for bringing together individual identities to create a more powerful and positive (or negative) collective identity (González-Bailón, 2017; Rheingold, 2012), but also blur the distinctions between public and private, and offline and online, identities (White, 2014). Digital technology and society of course involve far more than just individual-level identity. More relational contexts include engaging in online intimacy even though the content may be public (Ito et al., 2009). Yet our technologies may be distorting intimacy; as Turkle (2011) notes, immersion in social media and mobile phones may create an illusion of intimacy while distancing actual personal relationships. The mobile phone

20   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. and social media may help maintain family relationships, especially when children move away to college (Rowan-Kenyon, Aleman, & Savitz-Romer, 2018), but also serve to wrest control away from parental monitoring and socialization (Graham, 2014; Ito et al., 2009; Livingstone & Green, 2016), both by youth and by their peers and marketing companies (Steiner, Adair, & Barker, 2013). And, of course, much work concerns the nature, engagement in, and effects of online communities, ranging from political to health and culture (Lindgren, 2017). D4. User groups. Different kinds of audiences, groups, or users have different motivations for and experiences with online and digital technology, so some books focus on specific user groups. These include how African Americans use such technologies to deal with inequalities (Graham, 2014), how students engage with technology to manager their transition from home to their first year at college (Rowan-Kenyon, Aleman, & Savitz-Romer, 2018), how the elderly can manage the end of their lifespan (Rains, 2018), how LGBTQ members engage in media activism, promote visibility, and work to combat suicide (Fotopoulou, 2017 Gordon & Mihailidis, 2016), and how worshippers participate in mediated liturgy practices, such as digital prayer chapels and live-streaming of religious services (Berger, 2017). Much work looks at how youth use digital media, with both positive and negative implications (Bauerlein,  2011). For example, boyd (2014) considers why youth share so much online and why they are so obsessed with social media, Graham and Dutton’s book (2014) includes chapters on children’s Internet use and next generation digital divides, and Steiner, Adair, and Barker (2013) consider how the digital age is significantly affecting childhood. D5. Culture, everyday life, education, learning. More general daily concerns include the ways in which ubiquitous computing might affect the form and meaning of domesticity (Dourish & Bell, 2011) and everyday life practices, such as how society is becoming embedded in software (Berry,  2015), the digital experiences of African Americans (Graham, 2014), and how the Internet is interwoven throughout children’s lives at home, school, and play (Livingstone, 2009). Research investigates the role of digital technology in education and learning, such as the participatory potential for education (Barney et al., 2016; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014), the need for greater civic education (Gordon & Mihailidis, 2016), how young people do, or do not, learn through digital media within their daily class contexts (Livingstone, Sefton, & Green, 2016), the need for greater dig­ ital literacy (Johnson 2015; Rheingold, 2012) and ways in which educational technologies such as MOOCs and scholarly publishing are changing the nature of teaching and research (Reed, 2014). Concerns about digital culture include how digital technology shapes and is influenced by broad societal culture (Wiesinger & Beliveau, 2016), artistic and creative culture (Reed, 2014), and the culture(s) associated with particular media, such as mobile phones (Lindgren, 2017). D6. Work and organizations. Another major context, work and organizations, is considered much more in the management and information systems literature. However, recent digital technology and society books discuss how business models, industries, and economies are being transformed, such as through crowdsourcing, crowdfunding,

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   21 and microcelebrity (Bennett, Chin, & Jones, 2015); the “gig” economy such as Uber and Airbnb (Daley, 2015); and the ability to identify and monetize attention (Wu, 2017). They also discuss how the very nature of organizations and industries is changing, towards more networked, virtual, and distributed forms (Graham & Dutton, 2014). Note that these opportunities and challenges also apply to not necessarily commercial or for-profit contexts, such as health provision and caregiving (Kvedar, Colman, & Cells, 2017), and smart cities and technology parks (Hanna, 2016). Not only are innovation processes crucial to the development and diffusion of new digital technologies, but such technologies are also necessary for implementing other innovations. For example, innovations in medical technologies can transform experiences and possibilities for the disabled (Ellcessor,  2016), patients (Sonnier,  2017), and caregivers (Rossignoli, Virili, & Za, 2017), and innovative designs for egovernment (such as ways to visualize data, involvement in open policymaking, engaging young and feminist activists) can foster greater civic engagement (Gordon & Mihailidis, 2016). Digital innovations are making work-life boundaries more permeable (Alter, 2017; Schwab, 2017), increasing the ability to share and manage knowledge (Botto & Resende, 2017), and threatening the loss of traditional and even knowledge work through artificial intelligence, algorithms, blockchain technology, and robots (Ford, 2015; Tapscott & Tapscott, 2018). D7. Law, policy, regulation. As many have noted, technology develops and diffuses faster than laws, policy, and regulation can keep up with. Should the Internet and social media be regulated as a common carrier, or subject to the same regulations and liabilities as other publishers (Graham & Dutton, 2014)? Who should govern what aspects of the Internet (Mueller, 2010)? What are the effects of supporting or removing net neutrality? Should algorithms affecting search results and service provision be regulated and made explicit (Eubanks, 2018)? What policies and regulations best stimulate public ICT provision (Hanna, 2016)? Is a HIPAA sufficient to protect personal digital medical records (Sonnier, 2017)?

E. Effects E1. Negative effects. An enduring research, policy, and popular topic is the extent to which digital technologies are associated with negative or positive effects. The list of possible implications is endless. The books included here refer to just a few. Addiction is at the top of many people’s list, both alphabetically and behaviorally (Alter, 2017). As Turkle (2011, p. 154) notes, “Always on and (now) always with us, we tend the Net, and the Net teaches us to need it.” But she argues that addiction is not inherent to the technology; rather it’s to how we practice the use of that technology. For example, social pressures to be constantly accessible and to respond quickly create stress and reinforce dependencies (Turkle, 2011). Excessive use also ends up wasting considerable time, often fostering feelings of guilt (Goldsmith, 2016). Watching YouTube music videos, and endlessly scrolling friends’ text messages, do not strengthen personal relations or get one’s (home) work done.

22   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. As noted in the terms associated with digital technology and society, attention has gained a lot of attention, not only in regard to the commercial focus on collecting and analyzing user attention, but also about the cognitive effects of excessive screen use and multitasking on attention span (Bauerlein, 2011; Carr, 2011). Further, excessive attention to our devices reduces our attention to those people around us (Turkle, 2011, p. 268). Research has identified a wide array of possible dangers, harms, and risk, including cyberbullying (Bauerlein, 2011), information overload (Johnson, 2015), threats to children (Livingstone, 2009), and loss of control over one’s identity in the present and the future. Turkle (2011), for example, notes people’s vulnerability is not just limited to their communication or site content, but also to anyone taking a photo of them or posting comments about them. There is thus a constant worry about one’s offline behavior being recorded and distributed. This leads some to self-censor and self-surveil both their online and offline comments and behavior. Another kind of harm is online harassment, shaming, hating, and trolling (Scheff & Schorr, 2017), negatively affecting everyone from children to CEOs and celebrities. E2. Positive effects. Needless to say, digital technologies are associated with many positive benefits. Chief among these is the ability to connect and communicate with others, from family and friends to fellow group members, and with people and organizations otherwise unknown and inaccessible, allowing the co-creation of meaning and sharing of resources, from emotional support to complex information (Barney et al.,  2016). Computing and networking support new and distributed forms of collaboration and cooperation, increasingly between humans and machines, necessary for accomplishing tasks, creating content, and generating innovative ideas (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Rheingold, 2012; Rossignoli, Virili, & Za, 2017). Tools such as mobile phones and GPS also improve one’s safety (boyd,  2014), and keep others aware of your locations and activities (Turkle, 2011). This support for connectivity and relationships also develops social and cultural capital (Graham, 2014). E3. Societal effects. More societal negative effects include the uses of digital technologies for crime, including hacking and identity theft, fomenting hate crimes, and drug and sex trafficking, among many others (Goodman, 2015). Also, little understood is the increasingly devastating environmental implications of digital technology, including cloud computing (with its need for massive server farms consuming increasingly more energy) and toxic materials recycling (Cubitt, 2016, Hu, 2015, Mosco, 2017). Digital, networked ICTs have a wide range of negative and positive implications for economies and economics, such as facilitating rapid and global financial crises, and threats to particular industries and jobs, but also making information and transactions more transparent and efficient, and supporting micro-economic and entrepreneurial activities and produsage (Graham & Dutton, 2014; Hanna, 2016; Martin, 2017). ICTs have held great promise for the developing world, from markets and health, to farming and education (Hanna, 2016; White, 2014). Other global impacts include occasions for (more or less successful) citizen participation (Castells, 2015), and broader intercultural communication (Cover, 2015).

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   23 E4. Contradictions, paradoxes, tensions, and unintended effects. Interwoven throughout discussions of effects of digital technology is the awareness of contradictions, paradoxes, tensions, and unintended consequences. The very concept of online expression is ambivalent, indicating helpful as well as harmful intent and content (Phillips & Milner, 2018). Both positive and negative implications may be associated with a particular technology or use, often simultaneously, and paradoxically. Online feminist and queer activist communities can use the same technologies that mis-portray or exclude them as ways to construct and promote valued identities (Fotopoulou, 2017). Digital technologies are both highly useful and entertaining, but also create stress, overload, and complications (Levy, 2016); they blur boundaries between work and home, private and public (Krieger & Belliger, 2014). Online and social media communication can strengthen relationships and promote intimacy while also generating user data that are processed by other digital technologies and software around the world to group, categorize, and target audiences (Beyes, Leeker, & Schipper, 2017). For example, Turkle (2011) identifies the following paradoxes (p. 176, 280): • Connectivity brings us closer, but some use technology to hide from others • In order to feel like themselves, users must be connected to their devices and others • It is easy to find others to interact with, but also to become tired by demands to perform • It is possible to make many new connections, but they are often tentative and temporary • Mobile phones enable as well as inhibit separation from parents, partners, work • Nonstop connection also means limited attention by self or others • People can play with identity but are less free from their past • People like online linkages and features that are based on knowledge about one’s use, but they are also concerned about the loss of privacy and are constrained by externally created online identity • People reject real-time phone but get lost in real-time online gaming • Providing online content may be available to immediate and broad audiences, but the content is often depersonalized and abbreviated • The ability to work from anywhere means one cannot escape work • Users develop expectations of instant connections to and response from others, but they themselves are then expected to always be available and respond ourselves • Users themselves acknowledge tensions between good and bad aspects, and often say they are resigned to this condition. What some researchers or users may perceive as a positive aspect may be considered negative by others. For example, increased ability to participate online may take the form of reading and posting only to groups with the same interest or political position, thus limiting exposure to diverse ideas and strengthening polarization (though Webster, 2014, argues that audiences are fragmented, but also participate in various venues,

24   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. creating overlapping audiences). By accident or user intent, technology may be used in ways that designers, vendors, or implementers did not intend, expect, or imagine (Lingel, 2017). For example, González-Bailón (2017) shows how data mining and network analysis can reveal unintended consequences of individual behavior for collective outcomes. Even use of digital technology that might be critiqued as “wasting time” can provide a context for allowing thoughtfulness and creativity (Goldsmith, 2016). The same systems and features can promote support and caring (Rains, 2018) as well as  international crime and terrorism (Goodman,  2015), democratization as well as authoritarianism (Berry,  2015), learning as well as fragmented attention (Bauerlein, 2011), empowerment as well as addiction (Alter,  2017). ICTs may increase the pace of development and economic growth, but also increase inequities, work dislocation, and environmental degradation (Cubitt, 2016; Gershenfeld, Gershenfeld, & CutcherGershenfeld, 2017; Hanna, 2016).

Summary The preceding sections reviewed the main arguments and concerns about digital technology and society, organized by the emergent coding of subthemes and then the main codes of Theory and Conceptualization, Technology, Issues, Contexts, and Effects. This provides a subjective conceptual framework for identifying the most noted and discussed topics of 89 recent books. Another way to identify general arguments and concerns is to assess how those coded themes co-occur across the material about the 89 books. Figure 1.2 shows the hierarchical clustering of the coded themes, based on the Jaccard similarity coefficients derived from the co-occurrence of the codes in each source text (provided through NVivo 11). What constitutes a cluster, or main theme, depends on the cutoff between sets of codes one wants to use. The most general distinction is among three primary clusters. The first cluster includes Content, creation; Digitization of self & others; Ethics, ethical issues; Participation, engagement; and Manage digital experience. Given that many of the Ethics, ethical issues have to do with personal data privacy, much of the Content, creation material has to do with individual use or production of content, and Manage digital experience emphasizes how individual can (more, or less, effectively) attempt to manage their own digital usage, this cluster could be considered to represent a major general theme of Individual uses. The second cluster contains two subclusters. The first subcluster consists of Theory; Culture, everyday life, education, learning; Relationships; and User groups. This as a somewhat diverse grouping, but seems to represent the central social and theoretical contexts of digital technology: groups, relationships, culture. The second subcluster reflects more societal issues, such as policy, societal effects, civic and public sphere behavior, inequalities, organizations and technology, and very broad issues of the nature of the developing societal changes, along with big data. Thus, the entire two-fold cluster might be labeled Societal and technological issues.

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   25 C1Content, creation D1Digitization of self & others C6Ethics, ethical issues C4Participation, engagement C7Manage digital experience A1Theory D5Culture, everyday life, education, leaming D3Relationships D4User groups D7Law, policy, regulation E3Effects Societal C3Civic issues C5Inclusion, exclusion, discrimination B1Technology venues D6Work and organizations A2Names for new social era C2Big data, data mining, data storage, analytics, user data B2Technology characteristics D2Health E4Effects contradictions, paradoxes, tensions, unintended E1Effects Neg E2Effects Pos

Figure 1.2  Hierarchical clustering of main codes based on co-occurrence (correlation) of main and subcodes within each source text.

The third cluster is mostly about Effects, notably in the health arena, as well as aspects of technologies that might shape or influence those effects. Note that specific negative or positive effects are subsumed within the more complex topic of contradictory and unintended effects.

Related Work A detailed analysis of the full content of these books would provide a comprehensive review of topics associated with digital technology and society, to say nothing of what individual articles and chapters discuss. There is, of course, a huge range of review articles, chapters, books, and handbooks on the many aspects of digital media and society. There are journals in specific disciplines that publish reviews, and there are handbooks in a wide variety of related research areas. Almost all of those, however, focus on one discipline (e.g., management, information systems, sociology), or one dimension (or­gan­i­za­tional communication, privacy, identity), or one technology (e.g., Internet, social media, videogames). Further, edited books or handbooks in these areas bring together diverse, expert authors who contribute on the topic of their own specialty, often without an underlying integrative foundation. Finally, many books on the “digital age” are more popular, applied, or oriented toward marketing, technology, management, or consulting practice.

26   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. For example, Salganik’s Bit by bit: Social research in the digital age (2017) is about the conduct and design of research in the digital environment, such as using big data, experiments, and collaborative studies. Baym’s Personal connections in the digital age (2015) emphasizes the communication discipline and relationships. Similarly, the book edited by Wright and Web, Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (2011) exclusively focuses on relational communication. Other books, such as Noble and Tynes’ (2016) The intersectional Internet: Race, sex, class, and culture online do take a more interdisciplinary and multi-dimensional approach, applied to a range of digital media, platforms, and infrastructures, in more global and social contexts, but is pri­ma­ rily focused on the issue of intersectionality instead of on more general life in the digital age. Perhaps the single best overview is that of Mansell et al. (2015) International encyclopedia of digital communication and society, which covers 150 topics, ranging in length from 2,000 to 10,000 words. More relevant to this book, there are also handbooks on specific topics and media such as The Oxford handbook of Internet studies (Dutton, 2014); Routledge handbook of Internet politics (Chadwick & Howard, 2009); Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (Joinson & McKenna, 2009); Internet studies (Consalvo & Ess, 2012)–their book’s chapters do cover a number of similar topics, such as society, and culture, but again focus on the Internet; and Economics of the Internet (Bauer & Latzer, 2016). The two-volume Handbook of research on computer-mediated communication (Kelsey & St.-Amant, 2008) also covers some similar areas, such as identity (though from a credibility perspective), community and information exchange, and culture, but also different areas, such as instruction, design, discourse, and libraries, as well as chapters on specific technology contexts. Similarly, more handbooks on the mobile phone are appearing: Handbook of mobile communication studies (Katz, 2008) and Research on human social interaction in the age of mobile devices (Xu, 2016); as well as for related new media, such as Handbook of digital games (Angelides & Angus, 2014), and Sage handbook of social media (Poell & Marwick, 2018). Some handbooks are focused on particular populations, such as Handbook of children and the media (Singer & Singer, 2011). Sundar’s (2015) Handbook of the psychology of communication technology covers a wider array of digital contexts than many of the other books but does take a primarily individual and group perspective (reasonable, given the title), though also includes health issues. However, our book does not in any way overlap with the intriguing Handbook of porous media (Vafal, 2015). The only recent book that provides a similar multi-dimensional, interdisciplinary, and thematic review of recent research on life in the digital age is Graham and Dutton’s (2014, Oxford University Press) edited book Society & the Internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives. That excellent book frames the work as a major foundation for the new field of Internet studies (along with Dutton’s 2014 Oxford Handbook of Internet studies). Somewhat similar to the UK Economic and Social Research (ESRC) project theme chapters in our book (see the next section), the chapters in Graham and Dutton’s book evolved from research work and a lecture series at the Oxford Internet Institute. Their 23-chapter book covers some of the same main areas as

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   27 our book (with main sections called: Internet studies of everyday life; Information and culture on the line; Networked politics and governments; Networked businesses, industries, and economics; and Technological and Regulatory histories and futures). That book complements this book, but is primarily focused on the Internet, and does not have the organizing framework of the ESRC project reviews.

Purpose and Origins of This Book Purpose and Domains The purpose of chapters in this handbook is to provide detailed reviews of central topics about digital technology and society within our seven domain sections. It includes interdisciplinary, comprehensive reviews on central aspects of the current digital age. After the following chapter on project methodology, the next sections move from more individual and relational domains (Section 2: Health, Age, and Home; Section 3: Communication and, Relationships) to more organizational, community, and citizenship domains (Section 4: Organizational Contexts; Section 5: Communities, Identities, and Class; Section 6: Citizenship, Politics, and Participation), and then to more societal and governance domains (Section 7: Data, Representation, and Sharing; and Section 8: Governance and Accountability). It ends with Section 9: Synthesis. The chapters within each section provide a solid foundation for understanding the current state of research and theory in each of these areas and for grounding future research, theory, and practice. They also bring to bear literature from a wide variety of disciplines, necessary for understanding the interrelationships between digital technology and society.

Origins How did these chapters come to life? In 2016, the UK Economic and Social Research Council (http://www.esrc.ac.uk/) noted that “[t]he 21st century has witnessed significant changes due to digital technological advancements, which impacts the way we communicate, receive, consume and proc­ess information, travel, shop and do our work. The presence of digital technology mediates our perceptions, behaviours and practices across these areas and influences our ways of living, learning, sharing, engaging and seeing the world around us. This raises a number of fundamental questions about our ways of being in a dig­ital age, the risks and opportunities associated with digital living, and our understanding of the individual, community and society [. . . .] It is apparent that there is a real need for meta-analytic work to synthesise and interpret the existing literature and data, to refine and consolidate existing understanding of the social, cultural, economic, political, psychological and other effects of digitalisation. This

28   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. will enable the development of new insights, ideas and methods to be applied to a practical context. This approach will facilitate the exploitation of existing research, but also build new knowledge on synthetic work” (p. 2).

The University of Liverpool, in collaboration with a core project team, and 17 other partner Universities and organizations from the UK, EU, USA and Singapore, lead the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) scoping review on Ways of Being in a Digital Age (see https://waysofbeingdigital.com/ for details on the project, people, events, and reports). That scoping study developed a multi-domain holistic view of how digital technology mediates our lives, and of the way technological and social change co-evolve and shape each other. The project involved an i­ nterdisciplinary research team across the social sciences, arts and humanities, engineering, physical sciences and health. The final report included reviews and analyses in six domains: Communication, community, and identity; Citizens, politics, and governance; Understanding the platform economy; Data and digital literacies for engaged and included citizens; Everyday digital health and well-being; and Digital inequalities.

Conclusions and Recommendations from the ESRC Project The final ESRC report recommended funding initiatives to emphasize these six core areas. The work should have a strongly social science focus, even where it is interdisciplinary. The topics should avoid areas that are already well researched or have been supported by recent or current funding programs. Research efforts need to look more holistically at the social, economic, political, cultural, and community impacts and roles of digital technologies. The ESRC report proposed the following six areas, each with associated research topics derived from the literature reviews and analyses, the Delphi surveys and discussions, and the stakeholder workshops and discussions.

Communication, community, and identity • The norms and values of digital communication and relationships • The “affordances” different platforms provide for digital communication and relationships • The quality of relationships and communication supported by digital media and technologies • The management of relationships via digital media and technologies • Social and community aspects of everyday digital technology use • Digital community exclusion/inclusion • Digital community participation, action and social change • Power in online communities • Understanding global diaspora as digital communities • Understanding function of aspects of identity online (Gender/Race/Ethnicity/ Sexuality)

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   29

Citizens, politics, and governance • Digital technologies, radicalization, mobilization and political action • Digital technologies and the disruption of current political institutions • Digital technologies and new forms of citizenship • Digital technologies, political communication, debate and media • Digital technologies and state control–especially in non-democratic regimes • Impact of social media on governance • Success factors in digital governance at local, national and international level • Privacy, citizenship, the state and surveillance in the digital age • Regulation and governance of automated systems

Understanding the platform economy • Role and impact of major corporate digital platforms (Impacts on firms of digital platforms, Role of digital monopolies and large corporations) • Forms of digital labor (Impacts of digital labor on people’s life experience, Gig economy, linked to platforms)

Data and digital literacies for engaged and included citizens • Citizen and community use of data • Citizen interaction with data and algorithms • Data literacy in everyday life • Power and accountability for data and algorithms • Social construction of data and algorithms • Citizens/everyday life experiences and uses of data • Understanding open data/algorithm transparency/accountability • Digital identity and data • Data Exclusion/Inclusion/Divides

Everyday digital health and well-being • Understanding and addressing the governance of digital health technologies. • Need for detailed systematic evidence of the impact and lived experience of everyday health technologies (e.g., fitbits). • Questions of health and well-being in the digital workplace. • Digital technologies and health communication and health behavior change.

Digital inequalities • Digital community exclusion/inclusion • The two-way interaction between digital inequities and other areas of social inequity • Data exclusion/inclusion/divides • Digital cultural capital and cultural exclusion/inclusion • Digital governance, policy and inclusion • Digital health inequalities

30   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. For this book, these have been reorganized into the following seven ESRC domain chapters: • Chapter 3. ESRC Review: Health and well-being • Chapter 8. ESRC Review: Communication and relationships • Chapter 11. ESRC Review: Economy and organizations • Chapter 14. ESRC Review: Communities and identities • Chapter 16. ESRC Review: Citizenship and politics • Chapter 18. ESRC Review: Data and representation • Chapter 22. ESRC Review: Governance and security

Beyond the ESRC Project As culmination of this project, a conference to present project findings and provide a context for debate was held on October 10 and 11 2017 at the University of Liverpool (https://waysofbeingdigital.com/conference/). To complement and critique the work of the ESRC project reviews, a call was publicized (through association email lists and websites, and the conference website) to invite others to submit their extended abstracts for presentation at the conference. Each presentation was attended by at least one of the editors. After the conference, the editors went through the program and decided which of the other researchers to invite to prepare their abstracts, presentations, or papers as full reviews for the edited book. We were particularly interested in papers that built on reviews to offer analysis of research gaps and challenges for social research in the digital age. Contributions come from established, early career, and PhD scholars who systematically reviewed a research issue within one of the seven foci of the ESRC project. Two further workshops developed a closer focus on issues of work and automation. The joint UK ESRC and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory workshop held on 7th and 8th of October 2016 at University of Liverpool in London considered the topic of The Automation of Future Roles. This meeting brought together 33 academics, policy makers, and industry stakeholders to explore the likely future impact of digital tools in the workplace, in particular the possible implications of the continued ­“automation” of human tasks, roles, and jobs; knowledge, skills, and attributes; ­organizational structures, cultures, and development; workforce training, recruitment, engagement, and motivation; and decision-making in organizations. A joint UK ESRC and US National Science Foundation workshop was held on October 12 and 13 2017 at the University of Liverpool on the topic of Changing Work, Changing Lives in the New Technological World. This brought together 35 experts from the academic and professional community, as well as top executive and program directors from the  U.K.  Economic and Social Research Council and the U.S.  National Science Foundation to discuss shared programmatic research. In both cases the two days consisted of intensely interactive group activities, generating extensive information about issues, research programs, and timelines for possible impacts. The write-up

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   31 and analysis of these insights provided the basis for chapter 24, which synthesizes the implications of the domains for research and practice. Thus, two primary contributions of the book’s review chapters are their unifying approach and review focus, as well as the diversity of the authors’ expertise and disciplines. The central ESRC domain reviews are the product of extensive, multi-method, cumulative work, and provide a macro context for the associated more focused reviews of specific areas within that section. The non-ESRC chapters hone in on more specific topics within each of the domains, bringing to bear multi-disciplinary reviews and analyses. Overall, the sections and chapters provide a multi-dimensional perspective on one of the most consequential aspects of contemporary times: relationships between digital technology and society.

References in Main Text Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books. Beniger, J. (1989). The control revolution: Technological and economic origins of the information society. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Brand, S. (1987). The Media Lab: Inventing the future at MIT. New York: Viking Penguin. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Curtin, M. & Sanson, K. (Eds.) (2016). Precarious creativity: Global media, local labor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Daley, B. (2015). Where data is wealth: Profiting from data storage in a digital society. Stoke-OnTrent, UK: Play Technologies. Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital Labour and Karl Marx. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. Headrick, D. R. (2002). When information came of age: Technologies of knowledge in the age of reason and revolution, 1700–1850. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States (Vol. 278). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Vintage. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. NY: Oxford University Press. Porat, M. U. (1971). The information economy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Library. Yates, J. (1993). Control through communication: The rise of system in American management. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Zuboff, S. (1985). Automate/informate: The two faces of intelligent technology. Organizational Dynamics, 14(2), 5–18.

References of Books for Issues and Contexts Analysis [Numbers refer to their use in Table 6] 1. Alter, A. (2017). Irresistible: The rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked. London: Penguin. 2. Anand, B. (2016). The content trap: A strategist’s guide to digital change. New York: Random House Group.

32   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. 3. Anduiza, E., Perea, E. A., Jensen, M. J., & Jorba, L. (Eds.). (2012). Digital media and political engagement worldwide: A comparative study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 4. Athique, A. (2013). Digital media and society: An introduction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 5. Barney, D., Coleman, G., Ross, C., Sterne, J., & Tembeck, T. (Eds.) (2016). The participatory condition in the digital age. University of Minnesota Press. 6. Bauerlein, M. (2011). The digital divide: Arguments for and against Facebook, Google, texting, and the age of social networking. London: Penguin. 7. Bennett, L., Chin, B., & Jones, B. (Eds.). (2015). Crowdfunding the future: Media industries, ethics, and digital society (No. 98). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. 8. Berger, T. (2017). @ Worship: Liturgical practices in digital worlds. New York: Routledge. 9. Berry, D. M. (2015). Critical theory and the digital. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA. 10. Beyes, T., Leeker, M., & Schipper, I. (Eds.). (2017). Performing the digital: Performance studies and performances in digital cultures. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript-Verlag. 11. Botto, R. & Resende, L.M. (2017). Digital transformations: Technological innovations in society in the connected future. Independently published via Amazon Digital Services. 12. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 13. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York: WW Norton & Company. 14. Buckland, M. (2017). Information and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 15. Bunz, M., & Meikle, G. (2017). The Internet of things. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 16. Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: WW Norton & Company. 17. Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 18. Chayko, M. (2017). Superconnected: The internet, digital media, and techno-social life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 19. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York: NYU Press. 20. Chun, W. H. K. (2017). Updating to remain the same: Habitual new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 21. Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity. 22. Cover, R. (2015). Digital identities: Creating and communicating the online self. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. 23. Cubitt, S. (2016). Finite media: Environmental implications of digital technologies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 24. Daley, B. (2015). Where data is wealth: Profiting from data storage in a digital society. Play Technologies. 25. Dey, A. (2018). Nirbhaya, New media and digital gender activism. Bingley, UK: Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Pub Ltd. 26. Dourish, P., & Bell, G. (2011). Divining a digital future: Mess and mythology in ubiquitous computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 27. Ellcessor, E. (2016). Restricted access: Media, disability, and the politics of participation. New York: NYU Press. 28. Elliott, D., & Spence, E. H. (2017). Ethics for a digital era. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   33 29. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 30. Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. New York: Basic Books. 31. Fotopoulou, A. (2017). Feminist activism and digital networks: Between empowerment and vulnerability. New York: Springer. 32. Gershenfeld, N., Gershenfeld, A., & Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. (2017). Designing reality: How to survive and thrive in the third digital revolution. New York: Basic Books. 33. Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (Eds.). (2014). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 34. Goldsmith, K. (2016). Wasting time on the Internet. New York: Harper Perennial. 35. González-Bailón, S. (2017). Decoding the social world: Data science and the unintended consequences of communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 36. Goodman, M. (2015). Future crimes: Inside the digital underground and the battle for our connected world. New York: Random House. 37. Gordon, E., & Mihailidis, P. (Eds.). (2016). Civic media: Technology, design, practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 38. Graham, M. & Dutton, W.  H. (Eds.) (2014). Society & the Internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 39. Graham, R. (2014). The digital practices of African Americans: An approach to studying cultural change in the information society. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. 40. Gronlund, M. (2016). Contemporary art and digital culture. New York: Routledge. 41. Hanna, N. K. (Ed.). (2016). Mastering digital transformation: Towards a smarter society, economy, city and nation. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 42. Hu, T. H. (2015). A prehistory of the cloud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 43. Humphreys, L. (2018). The qualified self: Social media and the accounting of everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 44. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., Cody, R., Stephenson, B. H., Horst, H. A., . . . & Tripp, L, (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 45. James, C. (2014). Disconnected: Youth, new media, and the ethics gap. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 46. Johnson, C. A. (2015). The information diet: A case for conscious consumption. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. 47. Kember, S., & Zylinska, J. (2012). Life after new media: Mediation as a vital process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 48. Krieger, D.  J., & Belliger, A. (2014). Interpreting networks: Hermeneutics, actor-network theory & new media (Vol. 4). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript-Verlag. 49. Kvedar, J.  C., Colman, C., & Cella, G. (2017). The new mobile age: How technology will extend the healthspan and optimize the lifespan. Amazon Digital Services. 50. Levy, D. M. (2016). Mindful tech: How to bring balance to our digital lives. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. 51. Lindgren, S. (2017). Digital media and society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 52. Lingel, J. (2017). Digital countercultures and the struggle for community. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 53. Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

34   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. 54. Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Green, J. (2016). The class: Living and learning in the digital age. New York: NYU Press. 55. Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 56. Lynch, M. P. (2016). The internet of us: Knowing more and understanding less in the age of big data. New York: WW Norton & Company. 57. Mansell, R., Ang, P. H, Steinfield, C., van der Graaf, S., Ballon, P., Kerr, A., . . . Grimshaw, D. J. (Eds.). (2015). The International encyclopedia of digital communication and society (3 volume set). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 58. Martin, W. J. (2017). The global information society. New York: Routledge. 59. Mosco, V. (2017). Becoming digital: Toward a post-Internet society. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited. 60. Mueller, M.  L. (2010). Networks and states: The global politics of Internet governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 61. Nafus, D. (Ed.). (2016). Quantified: Biosensing technologies in everyday life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 62. Napoli, P. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. New York: Columbia University Press. 63. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York: NYU Press. 64. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2016). Born digital: How children grow up in a digital age. New York: Basic Books. 65. Penney, J. (2017). The citizen marketer: Promoting political opinion in the social media age. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 66. Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2018). The ambivalent Internet: Mischief, oddity, and antagonism online. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 67. Pschera, A. & Lauffer, E. (translator) (2016). Animal Internet: Nature and the digital revolution. New York: New Vessel Press. 68. Rains, S. A. (2018). Coping with illness digitally. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 69. Reed, T.  V. (2014). Digitized lives: Culture, power, and social change in the Internet era. New York: Routledge. 70. Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 7 1. Rossignoli, C., Virili, F., & Za, S. (Eds.). (2017). Digital technology and organizational change: Reshaping technology, people, and organizations towards a global society. New York: Springer. 72. Rowan-Kenyon, H.  T., Alemán, A.  M.  M., & Savitz-Romer, M. (2018). Technology and engagement: Making technology work for first generation college students. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 73. Rudder, C. (2014). Dataclysm: Love, sex, race, and identity—What our online lives tell us about our offline selves. Crown. 74. Scheff, S., & Schorr, M. (2017). Shame nation: The global epidemic of online hate. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc. 75. Schneier, B. (2015). Data and Goliath: The hidden battles to collect your data and control your world. New York: WW Norton & Company. 76. Scholz, T. (Ed.). (2012). Digital labor: The Internet as playground and factory. New York: Routledge. 77. Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. New York: Crown Business. 78. Shifman, L. (2014). Memes in digital culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Introduction: Terms, Domains, and Themes   35 79. Sonnier, P. (2017). The fourth wave: Digital health. https://storyofdigitalhealth.com/ fourth-wave-book 80. Steiner-Adair, C. & Barker, T. H. (2013). The big disconnect: Protecting childhood and family relationships in the digital age. New York: Harper Business. 81. Tapscott, D. & Tapscott, A. (2018). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is changing the world. New York: Portfolio-Penguin. 82. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books. 83. Turow, J. (2012). The daily you: How the new advertising industry is defining your identity and your worth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 84. Turow, J. (2017). The aisles have eyes: How retailers track your shopping, strip your privacy, and define your power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 85. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 86. Webster, J. G. (2014). The marketplace of attention: How audiences take shape in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 87. White, A. (2014). Digital media and society: Transforming economics, politics and social practices. New York: Springer. 88. Wiesinger, S., & Beliveau, R. (2016). Digital literacy: A primer on media, identity, and the evolution of technology. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang. 89. Wu, T. (2017). The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads. New York: Vintage

chapter 2

ESRC R ev iew: M ethodol ogy Simeon J. Yates, Iona C. Hine, Michael Pidd, Jerome Fuselier, and Paul Watry

Introduction As noted in chapter 1 of this book, many of the chapters are developed from the findings of the “Ways of Being in a Digital Age” project commissioned by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). This scoping review project was commissioned to provide a more holistic view of research on how digital technology mediates our lives, and of the ways technological and social change co-evolve and impact each other. A core goal of the project was to undertake a systematic literature review and synthesis of expert opinions so as to identify gaps in current research. This chapter sets out how the data and results presented in the ESRC overview chapters of this book were generated (chapters 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 22). The methods used were in part defined by the nature of the challenge: as the project was commissioned to complete the review in just under 12 months, a considerable part of the project had to be automated in some manner. This provided the opportunity to examine a range of “digital” methods by which a large body of literature, data, and evidence could be summarized.

Participants Project Team The core project team consisted of staff who, at the time, were based at the University of Liverpool, University of Sheffield, and University of Newcastle. A broader group of UK co-investigators and non-UK advisors from 16 universities across the UK, EU, USA, and Singapore also supported the project. This provided expertise across a range of social

ESRC Review: Methodology   37 Table 2.1  Steering Group Group member Role

Group Institution

Discipline

Research

Simeon Yates

PI, Core

SG

University of Liverpool

Social science

Digital culture

Michael Pidd

Co-I, Core DH

University of Sheffield

History

Digital humanities

Adam Joinson Co-I

SG

University of Bath

Psychology

Computermediated communication

Ann Light

Co-I

SG

University of Sussex

HCI and design

Human computer interaction and design

Simon Maskell Co-I

SG

University of Liverpool

Computer science

Data analytics

Claire Taylor

Co-I

SG

University of Liverpool

Modern languages

Digital culture and community

Leanne Townsend

Co-I

SG

University of Aberdeen

Sociology

Communities and digital

Vishanth Weerakkody

Co-I

SG

Brunel University

Information studies

e-Government

Bridgette Wessels

Co-I, Core SG

University of Newcastle

Sociology

Internet studies

Monica Whitty

Co-I

SG

University of Leicester

Psychology

Identity and security online

Naomi Baron

SG

American University, Washington, D.C.

Linguistics

Computermediated communication

Catherine Brookes

SG

University of Arizona

Information studies

Identity online

William Dutton

SG

Michigan State University

Communication studies

Internet studies

Alex Frame

SG

University of Bourgogne, Dijon

Linguistics

Digital media and politics

Ellen Helsper

SG

London School of Economics

Communication studies

Digital inclusion

Rich Ling

SG

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Sociology

Media technology

Alison Preston

SG

Ofcom

Media policy

Head of media Literacy research

Ronald E. Rice

SG

University of California, Santa Barbara

Communication

New media, diffusion

Laura Robinson

SG

Santa Clara University/ University of California Berkley

Sociology

Digital exclusion

(continued)

38   Simeon J. Yates et al. Table 2.1  Continued Group member Role

Group Institution

Discipline

Research

Alison Vincent

SG

Cisco

CDI sector

Chief technology officer for Cisco

Paul Watry

DH

University of Liverpool

School of Histories, Digital Languages, and humanities Cultures

Note: SG = steering group; DH = digital humanities group

science, arts, engineering, and science backgrounds (see Table 2.1). Overall these colleagues predominantly provided input to the Delphi elements of the project, workshops, and conferences. The key contribution from all these colleagues was the provision of initial inclusion criteria, key words, and key citations for the systematic reviews. The main technical partner for this project was the Digital Humanities Institute (DHI) at the University of Sheffield. In this project the DHI provided the technical and analytical skills to undertake the concept-modelling work needed to explore the full range of literature covered by the review chapters. The work of the DHI was complimented by University of Liverpool researchers using related methods.

Stakeholder Engagement In order for both academics and potential stakeholders to have an opportunity to inform the review within the short time frame, the team made use of key networks of which they were already members. As will be detailed in the section on the Delphi methods, these existing networks were key to the initial data collection. To connect with nonacademics, the project worked with the Digital Leaders network as a route to engage private sector, public sector, and third sector partners (http://digileaders.com). Established by Martha Lane Fox, the Digital Leaders network provides access to around 40,000 corporate, Small and Medium Sized Enterprise (SME), national government, local government, academic, and charity staff and organizations. The project lead (Yates) ran the Digital Leaders Research theme. Yates and Helsper are also members of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s (DCMS) Digital Skills and Inclusion Research Working Group, which undertakes reviews of UK digital engagement strategy and policy research. All of the UK Steering Group members have been members of relevant ESRC, Arts and Humanities Research Council, or Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council networks, funded programs, or have had senior roles in UK Research and Innovation policy and practice in regard to digital research. Other networks that the overall team are part of include the Communities and Cultures Network; New Social Media, New Social Science Network; European Sociological Association (Communities and Digital Cultures groups); International Communication Association (Communication and

ESRC Review: Methodology   39 Technology Section); US Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide; Digital Latin American Cultures Network; Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats; the Cabinet Office Behavioural Science Expert Group; ESRC Emoticon Network; EU COST Action on Social Media and Social Networks; ECREA Material Digital Cultures group; British Sociological Association Digital Sociology group; the EU e-forum; and the Meccsa Policy Group.

Initial Outline for the Scoping Areas Domains and Goals The ESRC commission identified a number of potential questions for future research work. The scoping review took these as a starting point that could be added to, developed, and validated. The team separated these into seven major foci for the review (see Table 2.2). We have called these seven foci “domains.” The goal of the review was to assess the following for each domain:

Table 2.2  Initial Scoping Questions 1.  Citizenship and politics How does digital technology impact our autonomy, agency, and privacy—illustrated by the paradox of emancipation and control? Is our understanding of citizenship evolving in the digital age—for example does technology help or hinder us in participating at individual and community levels? If so how? 2.  Communities and identities How do we define and authenticate ourselves in a digital age? What new forms of communities and work emerge as a result of digital technologies—for example, new forms of coordination including large-scale and remote collaboration? 3.  Communication and relationships How are our relationships being shaped and sustained in and between various domains, including family and work? 4.  Health and well-being Does technology makes us healthier, better educated, and more productive? 5.  Economy and sustainability How do we construct the digital to be open to all, sustainable, and secure? What impacts might the automation of the future workforce bring? 6.  Data and representation How do we live with and trust the algorithms and data analysis used to shape key features of our lives? 7.  Governance and security What are the challenges of ethics, trust, and consent in the digital age? How do we define responsibility and accountability in the digital age?

40   Simeon J. Yates et al. • What existing literature addressed these domains and what central topics emerged from them • How the reported research addressed these domains • What experts viewed as the gaps in understanding in regard to these domains • Some suggestions of future research directions and challenges for each of these domains The reviews also sought to describe and assess the use of theory and of methods in each of the domains.

Use of Theory This element of the analysis considered how theories are used both deductively to set up empirical work and/or to provide explanation and conclusions from inductive work. Some key questions around theory included: How is the digital socially and technically conceptualized? Which theories are predominant in which domains? What new theory has been developed, and/or is “old theory” adequate to the task of explaining the social impacts and use of the digital? To what extent is digital research theoretically or empirically driven? Which concepts and key themes cluster and link regardless of theoretical or empirical approach? Can a new “theoretical framework” for understanding the dig­ ital be generated, and is this needed? To what extent have interdisciplinary approaches modified or developed theory?

Use of Methods This element emphasized the range of methods, types of data, and research contexts in the examined literature. Some key questions that were addressed include: Which methods predominate in which domains of work? Does the availability of large volumes of digital data change how the digital is studied and/or the approaches taken to the social in a digital world? Are certain methods intrinsically linked to certain domains or theories? How are methods tied to the social contexts around digital research? Have interdisciplinary approaches modified or prioritized certain methods in the study of the digital?

Approaches for the Review The project explored these questions for each domain through both established and new digital approaches to systematic reviewing and expert opinion elicitation:

ESRC Review: Methodology   41 • Delphi reviews of expert opinion for each domain • Stakeholder engagement • Digital examination of and systematic review of a citation-led sampling of the literature

Delphi Process As a starting point the project undertook seven sets of Delphi process interviews (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). An eighth set, run with non-academic stakeholders, was undertaken via a series of workshops and “salon events.” Round one of the Delphi proc­ ess was undertaken with the project Steering Group. The results from this were used to develop a snowball sample of additional domain experts. Round two was undertaken with this identified sample. Round three consisted of a confirmatory survey of international scholars and a consultation workshop with the UK Steering Group and a set of invited UK academics. Delphi methods have a long history going back to the 1950’s and were initially designed as a method for forecasting or predicting outcomes in complex situations. More recently, the methods have been employed as a set of tools for systematic knowledge elicitation in complex domains. The Delphi method in most cases is a structured iterative communication technique or method by which a panel of experts provide evidence and then review this evidence, looking to move to a broad consensus position (Figure 2.1). Delphi methods are based on the principle that knowledge, decisions, or forecasts from a selected group of individuals Selection methods Level of experience Panel size Groupings Definition of problem

Selection of experts

Questionnaire development Type and focus of questions Measurement and scoring Repeat up to 3 times

Questionnaire administration

Questionnaire analysis Coding Relevant statistical and qualitative methods

Figure 2.1  Delphi process.

Consensus outcomes

From Sanchez (1999)

42   Simeon J. Yates et al. (experts) who iteratively review information are more accurate than those from unstructured groups. In a standard Delphi process the selected experts answer questionnaires or semi-structured surveys in two or more rounds. The results of each round are summarized by the team managing the process and provided back as an anonymized summary to the expert panel. The panel is then provided the opportunity to revise their answers in light of these summaries, with the goal of reaching either an overall consensus, or statistically acceptable “mean” or average, where numeric predictions are being sought. We modified our Delphi process to incorporate the outcomes of the literature review work. Rounds one and two helped to provide the basis of both the literature work and potential research gaps. Round one was conducted with the project Steering Group (see Table 2.1). This included the opportunity for the team to identify key scholars in the field for round two of the Delphi process as well as starting points for the literature review. Delphi reviews are often undertaken anonymously—in that the experts do not know who the other contributors are—and are also conducted remotely. In our case Round one was conducted with the steering group, so this was not anonymous. Round two was undertaken anonymously among the experts identified in Round one. Invitations to contribute were sent out by email, and the data were collected via an online survey tool. Experts were invited to contribute answers around one of the seven domains relevant to their backgrounds as identified by the core team. The team only changed this allocation when experts notably self-identified with a different domain to that which they had been allocated. Round three consisted of a consultation workshop based on the Delphi and literature review findings and a confirmatory survey. The survey was sent to all prior participants, asking asked them to rank the identified topics and challenges in terms of importance for future research. The Delphi process therefore identified four sets of data for each domain: 1) Initial scoping questions for future programs of research 2) Key authors and key literature for each domain 3) Key topics to be addressed within these programs of work 4) Key challenges when undertaking these programs of research Initial scoping questions for future programs of research. Though Table 2.2 details the initial scoping questions set by the ESRC, we utilized rounds one and two of the Delphi process to validate and expand these as required. In all cases, this led to the initial scoping questions being modified. The specific changes to each of these domains are detailed in the ESRC review chapters (Chapters 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 22). In some cases, this involved expansion of the questions (e.g., in the Communication and Relationships domain), or focusing on specific interpretations of terms (e.g., in the Health and Wellbeing domain). Delphi respondents were asked to use their interpretation of the domain scoping questions as the basis for their answers to the Delphi survey. Key authors and key literature for each domain. The experts were asked for key authors, key items of literature, and key search terms (derived from their scoping questions) for the

ESRC Review: Methodology   43 collection of the domain literature. This information was then used to systematically collect literature from key databases (Web of Science-ISI Web of Knowledge; Social Sciences Citation Index; Google Scholar). Key topics to be addressed within these programs of work. The survey first explored which “topics” the experts believed needed further research within the domain. These might be areas where there is a lack of research, where further research was needed, or where specific questions needed to be unpacked further. The responses provided the basis for assessing future research areas in the domain. They could also be matched against and compared with the concepts and topics identified in the literature review. Key challenges when undertaking these programs of research. The survey next asked experts to highlight the methodological, practical, and other challenges that might be faced when attempting to address the topic areas they had identified. These might be existing challenges for relevant research but also new ones due to the digital context of the research. The methodological challenges could be compared to and contrasted with the methods and approaches identified in the literature. One of the key features of the Delphi process results was the commonality of responses to the “challenges” questions across all seven domains. We have therefore reported these cross-cutting challenges as a separate chapter (Chapter 25) and sought to identify specific challenges when reporting on each domain.

Stakeholder Engagement: Workshops The project organized a range of facilitated workshops to engage academic and nonacademic stakeholder partners. The main one of these was a final consultation workshop to review the outcomes of the Delphi process. This was attended by the majority of the UK members of the Steering Group as well as UK colleagues identified in the Delphi process, via the literature review and the other workshops. Two additional workshops explored the impacts of Automation on work and society and were supported by the ESRC, the UK Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), and the US National Science Foundation (NSF). A total of six workshop programs contributed to the project: 1) Salon events in collaboration with Digital Leaders (www.digileaders.com). Salon events involved short presentations to develop discussion followed by open “Chatham house rules” (https://www.chathamhouse.org/chatham-house-rule) discussions among academic, industry, and policy partners. Salon events were led by academics based on the domains and the team attended industry led Salon events. These allowed for non-academic input to the Delphi process. 2) A joint ESRC and DSTL funded facilitated workshop to explore research topics around the social impacts of automation and augmentation in the workplace.

44   Simeon J. Yates et al. 3) A further joint ESRC and NSF workshop on “Work at the Human Technology Interface.” 4) A joint MECSSA and project supported workshop on “digital policy,” which examined the policy and policy-making issues arising from digital media. 5) A project and UK Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport workshop to explore the impacts of digital on the arts and cultural sector. 6) An academic symposium discussing the results from the project and seeking further invited review papers, some of which are in this volume, conducted by the project just prior to the ESRC and NSF workshop.

Systematic Literature Reviews Approach. As noted above the Delphi process provided the literature survey with three initial starting points for the literature review: • Key authors • Key words—from the scoping questions • Key literature—as the starting point for citation searchers The collection of literature was undertaken twice, following rounds one and two of the Delphi process. This produced two overlapping sets of key literature that were combined for the final analytical work and content analysis. Given the volume of published work within the seven domains, undertaking a meta-analysis to synthesise the quantitative results of available empirical studies (Blundell, 2013) was not possible. Nor, as the ESRC Review chapters (Chapters 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 22) point out, were there enough empirical studies of similar design and focus (either deductive or inductive) to undertake such a process. Rather, to address the challenges of dealing with such a large body of data, a partly automated systematic narrative review (Popay et al., 2006) was undertaken with the goal of synthesizing primary studies and descriptively exploring the heterogeneity of work. This hopefully provides the basis for targeted systematic literature reviews for hypothesis generation (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008) likely to be undertaken by future studies. A key element defining the approach was the need to address the large volume of work in each domain within the limited timescale of a few months. The project had an overall database of just under 6,000 potential target publications from key authors and flowing from citations of key papers, identified by the two rounds of the Delphi work. The databases searched to collect this material were the ISI Web of Science (http://webofknowledge. com/), the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences and Google Scholar. Google Scholar produced results outside the date range and some non-academic “grey literature.” Other bibliographic studies, especially social studies of science, undertaking citation analyses have been able to gain formally agreed commercial access to publisher APIs (application programming interfaces)—so as to be able to “scrape” searched-for

ESRC Review: Methodology   45 items—this was not feasible within the budget and timescale of the project. As a result, the majority of papers were downloaded manually or by utilizing tools with limits on downloads. Of the initial 6,000 target cases, once non-academic “grey literature,” papers published outside the main sampling frame date range (2000–2016), and items not available in digital format were removed, this left 3,971 publications included in the analysis. We estimated that to systematically read, review, and code these by hand for all of the various aspects discussed in the review chapters of the analyses below (that is, coding for all overlapping concepts and topics, theory, methods and analytical approach) would have taken as a minimum 12,000 person hours or around seven person years of work. This challenge is not unique to contemporary research in all academic fields, and reflects a growing problem for academic work, as Petticrew and Roberts note: The problem is not just one of inconsistency, but one of information overload. The past 20 years have seen an explosion in the amount of research information available to decision makers and social researchers alike. With new journals launched yearly, and thousands of research papers published, it is impossible for even the most energetic policymaker or researcher to keep up-to-date with the most recent research evidence, unless they are interested in a very narrow field indeed. (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008, p. 7)

We would also argue that this issue is compounded for inherently interdisciplinary work, such as the study of the social impacts of digital media and technologies. Relevant papers on a question such as the role of digital media in interpersonal interaction may be found in psychology, sociology, linguistics, computer science, information studies, philosophy, and health care publications. To solve this dilemma, we looked to digital technology solutions. The survey was therefore in part an “experimental” consideration of the use of digital tools developed in digital humanities, social sciences, and linguistics to analyze large bodies of text. These tools supported the core team in undertaking the review through linguistic, content, and reflective methods. Similar, both automated and non-automated, methods have been applied to the contents of this volume in chapter 25. More specifically, undertaking a systematic review in the social sciences involves a number of challenges that are less of a concern in other science contexts. First, a large proportion of the work will be case study based. Second, a considerable amount of work will be in long form (books and edited collections) and will contain mostly narrative and theoretical content. Third, other work, mainly in journals, will be predominantly empirical. We therefore needed: • An overall content analysis across theory, method, research topic, and context • A predominantly narrative systematic review across the material to address descriptive, case study, theoretical, qualitative, and quantitative publications Digital tools. As a first step, the literature was analyzed using linguistic, text mining and computational tools to identify predominant topics and concepts within each domain,

46   Simeon J. Yates et al. involving three approaches: concept-modelling and two kinds of topic analysis. Then a traditional manual content analysis was applied to assess theory and methods. Concept-modelling—Linguistic DNA. First, literature identified after round one of the Delphi process was subjected to a lengthy and detailed concept analysis. Conceptmodelling procedures, developed at the Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield, in association with the University of Sheffield’s School of English, analyzed patterns within the literature to identify recurrent associations and themes. The procedures output groups of words (or more specifically, lemmas) representing dominant associations within each given dataset. For the current project, groups were limited to pairs accompanied by a non-ranked list of further associates, i.e. words repeatedly located alongside those pairs (Fitzmaurice et al., 2017a; 2017b; also http://linguisticdna.org linguisticdna.org). This process is underpinned by the notion of a discursive concept, as theorized by Fitzmaurice et al. (2017a, 2017b). Though sometimes referenced by a single word, the discursive concept cannot be reduced to that word but is a complex meaning with wider inference. This inference can be detected by the other language that surrounds the word. For example, when an author uses the word “society” (or “societies”) we can determine the inferred conceptual characteristics by identifying other words found repeatedly in proximity (e.g. within the same paragraph), and modelling such patterns of proximate words in the given text and in other texts. Importantly, ­concept-modelling enables us to detect how ideas, theories, and methods emerge and evolve within discourse, by detecting changes in proximate words across texts and across time. In the initial sample of documents supplied to the DHI team, “business” was discovered to be strongly linked to “competence” (and vice versa), “consumer” with “selfservice,” and “knowledge” with “seeker.” Table 2.3 shows these concept-pairs with the first 20 associated words arranged alphabetically (ranking of the associated words represents a further analytical step). This type of concept-modelling is distinct from topic modelling, in that it focuses on sections of discourse that are shorter than a text, with a goal of extracting conceptual structure and tracing patterns and change in language and thought. In practice, the process begins by identifying parts of speech and lemmas (in this case we used Helmut Schmidt’s TreeTagger). The machine-readable texts then pass through a further algorithm pipeline that uses frequency and location to identify prominent lemma pairs, applying a refined statistical probability calculation based on Pointwise Mutual Information. The core process can be repeated to identify other lemmas cooccurring repeatedly with each pair, which have here been termed “associates.” These lexical relationships can then be visualized via clustering algorithms and network diagrams. Concept-modelling is considered more nuanced than topic modelling, because it pays attention to the relative location of words. The end result is a “concept model” that enables users to explore how ideas, theories, and methods relating to ways of being in the digital age emerge and evolve across the literature. As a tool, it provides a datadriven map for identifying trends and anomalies that might warrant further study. Concept-modelling outputs were presented via a range of visualizations including bubble maps (Figure 2.2) and tree maps (Figure 2.3), with specific versions in each of

ESRC Review: Methodology   47 Table 2.3  Example Concept-Mapping by Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield business, competence

consumer, self-service

knowledge, seeker

administration

academy

ability

area

addition

action

awareness

adoption

ambiguity

breadth

amount

anticipation

capability

anxiety

average

category

attitude

awareness

client

attribute

beginning

collaboration

banking

bit

competency

behavior

capacity

component

characteristic

caution

concept

checkout

choice

construct

comparison

colleague

contribution

control

complexity

core

customer

condition

creation

customization

conjunction

definition

delay

correlation

deployment

delivery

cross

depth

determinant

decision

development

difference

delay

dimension . . .

ease . . .

description . . .

Note: Only the first 20 associated alphabetic terms are listed under the three example concepts.

the  ESRC Review chapters. An interactive browser-friendly version and further ­documentation may be found online at https://dhi.ac.uk/waysofbeingdigital/. Topic analysis. As a follow up to this analysis, the team applied two further digital methods to the full data set of literature gathered after round 2 of the Delphi process. The first involved the application of project-specific tools developed using Python to extract topics through the statistical analysis of word frequency within individual documents. This work was undertaken by a team at the University of Liverpool following methods outlined by Sievert and Shirley (2014) and Chuang et al. (2012). This produced interactive maps of topics (Figure 2.4) and key words (Figure 2.5). Second, the same data were examined utilizing the commercial WordStat tool (https://provalisresearch.com). The data were examined in WordStat at a paragraph

48   Simeon J. Yates et al. 2000 – 2017 2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

form/netw

participat

2010

internet/i

2012

2014

2016

network/pr citizen/se society/th

interest/ relationship/u delivery/

network/societ

communication/ society/su

participa network/site

citizen/gover action/me

access/techno

government

medium/use access/internet

action/ne culture/mediu

information/society participat

medium/news

action/gr

governmen

citizen/me

home/internet

access/home

communication/medium

internet/use

citizen/in

site/web

communication/s

government/s

medium/pol

internet/par

site/user

medium/society

communication/netwo

medium/plat

group/participant

medium/retat

network/pow network/orga

government/s

medium/twit

medium/part

engagement/

Figure 2.2  Bubble map of concept pairs.

rather than document level. WordStat split the papers into paragraph segments and then constructed a word-by-segment frequency matrix. This matrix is subjected to an exploratory factor analysis using a Varimax rotation, from which a set of “factors” is extracted—these should map onto consistent topics in the data. All words with a loading higher than a target criterion (we used 0.3) are then defined as being an extracted topic (Figure 2.6). Using this tool produced similar results to those from the University of Liverpool topic analysis. Combining these three results allowed the team to develop a thematic meta-analysis of the overall themes and issues in the literature (Petticrew & Roberts, 2008). The results from these three approaches are presented in the ESRC Review chapters for each of the domains (chapters 3, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 22). Though the underlying text-mining methods are relatively established, these are novel and experimental approaches within the context of a study review such as this. In using these tools it was hoped that the team would gain an overall appreciation of their usefulness for future research. Importantly they provided a route to understanding key concepts and topics within this very large

ESRC Review: Methodology   49 2004–2012 2000 government/use

2002 datum/facebook

government/res advertising/studiv:

2004

2006

society/surveillan

medium/network

knowledge/aurvei

movement/protest

2008

broadband/inter government/webs site/warehouse

medium/society

site/web

government/tr site/tactic

2016 coefficient/sig

communication/r

correlation/sig

government/var internet/participati broadband/home

studivz/user

network/organization

communication/medium

internet/use access/intern

activism/internet

internet/movem government/state

nonwarehouse/

access/home

2014

technology/use

site/user

access/technolo

2012

home/internet action/protes network/socie facebook/use

coefficient/correlation

internet/politics information/user

2010

action/site

citizen/governme

access/use

datum/user

access/broadband

information/technology

communication/society

network/power

information/society

Figure 2.3  Tree map of concept pairs.

literature set within a short time frame, and allowed the team to compare the literature topics with the proposed future topics identified in the Delphi process. Interactive visualizations of the topic-based data can be examined at https://waysofbeingdigital.com/ literature-analysis-interactive-results/; these are also explained as a note in relevant ESRC Review chapters. Content analysis. The final stage of the literature review was a content analysis focusing on the methods, theory, and data in the collected papers. The initial plan was to conduct a random sample of papers so as to manage both volume and timescale, as this work could not be done easily via digital tools. An initial test run found that nearly all of the required information could be found in the abstracts, methods, and conclusion sections of the papers, cutting down the time needed to code papers. This allowed a team of six researchers working in parallel to code the full corpus over a period of six weeks. The project took inspiration from a recent in-depth content analysis of the Communication Studies literature (Borah, 2017) on the social impact of the Internet, covering 56 journals over a 16-year period (1998 to 2014). Borah’s analysis found that 70 percent of journal papers on this subject did not employ any core theoretical position, nor use theory to define a research question. Instead, papers predominantly reported on case studies or presented analyses of empirical data sets. Following a similar method to Borah, the content analysis systematically documented six aspects the publications in each domain: 1) Main discipline: as in sociology, communication studies, computer science, etc., primarily determined by the discipline of the lead or main authors.

Intertopic Distance Map (via multidimensional scaling) PC2

12

5

11

13 PC1

14

7 1

3 8

10

19 4 18

15 9

17

20 2

16

8

Marginal topic distribution 2% 5% 10% Slide to adjust relevance metric:(2) λ=1

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Top-30 Most Relevant Terms for Topic 3 (6.9% of tokens) facebook capital move tie bridging ellison respondent distance friendship frequency item prior month mover bonding pre esteem benefit weak maintenance motivation page lampe actual profile job adjustment closeness college strength

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Overall term frequency Estimated term frequency within the selected topic 1.saliency(term w) = frequency(w)* [sum_t p(t l w)* log(p(t l w)/p(t))] for topics t; see Chuang et. al (2012) 2.relevance(term w l topic t) = λ * p(w l t) + (1–λ)* p (w l t)/p(w): see Sievert & Shirley (2014)

Figure 2.4  Interactive topic modelling graph–topic.

Intertopic Distance Map (via multidimensional scaling) PC2

12

5

11

13 PC1

14

7 1

3 8

10

19 4

15

9 18 17

20 2

16

6

Conditional topic distribution given term = ‘facebook’ 2% 5% 10% Slide to adjust relevance metric: λ=1

(2)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Top-30 Most Salient Terms 1 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

teen adolescent pair tie facebook privacy sexual risk parent cell cmc chat game team disclosure capital mobile health sex frequency friendship dating per trust move local partner room profile relational Overall term frequency Estimated term frequency within the selected topic 1.saliency(term w) = frequency(w)* [sum_t p(t l w)* log(p(t l w)/p(t))] for topics t; see Chuang et. al (2012) 2.relevance(term w l topic t) = λ * p(w l t) + (1–λ)* p (w l t)/p(w): see Sievert & Shirley (2014)

Figure 2.5  Interactive topic modelling graph–keyword.

52   Simeon J. Yates et al.

Figure 2.6  WordStat topic modelling.

2) Theories used in empirical work: the project coded actual use of theory to define hypotheses or to explore data. Very often theoretical positions were mentioned but not used to define hypotheses or explore data. For example, the works of Castells (2011) were often cited as well as those of van Dijk (2013). But such references were used as scene-setting or as justifications for why studies of digital media are important; they were rarely used to construct models nor explanations of findings. 3) Theory development: either inductively from new data or deductively via empirical testing. 4) Empirical methods used: whether qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. 5) Type of population studied: from nationally representative surveys to target population or case studies. 6) Data analysis methods: including whether methods were described as “big data.” The results of this content analysis are presented in each of the ESRC review chapters (chapters  3,  8,  11,  14,  16,  18, and  22). The results show considerable variation across domains, with some favoring strongly quantitative work and others more varied approaches. As with Borah’s (2017) work, the formal use of theory to either develop hypotheses or explore data was fairly limited in most domains.

Conclusion This chapter has presented the approach to the analysis of both the literature review and Delphi processes undertaken by the ESRC project “Ways of being in a digital age.” The methods used addressed two challenges:

ESRC Review: Methodology   53 • Undertaking the analysis within a limited time frame of less than one calendar year • Utilizing and evaluating digital tools as far as possible in the analysis It is important to note that the digital processes utilized by the project can be c­ oupled with tools to present the results in interactive—often visual—forms. Such processes thereby provide an opportunity to explore the data and literature in novel ways. This allows researchers to make use of the different views and representations as routes into the literature and data in ways not previously available. The use of tools and processes in this project was effectively experimental, exploring their to manage, review, and assess a large body of literature. One of the team’s future research area recommendations is to further assess such approaches to examining prior research publications. As we noted earlier in this chapter, the challenge of having to deal with a large body of literature, or a considerable body of academic evidence or opinion, is  not specific to this project or this research area. It is somewhat ironic that in support of an ever-growing range of academic publications, and facilitating their ready access, digital media are also making it harder to overview and assess these bodies of  knowledge. Again, somewhat ironically, digital tools (including algorithmic ­solutions) provide a route to manage this volume. In reflecting on the process, the team would note that having multiple views, and importantly different “algorithmic solutions” underlying these views, provides routes to cross-reference and cross-validate results, as well as provide different insights. This digitally-derived insight must also be combined with the insights from the extensive engagement of the researchers with the source materials.

References Blundell, M. (2013). Understanding and synthesising my numerical data. In A.  Boland, M. G. Cherry, & R. Dickson (Eds.), Doing a systematic review: A student’s guide (pp. 94–124). London: Sage. Borah, P. (2017). Emerging communication technology research: Theoretical and methodological variables in the last 16 years and future directions. New Media & Society, 19(4), 616–636. Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society (Vol. 12). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Chuang, J., Manning, C.  D., & Heer, J. (2012, May). Termite: Visualization techniques for assessing textual topic models. In Proceedings of the international working conference on advanced visual interfaces (pp. 74–77). New York: ACM. Fitzmaurice, S., Robinson, J. A., Alexander, M., Hine, I. C., Mehl, S., & Dallachy, F. (2017a). Linguistic DNA: Investigating conceptual change in early Modern English discourse. In Studia Neophilogica, 89 Suppl, 1: Interfacing individuality and collaboration: Patterns in English language research (Guest editors: I. Taavitsa, J. Smith, & M. Kytö). 2017. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2017.1333891. Fitzmaurice, S., Robinson, J. A., Alexander, M., Hine, I. C., Mehl, S., & Dallachy, F. (2017b). Reading into the past: Materials and methods in historical semantics research. In T. Säily, A. Nurmi, M. Palander-Collin, & A. Auer (Eds.), Exploring future paths for historical sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

54   Simeon J. Yates et al. Okoli, C. & Pawlowski, S.  D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., . . . Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. ESRC Methods Programme. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233866356_Guidance_on_the_ conduct_of_narrative_synthesis_in_systematic_reviews_A_product_from_the_ESRC_ Methods_Programme/download doi:10.13140/2.1.1018.4643 Sievert, C. & Shirley, K. (2014). LDAvis: A method for visualizing and interpreting topics. In Proceedings of the workshop on interactive language learning, visualization, and interfaces (pp. 63–70). Baltimore, MD. Van Dijk, J. A. (2013). A theory of the digital divide. In The digital divide (pp. 49–72). New York: Routledge.

Section 2

H E A LT H , AGE , A N D HOM E

chapter 3

ESRC R ev iew Health and Well-Being Simeon J. Yates, Leanne Townsend, Monica Whitty, Ronald E. Rice, and Elinor Carmi

Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the results from analyses of the literature, the Delphi process, and any relevant workshops for the Health and Well-Being domain. The initial ESRC scoping question for this area of work was: “whether technology makes us healthier, better educated, and more productive?” We first explore the results of the various digital humanities analyses of the literature and the review of methods and theory, and then set out the results of the Delphi process. We compare these results, and we ­conclude with recommendations for areas of future study.

Initial Comments This domain generated the largest set of literature of all. This appears to reflect disciplinary differences with other domains. Much of the literature was within health studies and health research journals. There was a stronger tendency to report experimental and empirical findings and there were far fewer general reviews. The responses to the Delphi process focused on health and mainly health-based, well-being issues but not much on the education element. We have also bracketed off the productivity issue in the health domain as this was extensively addressed in the Automation Workshop and therefore is presented in chapter 24. Workshops we ran with stakeholders via the UK Digital Leaders network focused on two main areas: health inequalities and access to digital technologies and privatization of health delivery through digitization. As a result, the one element of

58   Simeon J. Yates et al. the ESRC brief that is under-represented here is the question, “ Does digital media make us better educated?” We would argue that in relation to formal education this area is well served by work on educational technology, so that issue is not analyzed here. In regard to informal learning and also the specifics of both basic and complex digital skills— digital literacies—this issue clearly runs through many of the chapters and analyses in this volume.

Literature Analysis Topics As with the other literature analysis chapters in this volume, we aimed to identify two sets of data. The first was key concept pairs and topics within the existing literature. This allowed the comparison with areas of importance identified by the Delphi review. The second was a content analysis of the literature to explore the predominance of specific theories, methods, and approaches. The 11 most common concept pairs identified in the Round-1 literature are listed in Table 3.1. These represent the topics covering 2% or more of the identified cases. Table 3.2 lists the main and second (sub) concepts identified. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 display the changing nature and frequency of concept pairs from the periods 2000–2004 and 2012–2016.1 Clearly the focus in the early period was on the technology (computers, system, information, Internet, data, navigation, space, robot, phone) with some relationships with people (user, scientist, and group), and only an emerging focus explicitly on the health context (care, health, support, intervention,

Table 3.1  Analysis Concepts Ranked Concepts Disease Body Care Health Behavior Loss Activity Network Communication Child Intervention

Percent 7.3 4.6 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.2 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1

Note: Topics occurring in at least 2% of the cases.

ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being   59 Table 3.2  Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts Concepts

Percent

Concepts

Percent

disease outbreak prevention sufferer surveillance

18.60 6.26 4.59 1.07 6.68

health promotion

9.66 9.66

loss weight

8.47 8.47

body device embodiment mass mother object self

11.69 2.44 2.15 3.22 .95 1.91 1.01

activity conduct isolation leisure pedometer sport

8.17 2.09 1.25 1.13 1.31 2.39

care caregiver clinic follow-up

10.26 3.22 2.74 4.29

network outbreak rice stress vaccination

6.56 1.43 .89 2.92 1.31

Concepts

Percent

communication conflict mail stress

6.14 1.91 .95 3.28

behaviour counselling

9.36 3.10

recycling smoking taxonomy

2.03 3.58 .66

child donation mother

5.66 1.13 4.53

intervention mobile vegetable

5.43 1.91 3.52

Note: bolded term is the main concept; the unbolded terms below that and above the line are the related subconcepts.

effects, weight). By the later period, the most frequent concepts involve health (health, care, intervention, participant, patient, group, support) with the most frequent concept pairs involving those items, and then some emphasis on research (study, intervention, analysis, data, control, outcome, effect, trial). All the literature collected from both rounds was analyzed using Wordstat. Wordstat identified 18 topics, presented in Table 3.3. As we can see in Table 3.4, there is a good overlap between the two analyses. We would argue that the analyses point to literature that is focused on the use of digital technologies and social media in three main areas. First, monitoring and supporting individuals in changing health behaviors (such as weight loss or stopping smoking); second, using digital technologies to monitor and support patients with chronic illness (e.g., hypotension); and third, using digital technologies to support health communication or as part of health support communities. Separate from this, the literature is focused on the measurement and evaluation of the efficacy of such interventions. This evaluation fits with the content analysis on methods and theory that follows. A section of the literature also included work on educational technology with some crossover to technologies to support health education. Six key areas stand out from the analysis (Table 3.3): educational technology, health care, measures and measurement, mobile and smartphone devices, social support, and weight loss. As noted earlier, we put the “educational technology” issue to one

60   Simeon J. Yates et al.

communicatio

communicatio

medium/task

communicatio

information/ access/inter

communication/

system/use

effect/suppo

phone/user

interventio

support/woma

nonuser/use robot/space internet/user

communication/infor

health/support

line/segment

leavl/suppo

navigation/spac graph/node

internet/phone

communication/syst

computer/system

measure/supp

informatio

datum/system

implementat

image/scan

internet/use information/scien system/user system/usag

communication/me internet/usa

student/wo

system/time group/support

time/user

navigation/r care/health

interactio

communication internet/s

pattern/rob compression

image/syste

shape/space

network/sy graph/level

Figure 3.1  Health and Well-Being 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs.

side, except where it overlaps with issues of health and well-being. In the following sections we consider some examples of how these issues have been examined in the recent literature. Health care. Work on the interaction in health care provision between social, occupational, and organizational roles and digital media has a long history. For example, Aydin and Rice (1991) argued that membership of specific occupational and departmental social worlds can help to explain attitudes toward medical information systems within health care organizations. They noted that Physicians, for example, expected involvement in decision-making and felt the system had become primarily an administrative system, while other medical ­ employees were more concerned with computer use as infringement on their patient care activities.  (p. 132)

More recently the focus has moved to the role of digital systems in the range of health services including public health and personalized health. The analysis by the University

ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being   61

analysis/stu

access/inter

disease/healt

health/service

health/internet

care/interven communication/hea

health/use

effect/inte loss/weight

health/patient outcome/stud

health/system group/particip

intervention/study

health/intervention

health/support

communicat

interventio

study/suppo

health/technol

datum/patie

group/interven care/health

health/information

health/rec

network/supp

change/interve

behavior/health intervention/

intervention/par participant/study

study/trail

care/patient

health/outcom

intervention interventio

group/support

health/medic

analysis/datum

interventio

control/int

patient/study

change/healt access/hea

interventio health/revi

health/ris

group/study

interventi

Figure 3.2  Health and Well-Being 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs.

of Sheffield shows that literature before 2004 had a stronger emphasis on information systems and users, whereas more recent work has focused on care, intervention, and health information for patients. For example, Bennett and Glasgow (2009) discuss advantages in public health interventions conducted via the Internet and Web 2.0. Within this domain they point out that there are also challenges, such as reach (access), sustainability of effects, reporting in standardized measures, and attrition. Bennett and Glasgow argue that these challenges could be overcome with more tailored messages and greater use of social networking functions. This shift from a system focus to a user or “person” focus can be found in a lot of the literature on digital media use. This represents a shift from the novelty and specifics of technologies to the integration of these into everyday practice. ennett and Glasgow see advantages for digital media in reach and efficacy in health-related interventions, as “Internet-based implementation allows participants to access intervention content at their convenience, in a manner that can feel largely anonymous” (p. 276). Combined with available data, “Internet interventions can be structured to provide highly personalized messages” (p. 276). As digital technologies

62   Simeon J. Yates et al. Table 3.3  Wordstat Analysis of Topics Topic

Keywords

Eigenvalue

Freq

Educational technology

Cases Cases (%)

LEARN; STUDENT; TEACHER; LEARNER; EDUC; COLLABOR; TECHNOLOGI

9.38

21,504

752

92.7

Health care

CARE; HEALTH; PATIENT; MEDIC; INFORM; PRACTIC; PROFESSION

2.97

54,753

775

95.6

Measures

ITEM; SCALE; MEASUR; SCORE; WA; QUESTIONNAIR; ASSESS

2.35

25,758

759

93.6

Social support WEAK; TIE; TI; NETWORK; SUPPORT network analysis

2.26

13,485

739

91.1

Mobile devices

MOBIL; DEVIC; PHONE; APP; DIGIT; MONITOR; TRACK

2.11

11,251

680

83.9

Weight loss

WEIGHT; LOSS; OBES

2.00

4616

419

51.7

Ethnicity and gender

ETHNIC; GENDER; AG; STATU; BLACK

1.88

7575

640

78.9

Disease outbreak surveillance

OUTBREAK; SURVEIL; DISEAS; INFECT; INFLUENZA; VACCIN; UENZA

1.86

6349

469

57.8

Stopping smoking

SMOKE; CESSAT; SMOKER

1.71

2363

183

22.6

Efficacy

EF; CACI; FECT

1.68

2798

304

37.5

Family

MOTHER; INFANT; PARENT; CHILDREN; BODI

1.66

3764

537

66.2

Product quality

HEDON; BEAUTI; USABL; PRODUCT; QUALITI

1.61

5776

634

78.3

Social media

FACEBOOK; MEDIA; TWITTER; SOCIAL; SITE; BLOG; POST; SHARE; CONTENT

1.54

23,283

746

92.0

Hypertension

PRESSUR; BLOOD

1.52

1537

269

33.2

Chronic diseases

CHRONIC; PAIN; DISEAS; ILL

1.48

3190

452

55.7

Palliative care

PALLI; TELECONSULT

1.46

510

25

3.1

Activity

ACTIV; TECHNIQU; AR

1.45

22,405

764

94.2

Controlled trial

TRIAL; INTERVENT; RANDOM; CONTROL

1.42

17,838

677

83.5

often have low marginal costs, providing specific services can be undertaken while lowering costs. As a result they conclude that [g]iven their potential for low costs, scalability, adaptability, and effectiveness, Internet interventions may be appropriate for dissemination to a range of settings (e.g., health systems, health plans, employers, municipalities). However, each of these settings varies considerably with regard to their resources, expertise, interest, and ability to implement Internet interventions independently.  (p. 279)

Table 3.4  Comparison between Concepts and WordStat Topics Concept/Topic Palliative care Stopping smoking Hypertension Efficacy Weight loss Chronic diseases Disease outbreak surveillance Family Product quality Ethnicity and gender Controlled trial Mobile devices Social support network analysis Social media Educational technology Measures Activity Health care

Disease

Body

X

Care

Health

Behavior

X X

X

Loss

Activity

Network

Communication

Child Intervention

X

X

X

X X X X

X

X X X X X

X

64   Simeon J. Yates et al. This shift also reflects the rise of new digital forms such as social media. For example, Chou et al. (2009) pointed out that US-based health-related communication programs, which seek to impact population health (such as smoking cessation and dietary interventions), should consider carefully key social factors when looking to communicate via social media. They argue that social networking sites by far attract the most users, making them an obvious target for maximizing the reach and impact of health communication and eHealth interventions.  (p. 9)

In looking specifically at communication around cancer they found that among family members who had cancer, there was a high prevalence of Internet and social media use. This therefore made social media a potentially fruitful route to “‘secondary audiences,’ that is, caregivers, family, and friends of cancer patients” (pp. 9–10). Thus they concluded that “social media promise to be a way to reach the target population regardless of socioeconomic and health-related characteristics” (p. 10). Househ et al. (2014) also explored the role of social media, in community empowerment in US health care contexts. They argued that there is a promising future for social media in community engagement, information sharing, data collection functions, appointment setting, prescription notifications, providing health information, engagement of the elderly, improved participation, autonomy, motivation, trust, and perceived self-efficacy.  (p. 56)

On the other hand, they point out key challenges related to the use of social media for health care, such as privacy, security, the usability of social media programs, the manipulation of identity, and misinformation. These factors can pose serious threats to patient safety if not addressed appropriately by those who wish to engage patients through social media.  (p. 56)

Measures and measurement. Another theme in the literature is the interplay between using digital media derived data, using digital tools to collect data, and measuring the impacts of digital media use or digital media interventions in the health context. Very often these three elements are combined. In the early 2000s the focus around measurement appears to be on tools such as Internet surveys. For example, Eysenbach and Wyatt (2002) examined the use of the Internet to conduct research as well as other parts of the analysis. They provided recommendations for implementing Internet-based surveys as well as emphasizing ethical considerations. They focused on Internet survey methods and did not address the use of “big data” nor data scraped from social media, issues that have become more prevalent in recent years. But two of their key warnings are still very relevant: In ‘open’ surveys conducted via the Internet where Web users, newsgroup readers, or mailing list subscribers are invited to participate by completing a questionnaire,

ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being   65 selection bias is a major factor limiting the generalizability (external validity) of results . . . The ethical issues involved in any type of online research should not be forgotten. These include informed consent as a basic ethical tenet of scientific research on human populations, protection of privacy, and avoiding psychological harm.  (p. 4)

As noted earlier, the analysis of the literature sees a strong shift towards issues of digital media in health interventions. For example, Glasgow (2007) examines the measurement and assessment of eHealth intervention and behavior change programs and provides recommendations on design, measurement, and methods, concluding with four main recommendations, First, explore outside of research silos, meaning work across different illnesses taking into account multiple variables. Second, explore the role of human support, which could be the most important contextual factor. Third, tailor experiment design and reporting criteria to eHealth questions, meaning that they have to be interactive, user-centered, dynamic, and evolving. Fourth, follow translation and diffusion theories of technology uptake and innovation. They point out that [t]he majority of evidence-based health care procedures fail to translate into practice. Part of the reason for this failure to translate is because of the research methods most often used to evaluate interventions. In particular, typical designs do not address external validity concerns or provide information relevant to policymakers or to those considering program adoption.  (p. 120)

He concludes that “eHealth is complex, contextual, evolving, and has effects at multiple levels. The designs and measures for eHealth research need to have these same characteristics” (p. 125). Given the nature of this domain, the focus of many papers is on the empirical evaluation of specific digital interventions from bespoke digital tools to general social media campaigns. Often these involve the application of a digital media format to a specific health intervention. One example is provided by Coyle and Doherty (2009), who examined the use of a 3D computer game developed to support adolescent mental health interventions. This was a goal-oriented computer game that adolescents and therapists could play together in sessions. In the evaluation, the shortcomings that therapists mentioned are applicable to many digital technology interventions. These included an overreliance on literacy skills, lack of engagement with the specific technology, and a need to adapt to clients’ needs (for example, choosing more suitable characters). As we have noted elsewhere in this volume (especially chapters 18, 19, and 20), issues of digital literacy and digital efficacy underpin many aspects of digital media use. Having noted these shortcomings, Cole and Doherty argue, “The initial clinical evaluation of [the game] has provided evidence that computer games have the potential to assist therapists working with adolescent clients” (p. 2058). But they add that [f]uture projects in the MHC [mental health care] domain may benefit from more rigorously applying traditional user-centered requirements gathering techniques. However, the problem of access to clients by HCI researchers still remains.

66   Simeon J. Yates et al. Techniques are required which help HCI researchers to gain access to the tacit knowledge of MHC professionals.  (p. 2058)

Such work points out a challenge found in many other domains (e.g., social care, government policy interventions, etc.), where existing design and evaluation tools are designed around existing practice and need to take on methods from digital and computer science disciplines. Coyle and Doherty also note that development and evaluation of digital systems is time-consuming; therefore “systems should aim to be useful to a broad range to therapists, in a broad range of settings and with a broad range of clients” (p. 2059). Not only are digital media forms (e.g., games and social media) being applied in health settings, but also digital devices are now key to monitoring and evaluating health, both personal (e.g., wearables) and public (e.g., environmental monitoring and sensors). Again the number and range of papers in this area is vast. An example from our corpus is Pantelopoulos and Bourbakis (2008), who reviewed the research and development of wearable biosensor systems for health monitoring. These can provide low-cost unobtrusive solutions for continuous all-day and any-place health, mental, and activity status monitoring. The article outlines the technical challenges of these technologies. As with many other evaluations in this area, they found that many of the systems in fact remain poorly designed for wearability, for many practical reasons to do with size, weight, and complexity. Alternatively, they propose that integration of these tools into clothing and textile modules is an efficient alternative approach, though it has the disadvantage of being less scalable. There is then a tension between scalability (e.g., mass availability) and wearability. As with other digital technologies in the medical domain, security is a key concern. They concluded that “integration of proper encryption and authentication mechanisms is required to ensure privacy and security of personal health data” (p. 4890). Mobile and smart phone devices. Over the same period, mobile and smartphone devices have increased in popularity globally. They clearly have become a major target for digital health solutions from health and activity monitoring to information and advice to supporting behavior change. It is unsurprising therefore that this is a topic identified in the literature. For example, Dennison et al. (2013) argue that young, currently healthy adults have interest in apps that attempt to support health-related behavior change. The factors that most influence their app use were accuracy and legitimacy, security, effort required, and immediate effects on their mood and well-being. However, they point to drawbacks, such as context skepticism and security and privacy of healthrelated data, especially keeping control over what apps can do with the user’s health data. Dennison et al. raise doubts “around whether users will use behaviour change apps for long periods of time, a critical issue that will affect the effectiveness of many behavior change apps” (p. 8). As was noted in the work on wearables, there are concerns about usability and accuracy. Dennison et al. noted that “participants lacked faith in the accuracy with which a smartphone could sense relevant states (e.g., mood, activity levels)

ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being   67 and expected that incorrect and irritating suggestions would make them mistrust the app and cease using it” (p. 9). Importantly, this work identified concerns among users as to whether health apps were linked to digital media such as social networks. One of the areas of intervention in the literature is that of self-diagnosis. As an example, Lupton and Jutel (2015) analyzed the way lay people negotiated the use of self-diagnosis smartphone apps in mid-2014. Their main findings are that they represent a contested and ambiguous site for meaning and practice in relation to personal health. Importantly, they point out that many apps purport a level of medical authority that they may not possess, and that much of this is undertaken through the presentation of information and imagery related to broader societal discourse around “healthy living” (p. 131). As they note: Self-diagnosis apps (. . .) state and engage with the discourses of healthism and ­control that pervade contemporary medicine. They also participate in the quest for  patient ‘engagement’ and ‘empowerment’ that is a hallmark of digital health ­rhetoric  (p. 132)

Lupton and Jutel point out that the implied medical authority combined with the apparent accuracy of “algorithms” provides a basis for both their promotion and use. Yet the users themselves are well aware of their own status as “not medically qualified.” The combination of both user uncertainty and, in some cases, the lack of robust medical evaluation and transparent algorithms means that there remain many challenges to making such systems work. Such work highlights the challenge found elsewhere outside the health domain, that digital technologies disrupt (for good or ill) existing systems and in many cases both individual practice and necessary societal regulation may take time to catch up. One area that is strongly prevalent in the literature is that of using mobile and smartphone devices to support patients with long-term (chronic) conditions. For example, Gollamudi et al. (2016) find that smartphones data allow these patients to make informed health decisions, though they point out that this changes the dynamics of health care relationships: [O]ne of the more intriguing aspects of this technology as a tool to enhance ­individual health is that data is collected, stored, and presented digitally without the  need for direct interaction between the user and (as traditional) health ­professional.  (p. 12)

Another area of work we noted in the literature and which may need to be better developed and formalized within the medical domain is the systematic comparison of digital solutions. For example, in the case of enhanced self-management of the chronic arthritic-like condition of gout, Nguyen et al. (2016) reviewed 57 mobile health apps. Very few apps met the internationally accepted gout management guidelines, with only one meeting all requirements. As noted previously, it is clear that more systematic work

68   Simeon J. Yates et al. is needed to assess the viability of such apps. Nguyen et al. point out a range of limitations in the apps with regard to this specific condition, especially the lack of routes for accessing health care professionals, but still argue that [T]he use of mobile applications to support self-management of chronic conditions presents much potential. The extent to which such apps contain content consistent with treatment guidelines and are user-friendly is central to their likely adoption and effectiveness.  (p. 71)

Social support. With the rise of social media, we also see a range of literature concerned with social support in health contexts. This work goes back to some of the earliest work around online communities with a focus on Internet fora. For example, Richardson (2004) explored issues of Internet use and heath debates across Cancer, SARS, and the debate about the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine and Autism. Such work has taken on much greater importance in recent years as citizens and patients have become able to engage others, often of like minds, on such issues via social media. This range of work is very broad and overlaps with research around online communities, issues of identity, and political debate where health issues are tied to policy issues. We will focus here on the more clinical health and well-being issues. As with other material discussed in this chapter, many of the publications evaluate a specific intervention or compare across technology contexts, with foci ranging from perceptions to behavior change to the links between digital media use and health. An example of comparative work is Barrera et al. (2002), who examined if diabetes patients change their perception about support following their participation in Internetbased support groups. The study finds that after three months of intervention, patients who participated in Internet-based social support significantly changed their views compared to those patients who had only participated in computer access to information about diabetes. This was achieved with patients who did not have previous experience with the Internet. In another comparative study, Barak et al. (2009) review the literature about Internet-supported psychological therapeutic interventions, conceptualizing them into four categories: web-based interventions, online counselling and therapy, Internet operated therapeutic software, and other online activities (e.g., as supplements to face-to-face therapy). They concluded that [T]he ability to develop feasible and effective alternatives by exploiting the Internet for clinical work—alternatives that suit many people and distress areas—should be regarded as broadening and expanding the availability of professional help, especially for those who feel comfortable in the virtual environment.  (p. 14)

Such work highlights the conceptual challenge of tidying up the conceptualization of, and regulating and assessing different forms of, digital media-based interventions in the medical context. Overall, much of the work in this area is not about direct clinical support interventions but rather about fostering patient and citizen empowerment in online support

ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being   69 groups. As an example, earlier work by Barak et al. (2008) point out that online support groups encourage well-being, a sense of control, self-confidence, feeling of more independence, social interactions and self-image, loneliness, optimism, and mood state. Therefore, the authors argue that participation in online support groups can foster personal empowerment, which can help in dealing with feelings of distress, but do not necessarily help in producing therapeutic changes. These groups also have drawbacks, such as developing dependence, developing distance from interpersonal contacts, and experiencing uncomfortable situations which are part of online social interactions. Barak et al. argue that It seems that the basic factors identified by quantitative research, as well as by our qualitative study—impact of writing, expressing emotions, gathering information and improving knowledge, developing interpersonal relationships, and bettering decision-making skills—generate, each and all of them, a personal sense of empowerment.  (p. 1878)

They conclude, however, that such groups are not a substitute for professional treatment where such clinical intervention is needed but can offer a complementary component to such interventions. Yet, there are always challenges in regard to communication, digital skills, and competences in such circumstances. These may interact with and influence both outcomes and well-being in and of themselves. Wright et al. (2013) argue that interpersonal motives, increased face-to-face communication, communication competence, and computer competence can predict whether college students are feeling more depressed. One of the most important skills to reduce depression was found to be communication competence, which is a set of skills that enable college students to mobilize social support in a better way. Weight loss. One area that brings all these issues of health care, social support, device use, monitoring, measurement, and personal digital technology use is that of weight loss. This is a domain where online groups, digital media, and apps have all been both promoted and critiqued as routes to intervention (or not). It is not unsurprising then that this has been highlighted as one of the few specific health topics in the analysis of the literature. One immediate question is the extent of the link between digital media use (or at least data on digital media use) and the prevalence of obesity. For example, Chunara et al. (2013) examined the relationship between online social environments via web-based social networks and population obesity prevalence. Their main finding is that activity-related interests (such as television watching as opposed to sports) across the United States and neighborhoods in New York City were significantly linked with obesity. They argue that their study corroborates the association of social environments and obesity, and also begins to uncover aspects of the environment, such as interests in the online medium, and how they are positively or negatively related to this outcome. Sharing of these norms through Facebook may also be magnified because network connections are ‘friends’; people who likely share demographic profiles, meaning there messages are better focused.

70   Simeon J. Yates et al. Issues of digital self-monitoring are also found in the literature. Steinberg and others (2013) examine the impact of weight loss interventions that focus on self-monitoring digital techniques such as “smart scales” (which displayed current weight and sent it directly to a website), a web-based weight loss graph, and weekly tailored feedback via emails. These interventions have proved to be successful when combined with other intervention elements. They found that a lower intensity weight loss intervention that focused on daily self-weighing as the main self-monitoring strategy and also included emailed tailored feedback and skills training with no regular face-to face-contact or focus on self-monitoring of diet and physical activity behaviors produced clinically significant weight losses.  (p. 8)

With regard to mobile and smartphone interventions, Svetkey et al. (2015) examined the efficacy of mobile health weight loss intervention apps in young adults: smartphone selfmonitoring, or personal coaching enhanced by smartphone self-monitoring (PC), compared with a control group. They concluded that digital interventions were not successful. This lead them to the conclusion that a combination of methods, both digital and social support of human interaction which are adaptive can be more beneficial. The researchers found that relative to the control group: “neither a mobile app alone nor personal coaching with mobile self-monitoring resulted in statistically significant weight loss after 24 months” (p. 2139). Like many other studies, they concluded that iterative and rapid development and testing of health interventions in context are needed to ensure the best outcomes. Summary. We would argue that there has been a shift in focus from health care technologies, to interaction with health care technologies, to a greater focus on the role of digital technologies in intervention, especially in regard to health behaviors and perceptions. Where the focus is on non-clinical and community interventions, there is notable overlap with the literature around digital communities. In regard to digital clinical interventions from this selection of literature, it is clear that much more work is needed on the veracity, development, and regulation of such tools.

Theory, Method, and Approach As with the other review chapters, this analysis builds on Borah (2017). A slight majority of the analyzed papers (52%) were deductive, applying existing theory (Table 3.5). Nearly Table 3.5  Epistemological Approach Percent Deductive (testing of existing theory) Inductive (conclusions driven by data)

51.5 48.5

ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being   71 half of papers utilized primary collected data (48%), with 43% of the papers using ­secondary data (Table 3.6). In line with the focus on health interventions and health behavior, the main disciplines from which theory was used or for which theory was developed were psychology (50%), sociology (19%), health studies (8%), communication and media (8%), and information studies (5%). There was considerable variety in the specific theories applied from these disciplines. Theories of behavior change, social cognition, and planned behavior (each 8% of total) were the main theories in psychology studies, while social network analysis was the most frequent theory (2% of total) in sociology articles. There was a fairly even split between statistical and qualitative approaches (Table 3.7). For those items that undertook empirical research, the main research methods were predominantly quantitative: experiments or comparisons (19%), surveys (11%), social network analysis (3%), and meta-analysis (4%) (Table 3.8). The majority of the empirical work focused on specific groups, but with a larger proportion of general population studies (31.5%) than in the other domains (Table 3.9). Less than 2% of the work described itself as using a “big data” approach. This domain is notably different than the others in two clear respects. First, the number of published papers by identified authors was much higher, and second, the majority of these reported quantitative empirical studies. Much of the work was broadly psychological and focused on the role of digital technologies in supporting or driving health behavior changes. This is reflected in the main theories identified in the literature. Unlike the other domains, there is a limited amount of reflection on the broader social or health impacts of digital media.

Table 3.6  Empirical Approach Percent Primary empirical (data collected and analyzed) Secondary empirical (analysis of existing data) Discursive/descriptive (no new data or theory) Theoretical (synthesis of current or prior work)

48.0 43.4 8.2 .5

Table 3.7  Analytic Approach Percent Qualitative (textual—non-discourse) Statistical (numerical) Not applicable Discourse (textual—linguistic-discourse)

48.4 42.6 8.3 .7

72   Simeon J. Yates et al. Table 3.8  Research Method Percent Literature Review (general or narrative) Other Experiment Survey Interview(s) Content analysis Meta-analysis or systematic review Social network analysis Focus groups Textual (linguistic-discourse analysis) Ethnography

28.6 22.0 18.8 10.8 6.6 4.5 3.3 2.6 2.0 .4 .4

Table 3.9  Study Population Percent Specific group General population Not applicable Case study (studies)

53.8 31.5 12.8 1.9

Delphi Review This section provides details of the results of the Delphi process for the Health and WellBeing domain, covering suggested scoping or research questions, key topics to address within these questions, and key challenges to researching these questions.

Future Research and Scoping Questions The Delphi review identified a set of scoping questions for the domain, which were coded into four categories: design for positive health impacts of digital technology use;  health behavior and using digital technologies; health user needs; and negative health impacts of digital technology use (Table 3.10). Their ranked importance from the confirmatory survey is given in Table 3.11. It is important to note that ranked importance is almost the inverse of the number of questions allocated to the category.

ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being   73 Table 3.10  Delphi Review Scoping Questions Question category

Example questions

Design for positive health impacts of digital technology use

What types and amounts of technology make us healthier, better educated and more secure? How can we design technology assist in making us healthier, better educated and more secure? How can we design technology to support us being healthier and thrive psychologically? What are the best practices/processes in the design of technology that will make us healthier, better educated and more secure?

Health behavior and using digital technologies

How do people engage with technology to improve health and well-being? You could extend well-being to personal and social well-being What motivates people to be healthier, better educated and more secure, and how can these motivational drivers be incorporated into technology?

Health user needs

What are the factors that lead to development of health information technology programs that meet the needs and capacities of different users? How can research be used to guide the strategic development of health information technology programs that meet the needs of different users? How can we engage different technology users in developing and implementing strategic health information systems that will meet their health information and support needs?

Negative health impacts of digital technology use

What isn’t asked here though is if technology is also hurting health. I.e., is it replacing going to the doctor, moving around (not just sitting in front of a computer all the time), too much sitting, lack of social ties, etc.? Does the use of digital technology contribute positively to our health and well-being?

Table 3.11  Delphi Review Scoping Questions Ranked by Importance Question category Design for positive health impacts of digital technology use Health behavior and using digital technologies Negative health impacts of digital technology use Health user needs

Percent 30.8 30.8 20.5 17.9

The consultation workshop found these scoping areas too broad and noted that the issue of “design” created a focus on devices and away from a more holistic view of societal health and well-being. The workshop suggested other scoping areas or questions. These include that more should be done to understand the role of digital technologies in health inequalities (do they help to alleviate, reproduce or deepen these inequalities?) and to link educational technology and health (for example, to think about learning

74   Simeon J. Yates et al. about well-being and the role of digital technology in this). The workshop also suggested addressing the governance of digital health technologies and the need for detailed systematic evidence of the impact and lived experience of everyday health technologies (e.g., fitbits). Finally, they recommended looking at the broader socio-economic and technical challenges of “joining up” health providers and services through digital technologies, and examining more questions of health and well-being in the digital workplace. The topics identified in the Delphi review were then coded into 11 categories as detailed in Table 3.12, with their ranked importance from the confirmatory survey are presented in Table  3.13. As with the scoping questions, those topics that were most Table 3.12  Key Topics Ranked by Percentage of Delphi Survey Responses Topic

Percent

Device, environment and service design Benefits and harm from digital technology use Health communication Education Device and service design Digital literacy Other Preventative and long-term condition support Digital divide Organizational change Privacy

31 15 15 10 5 5 5 5 3 3 3

Table 3.13  Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey Topic

Very important

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

Very unimportant

Benefits and harm from digital technology use

76.9%

23.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Health communication

46.2

46.2

7.7

0.0

0.0

Privacy

46.2

38.5

7.7

7.7

0.0

Device, environment, and service design

38.5

53.8

7.7

0.0

0.0

Preventative and long-term condition support

38.5

46.2

15.4

0.0

0.0

Digital divide

38.5

30.8

15.4

15.4

0.0

Digital literacy

30.8

38.5

23.1

7.7

0.0

7.7

76.9

15.4

0.0

0.0

Organizational change

ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being   75 commonly cited in the Delphi workshop were not those deemed most important in the review. The four most frequent were device, environment, and service design; benefits and harm from digital technology use; health communication; and education. Benefits and harm from digital technology use received by far the highest importance ratings, followed by health communication and privacy. The consultation workshop identified a set of additional potential topics within the health care domain. These were: what are “healthy” environments or “life worlds” and what role can digital technologies have in these; how do or can digital technologies help people to generate their own definition of a healthy “lifeworld”; and finally, understanding the impact of major digital platforms on behavior, perception of health and well-being, and routes to health information.

Research Challenges The challenges in undertaking research in this area identified by the Delphi panel were placed into seven categories. These categories are detailed in Table 3.14 and ranked by the percentage of coded items. The ranking of these by the confirmation survey are presented in Table 3.15. The methods category was twice as frequent as the next category, processes of co-design, followed by collecting and accessing data. Methods were also rated as the most important challenge, followed by rapid changes, big data for health, and interdisciplinarity. The consultation workshop agreed with the challenges identified by the Delphi ­process, in particular focusing on “big” health data, personal and commercial uses of health data, linking personal and clinical health data with well-being outcomes, governance in digital health care, and digital technologies’ role in the rich pathways of health and social care. Combining this broad range of ideas with the material in the literature provides a clearer picture. The next section undertakes this reflection.

Table 3.14  Challenges Ranked by Percent of Cases Challenge Methods to analyses digital health Processes of co-design Collecting and accessing data on digital health Rapid change in digital and health technology Big data for health Education Interdisciplinarity

Percent 46 21 14 7 4 4 4

76   Simeon J. Yates et al. Table 3.15  Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey Challenge

Very important

Important Neutral Unimportant Very unimportant

Methods to analyze digital health

61.5%

30.8%

7.7%

0.0%

0.0%

Rapid change in digital and health technology

38.5

61.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

Big data for health

38.5

46.2

15.4

0.0

0.0

Interdisciplinarity

38.5

46.2

15.4

0.0

0.0

Collecting and accessing data on digital health

30.8

61.5

7.7

0.0

0.0

Processes of co-design

30.8

46.2

15.4

7.7

0.0

Conclusion As in the Communication and Relationships (chapter 8), and the Communities and Identities domains (chapter 14), much of the work in the Health and Well-Being domain appears to be focused on specific technologies, in this case the use of bespoke or platform technologies to impact health behavior. There are few if any examples of crossplatform or holistic assessments examining the effects of broad, everyday digital technology use on health and well-being. There were also clear crossovers with the Communication and Relationships (see chapter 8) and the Communities and Identities domains (see chapter 14). Much of the work involved aspects of health communication supported by digital technologies, or at least interaction with digital technologies that afforded aspects of patient-carer-doctor-service interactions. There were also a good number of cases focused on the role of online health support communities. Health and well-being may therefore be a context for applied communications and community research. To summarize, the majority of the literature in the Health and Well-Being domain is focused on the evaluation of digital health technologies. There appears to be a limited literature on the broader question of the impacts of digital lifestyles on health and wellbeing and limited work on the negative impacts of the digital technologies. Moreover, the broader social questions identified in the Delphi work and consultation workshops that appear to go beyond the literature include the following: • Understanding and addressing the governance of digital health technologies • Need for detailed systematic evidence of the impact and lived experience of everyday health technologies (e.g., fitbits) • Questions of health and well-being in the digital workplace

ESRC Review: Health and Well-Being   77 • Digital technologies and health communication and health behavior change • Broader socio-economic challenges and issues in “joining up” health providers and services through digital technologies

Note 1. As part of the review, The Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield applied concept modelling techniques to a curated corpus of 1,900 journal articles from the period 1968 to 2017. Concept modelling is a computational linguistic process that involves identifying the emergence of concepts, or key ideas, via lexical relationships. For the purposes of the review, lexical relationships were limited to high frequency co-occurrences of terms as pairs and trios. The process is entirely data driven and resulted in 2 million rows of data. The website https://www.dhi.ac.uk/waysofbeingdigital/ provides access to the top 50 most frequently occurring pairs and trios through a series of data visualizations. Click on View Data Visualizations at the top. Then check/submit which of the seven ESRC domains you are interested in (including all). Then choose the visualization. These show configurations across selected time frames. Choose bubble chart, tree map, zoomable pack layout, or network diagram, by individual subject or by all seven subjects combined, by document or concept frequency. You can similarly search the analyzed documents (all, by subject, author, concept, concept trio, and year) by clicking on Browse Articles at the top. Also, see https://waysofbeingdigital.com/literature-analysis-interactive-results/ for interactive visualizations with mouse-overs of the main clusters of concepts within each domain, and the relative frequency of concepts associated with each cluster.

References Aydin, C. E., & Rice, R. E. (1991). Social worlds, individual differences, and implementation: Predicting attitudes toward a medical information system. Information & Management, 20(2), 119–136. Barak, A., Boniel-Nissim, M., & Suler, J. (2008). Fostering empowerment in online support groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1867–1883. Barak, A., Klein, B., & Proudfoot, J. G. (2009). Defining internet-supported therapeutic interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38(1), 4–17. Barrera, M., Glasgow, R. E., Mckay, H. G., Boles, S. M., & Feil, E. G. (2002). Do Internet-based support interventions change perceptions of social support? An experimental trial of approaches for supporting diabetes self-management. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(5), 637–654. Bennett, G. G., & Glasgow, R. E. (2009). The delivery of public health interventions via the Internet: Actualizing their potential. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 273–292. Bennett, G. G., Steinberg, D. M., Stoute, C., Lanpher, M., Lane, I., Askew, S., . . . & Baskin, M. L. (2014). Electronic health (eHealth) interventions for weight management among racial/ ethnic minority adults: A systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 15, 146–158. Borah, P. (2017). Emerging communication technology research: Theoretical and methodological variables in the last 16 years and future directions. New Media & Society, 19(4), 616–636.

78   Simeon J. Yates et al. Chou, W. Y. S., Hunt, Y. M., Beckjord, E. B., Moser, R. P., & Hesse, B. W. (2009). Social media use in the United States: Implications for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(4). Chunara, R., Bouton, L., Ayers, J. W., & Brownstein, J. S. (2013). Assessing the online social environment for surveillance of obesity prevalence. PloS One, 8(4), e61373. Coyle, D., & Doherty, G. (2009, April). Clinical evaluations and collaborative design: Developing new technologies for mental healthcare interventions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2051–2060). ACM. Dennison, L., Morrison, L., Conway, G., & Yardley, L. (2013). Opportunities and challenges for smartphone applications in supporting health behavior change: Qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(4). Eysenbach, G., & Wyatt, J. (2002). Using the Internet for surveys and health research. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 4(2). Glasgow, R. E. (2007). eHealth evaluation and dissemination research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), S119–S126. Gollamudi, S. S., Topol, E. J., & Wineinger, N. E. (2016). A framework for smartphone-enabled, patient-generated health data analysis. PeerJ: Life and Environment, 4, e2284. https://doi. org/10.7717/peerj.2284 Househ, M., Borycki, E., & Kushniruk, A. (2014). Empowering patients through social media: The benefits and challenges. Health Informatics Journal, 20(1), 50–58. Lupton, D., & Jutel, A. (2015). “It’s like having a physician in your pocket!” A critical analysis of self-diagnosis smartphone apps. Social Science & Medicine, 133, 128–135. Nguyen, A. D., Baysari, M. T., Kannangara, D. R., Tariq, A., Lau, A. Y., Westbrook, J. I., & Day, R. O. (2016). Mobile applications to enhance self-management of gout. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 94, 67–74. Pantelopoulos, A., & Bourbakis, N. (2008, August). A survey on wearable biosensor systems for health monitoring. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2008. EMBS 2008. 30th annual international conference of the IEEE (pp. 4887–4890). IEEE. Richardson, K. (2004). Internet discourse and health debates. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Steinberg, D.  M., Tate, D.  F., Bennett, G.  G., Ennett, S., Samuel-Hodge, C., & Ward, D.  S. (2013). The efficacy of a daily self-weighing weight loss intervention using smart scales and e-mail. Obesity, 21(9), 1789–1797. Svetkey, L. P., Batch, B. C., Lin, P. H., Intille, S. S., Corsino, L., Tyson, C. C., . . . & Gallis, J. A. (2015). Cell phone intervention for you (CITY): A randomized, controlled trial of behavioral weight loss intervention for young adults using mobile technology. Obesity, 23(11), 2133–2141. Wright, K.  B., Rosenberg, J., Egbert, N., Ploeger, N.  A., Bernard, D.  R., & King, S. (2013). Communication competence, social support, and depression among college students: A  model of Facebook and face-to-face support network influence. Journal of Health Communication, 18(1), 41–57.

chapter 4

Compu ter-M edi ated Com m u n ication a n d M en ta l H e a lth A Computational Scoping Review of an Interdisciplinary Field Adrian Meier, Emese Domahidi, and Elisabeth Günther

Introduction Since the earliest days of Internet, mobile phone, and social media use, researchers and the general public have debated how computer-mediated communication (CMC) is related to mental health (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998; Kross et al., 2013; Turkle, 2011; Twenge, Martin, & Campbell, 2018). Today, various disciplines (e.g., communication, psychology, sociology, medicine) investigate a smorgasbord of CMC variables in relation to a great variety of negative (i.e., psychopathology) and positive (i.e., psychological wellbeing) markers of mental health. Research in this field asks questions as diverse as, is loneliness a driver or outcome of Facebook use (Song et al., 2014)? Does passively browsing through Instagram increase depression levels by eliciting upward social comparison and envy (Verduyn, Ybarra, Résibois, Jonides, & Kross, 2017)? Does mobile voice communication increase social capital and, hence, affective well-being (Chan, 2015)? This diverse interdisciplinary field has become seemingly impossible to overview, with both primary research studies and reviews being published at what appears to be a rapidly increasing rate. Currently, various reviews exist, each synthesizing only a fraction of the available evidence on the relation between CMC and mental health (e.g., Domahidi, 2018; Huang, 2010; Huang, 2017; Liu, Ainsworth, & Baumeister, 2016). This fragmented state of the research landscape calls for a higher-level integration.

80   Adrian Meier ET AL. We  answer this call in the form of a scoping review (Colquhoun et al.,  2014; Pham et al., 2014), using both computational and qualitative methods to chart the boundaries of this emerging research field and to identify its core topics. In defining and mapping the field of CMC and mental health research, we integrate this fast-growing and interdisciplinary literature in the hopes of assisting researchers in navigating through it. Therefore, this review has three main goals: 1. To assess the scope, growth, and current state of the field by tracing the development of core topics in research on CMC and mental health for the last 20 years. 2. To characterize the publication behavior in the field, specifically by illuminating who contributes to it (i.e., journals and disciplines). 3. To identify patterns of how the key construct of mental health has been studied in relation to CMC. We first define our key constructs, CMC and mental health, and provide a brief overview of the state of the field. Guided by five research questions and three hypotheses, our scoping review then addresses the goals outlined. Results of this comprehensive assessment of the literature are discussed with regard to implications for a future research agenda.

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health Defining Key Constructs As a first step towards an overview of the research field, the key constructs—CMC and mental health—require thorough definition. We understand both terms as umbrella constructs for a variety of technological (i.e., CMC) and psychological (i.e., mental health) phenomena and consequently define them broadly. We reviewed classical and more contemporary uses of the term (e.g., Hiltz & Turoff,  1978; Lee & Oh,  2015; Walther,  1992), and arrived at a broad definition of ­computer-mediated communication (CMC) as multimodal human-to-human social interaction mediated by information and communication technologies (ICTs). Social interaction here encompasses all forms of interpersonal behavior, including everything from mere social attention (e.g., browsing through the Facebook News Feed) to deep communication (e.g., a conversation via voice call; cf. Hall, 2018). We also limit our definition to those ICTs whose primary and original—though not exclusive—function is the facilitation of CMC as social interaction (e.g., email, chat, mobile text messaging, instant messenger, social network sites, but not, e.g., games). Turning to our second umbrella construct, mental health is commonly understood from two distinct perspectives: mental illness (psychopathology) and mental

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   81 thriving (psychological well-being). Psychopathology (PTH) refers to “any pattern of behavior—broadly defined to include actions, emotions, motivations, and cognitive and regulatory processes—that causes personal distress or impairs significant life functions, such as social relationships, education, work, and health maintenance” (Lahey, Krueger, Rathouz, Waldman, & Zald, 2017, p. 143). Psychological well-being (PWB), in contrast, is understood as a positive condition characterized by “optimal psychological functioning and experience” (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 142). Note that we exclude physical health, as well as socio-economic well-being, with these definitions. This review is based on the extended two-continua model of mental health developed by Meier and Reinecke (2020). Based on previous two-continua models (Greenspoon & Saklofske,  2001; Keyes,  2007), they integrate the PTH and PWB perspective into a coherent framework and argue for a simultaneous assessment of both the negative (PTH) and positive (PWB) side of mental health in relation to CMC. Based on a review of recent PTH and PWB literature (e.g., Huta & Waterman, 2014; Lahey et al., 2017), Meier and Reinecke (2020) further differentiate indicators of PTH (into externalizing and internalizing disorders and symptoms) and PWB (into hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions) and complement the two mental health continua with risk factors (e.g., loneliness, stress, poor sleep) and resilience factors (e.g., social resources, self-esteem), which are frequently studied in relation to CMC. Note that these risk and resilience ­factors are understood as important predictors of PTH and PWB, but not indicators of mental health in a strict sense. Next, we specify how CMC and mental health can relate to each other and which of these relationships is eligible for our proposed definition of the field. This review is motivated by the long-standing public and research debate on the key question of whether the availability and usage of CMC hampers or contributes to “the good life” (e.g., Kraut et al.,  1998). Accordingly, we limit our review to two perspectives that address how the usage of CMC relates to indicators of mental health. In the first perspective, CMC is understood as a causal factor contributing to declines or improvements in mental health (i.e., the technology effects perspective), while in the second, mental health is understood as a causal factor explaining amount or types of CMC usage (i.e., the technology selection perspective). Other approaches to CMC and mental health (e.g., inferring mental health from CMC data traces or delivering mental health treatments via CMC) go beyond the focus of this review.

The State of the Research Field This section provides a brief narrative overview of the development and current state of research on CMC and mental health in order to illustrate why we believe the field can benefit from a higher-level scoping review. Following a long-standing research debate about the quality of social interaction via CMC vs. face-to-face communication (e.g., Rice, 1980; Walther, 1992), the first study to explicitly investigate CMC in relation to mental health and hence virtually constitute

82   Adrian Meier ET AL. this field was Kraut et al.’s (1998) HomeNet study. In a longitudinal panel, 73 households were surveyed during their first two years of Internet use. Although the authors found that participants had frequently used the Internet for social interaction, higher levels of Internet use were negatively related to indicators of social involvement and mental health. The authors explained these negative effects through the displacement of offline social activity and strong tie communication. The study received various critical responses (e.g., Walther & Parks, 2002) and follow-up studies both succeeded (e.g., Nie, Hillygus, & Erbring, 2002) and failed (e.g., Kraut et al., 2002) to replicate its findings. Specifically, the same authors in a later wave of the HomeNet panel found no evidence for social displacement (Kraut et al., 2002). Instead, in a second sample, they reported evidence for positive effects of Internet use on mental health, at least for users high in extraversion and social support, labeling this a “rich get richer” or social enhancement effect (as compared to a “poor get richer” or social compensation effect). For reviews of this early research, see, for example, Bargh and McKenna (2004), Huang (2010), Katz and Rice (2002), or Valkenburg and Peter (2009). Since then, numerous studies have addressed the core question of whether Internet use and CMC impact social resources, and, hence, mental health (for recent reviews, see, e.g., Domahidi,  2018; Forsman & Nordmyr, 2015; Liu et al., 2016; Mikal, Rice, Abeyta, & DeVilbiss, 2013). However, beyond the focus on social resources, the field has markedly branched out in recent years, specifically since CMC via social network sites (SNS) and mobile (smart)phones has permeated much of daily life. While researchers continue to address social resources in relation to these newer ICTs (e.g., Chan,  2015; Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007), numerous other lines of inquiry have emerged. Researchers have, for instance, started to address how passively consuming others’ positively biased self-presentations in SNS is linked to mental health, specifically through the lenses of social comparison and envy (Verduyn et al., 2017). The authenticity of SNS ­self-presentations has also been linked to the mental health of the presenters themselves (Twomey & O’Reilly, 2017). Furthermore, studies have repeatedly linked “screen time” as a global indicator of ICT usage to the mental health of adolescents (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017; Twenge, Martin et al., 2018). Various theoretical links between CMC and decreased or increased mental health have also been confirmed, including selfaffirmation (Toma & Hancock, 2013), social sharing of emotions (Choi & Toma, 2014), extended self theory (Clayton, Leshner, & Almond, 2015), multitasking (van der Schuur, Baumgartner, Sumter, & Valkenburg, 2015), or deficient self-regulation (Meier, Reinecke, & Meltzer, 2016), among many others. Simultaneously, a more clinical “addiction” or “problematic usage” approach to CMC and mental health has gained traction (for reviews, see, e.g., Carli et al., 2013; Tokunaga & Rains, 2010). Overall, the field appears to have grown considerably in recent years and has become increasingly difficult to overview for individual researchers. While several reviews of specific relationships between forms of CMC (e.g., SNS use) and single indicators of mental health (e.g., depression) exist (e.g., Baker & Algorta, 2016), there is little awareness of the research field as a whole. This is problematic for at least two reasons: First, researchers may simply not be aware of similar or related work being done outside of their “disciplinary bubbles” or “invisible colleges” (Zuccala, 2006). Without awareness

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   83 of a field as a whole, researchers may unnecessarily “reinvent the wheel,” especially every time a new ICT grasps (younger) users’ attention. Second, while the diversity of research questions and theoretical concepts in this field seems staggering, several of the topics outlined earlier also show considerable conceptual overlap. Integrating this literature to achieve consensus about its basic concepts (i.e., CMC and mental health), their relation, as well as its core underlying themes and topics, thus appears paramount.

The Present Study: Foci, Hypotheses, and Research Questions Based on the available literature on CMC and mental health and its deficient higherlevel integration as a larger research field, we arrive at three distinct foci for our review: (1) core topics, (2) publication behavior in the field, and (3) mental health concepts. 1.  While our brief narrative review highlights some of the issues that research on CMC and mental health has addressed, it does so in an inherently selective manner. In contrast, here we aim to systematically identify a variety of core topics that have received considerable research attention in the field. Moreover, the development of these topics over time and their relative impact on the field as a whole remain unclear: While some topics may continuously dominate the field, others may have fallen or risen in research attention. Accordingly, we ask the following research questions: RQ1:  What are the core topics of research on CMC and mental health? RQ2:  How are the core topics distributed over time? 2.  Beyond identifying core topics, we also aim to characterize the publication behavior in the research field, that is, the publication rate, publication outlets, and contribution of different disciplines. These criteria allow an assessment of the trajectory of research on CMC and mental health (publication rate) and a critical examination of who (journals and disciplines) contributes to this field. The latter, in particular, may have implications for the kind of research questions asked, the concepts studied (see focus 3: mental health concepts), and the representativeness of research findings. First, based on the increasing public debate on the relationship between CMC and mental health (e.g., Turkle, 2011; Twenge, Martin et al., 2018), a rise in systematic review articles on this issue in recent years (Meier & Reinecke, 2020), and a general upward trend in overall publication output (Günther & Domahidi, 2017), we assume that this research field is growing: H1:  The number of publications in CMC and mental health research has increased over time. Second, we aim to identify key publication outlets that particularly contribute to research on CMC and mental health. This is important for two reasons: First, researchers previously unfamiliar with this field can benefit from knowing which key outlets to turn to for both

84   Adrian Meier ET AL. targeted literature searches and to submit publications that reach an audience likely to be interested in their work. Second, publication outlets can serve as proxies to identify the contributions of different disciplines to this field (see H2 and RQ4). Accordingly, we ask: RQ3:  What are the key outlets that publish research on CMC and mental health? Third, beyond assessing the publication outlets, another approach to mapping a research field lies in assessing its disciplinary boundaries (e.g., de Chavez, Backett-Milburn, Parry, & Platt, 2005). Interdisciplinary research creates a rich and multifaceted literature, but may come at the price of insufficient research integration, for example, because researchers are not aware of relevant work being published outside of their discipline. Our review attempts to further integration by making visible who contributes to the field of CMC and mental health. However, based on our narrative review and the nature of the subject matter studied, we feel safe to assume that the field has been particularly driven by researchers with a background in psychology (e.g., Twenge, Martin et al., 2018) and by papers published in psychological journals (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998; Meier & Reinecke, 2020). Accordingly, we expect: H2:  The relative majority of research on CMC and mental health is published in outlets from psychology. Beyond psychology, however, there may be various other disciplines contributing to this research field due to the increasing concern over and recognition of technology’s impact on society and the individual (see this Handbook). We thus ask: RQ4:  Based on the publication outlets, which other disciplines contribute to research on CMC and mental health? 3.  Our definition of mental health encompasses two distinct perspectives or meta-­ concepts, that is, psychopathology (PTH) and psychological well-being (PWB). However, past reviews have shown little attempts to reflect upon these two mental health concepts that have been studied in relation to CMC (Meier & Reinecke,  2020). For instance, Huang (2017) reviewed the literature on time spent on SNS in relation to ­“psychological well-being,” operationalized via self-esteem, life satisfaction, depression, and loneliness (i.e., lumping together PTH and PWB indicators under the PWB label). Researchers in this field often fail to address whether the mental health indicators they empirically assessed allow statements about PTH or PWB or both (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998). Moreover, at least from a media effects perspective, the choice of mental health indicators in empirical studies should depend on whether one expects CMC to impair mental health, which should favor PTH indicators, or contribute to mental health, which should favor PWB. The choice of mental health concepts—that is, whether researchers measure indicators of PTH or PWB—thus at least partly reflects researchers’ (implicit)

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   85 assumptions about whether CMC is more relevant for mental illness (PTH) or mental thriving (PWB). These assumptions may vary over time (e.g., due to researchers shifting their focus from negative to positive technology effects, or because some mental health indicators become more relevant with the emergence of new ICTs) as well as discipline and topic (e.g., some disciplines focus on topics that relate CMC only to PTH while others focus on CMC in relation to PWB; cf. de Chavez et al., 2005). This leads us to ask: RQ5:  How are the mental health concepts PTH and PWB distributed (a) over time, (b) within and between disciplines, and (c) within and between topics? While we are interested in the general trajectory of both concepts, there is some reason to believe that, overall, studies will address PTH more often than PWB. Typically, new media and communication technologies are met with cultural critique, skepticism, or even moral panic (e.g., Jensen, 1990; Buckingham & Strandgaard Jensen, 2012). This is certainly the case with CMC, as illustrated by fierce public and research debates about the impact of each new and popular ICT, especially on younger users (e.g., Kraut et al., 1998; Turkle, 2011; Twenge, Joiner, Rogers, & Martin, 2018; Walther & Parks, 2002). With regard to mental health, researchers are then more likely to address CMC in relation to impairments of mental health (i.e., PTH) rather than to contributions to optimal psychological functioning (i.e., PWB). Accordingly, we expect: H3a:  Overall, there will be more research investigating PTH than PWB. However, over time, researchers typically go beyond a “negative effects” paradigm and start investigating the positive potentials of media and communication technologies. Television research, for instance, started by addressing the potentially negative impact on aggression, people’s tendency to seek escape, or cultivation effects, but later turned to positive potentials for mood management and meaningful entertainment (for an overview, see Reinecke & Oliver, 2017). We expect a similar shift with regard to CMC and mental health. Specifically, we expect to see a larger increase in research studying CMC in relation to the positive (PWB) than the negative side of mental health (PTH). H3b:  Over time, the rate of research investigating PWB will increase more than the rate of research investigating PTH.

Method Scoping Review Methodology To chart the vast, highly fragmented, and fast growing literature on CMC and mental health we make use of scoping review methodology (Colquhoun et al.,  2014; Pham

86   Adrian Meier ET AL. et  al.,  2014). In reaction to the exponential rise in research output (Günther & Domahidi, 2017), scoping reviews have become a popular approach for research synthesis in many disciplines. The main function of this type of review is “to map a vast body of research literature in a field of interest in terms of the volume, nature, and characteristics of the primary research” (Pham et al., 2014, p. 371). Scoping reviews are particularly relevant when a field of interest is highly heterogeneous in nature (Mays, Roberts, & Popay, 2001) and helpful in tracing the emergence of new (sub-)fields. Moreover, they can illuminate a field’s main lines of inquiry (i.e., its topics) as well as its disciplinary boundaries; uncover gaps and trends in the literature; and, most importantly, point to future directions for further research integration. Scoping reviews have rarely been applied in the field of communication (e.g., Peng, Zhang, Zhong, & Zhu, 2013), although research on mass media, ICTs, and CMC is inherently interdisciplinary and growing fast (Günther & Domahidi,  2017). We believe that this type of review represents a useful method to assess the state of research on the relationship between CMC and mental health. As research in this area is currently particularly fragmented and likely growing exponentially, a “classical” review approach that involves hand searches and manual coding would be highly resource-intensive. We therefore make use of economical and effective computational methods that have recently gained popularity in communication (e.g., Günther & Domahidi, 2017; Peng et al., 2013; Rauchfleisch, 2017). Besides allowing us to conduct a scoping review based on a great amount of information (Tsafnat et al., 2014), computational methods facilitate thematically comprehensive reviews, as they are typically based on large-scale systematic sampling and quantitative analysis (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein,  2009). To also provide more in-depth and detailed accounts of the reviewed body of literature, we combine these computational methods with qualitative manual coding wherever necessary (e.g., to select the topics relevant for our research question, or to further illustrate the meaning of topics identified by our quantitative analysis).

Sample To realize our sample of relevant studies, we systematically developed a search string covering both CMC and mental health concepts (see Table 4.1). An original string was developed and then iteratively refined and validated manually in multiple steps (e.g., by assessing the number of false-positive search results). During this procedure, it became apparent that certain highly prevalent terms (e.g., sex, suicide, therapy, or cancer) as well as technology and media terms not meeting our definition of CMC (e.g., games, robots, porn) needed to be explicitly excluded in order to reduce high numbers of false-positives. The final search string was then applied to search articles’ abstracts via the meta-database EBSCO Host from 1998 (i.e., the year of publication of Kraut et al.’s pivotal article) until April 4th 2018. EBSCO Host offers access to a wide range of databases and journals and

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   87 Table 4.1  Search Terms, Databases, and Concept Operationalization Search String of the Systematic Database Search AB(((Internet or cyber* or “online media” or “online communication” or “online social network*” or “online communit*” or chat* or email or “computer-mediated” or “mobile phone” or smartphone or "instant mess*" or “mobile mess*” or “social media” or “social network* site*” or “information and communication technolog*” or facebook or instagram or snapchat or twitter or wechat or weibo or texting) not gam* not robot* not porn*) and ((“well-being” or “psych* functioning” or “life satisfaction” or “satisfaction with life” or “positive affect” or “negative affect” or psychopatholog* or “mental health” or anxiety or loneliness or “self W1 esteem” or depression) not sex* not suicid* not disabil* not trauma* not patient* not emergency not therap* not training not protocol not intervent* not prevent* not care not program not cancer)). EBSCO Host Databases Searched Academic Search Ultimate; Business Source Premier; Communication Source; EconLit; ERIC; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES; PsycINFO; SocINDEX with Full Text. Operationalization of Mental Health Concepts for Concept Analysis Concept 1, psychological well-being (very broadly defined, incl. resilience factors): “well-being” or “psych* functioning” or “life satisfaction” or “satisfaction with life” or “positive affect” or “negative affect” or happiness or “social support” or “social capital” or “self-esteem” Concept 2, psychopathology (very broadly defined, incl. risk factors): psychopatholog* or anxiety or loneliness OR depress* or stress or phobia or fear or disorder or “substance abuse” or “attentiondeficit” or “hyperactivity” or “ADHD” or “AD/HD” or aggress*

allows downloading abstracts and metadata (though not full texts) for all search results as an .xml file. We searched 10 databases within EBSCO Host representing a broad variety of disciplines that may conduct research on CMC and mental health (see Table 4.1). Automated content analysis is highly dependent on language; thus, only publications in English were included. Included publication formats were journal articles, dissertations, and conference proceedings. After downloading, we excluded all duplicates and entries with missing abstract and/ or title data, resulting in our final sample of 4,118 potentially relevant documents. All our analyses are based on articles’ abstracts and metadata (i.e., title, year of publication, journal title).

Analytical Approach Topic modeling. To process the large sample, we opted for an automated content analysis, specifically topic modeling. Topic modeling is an unsupervised machine learning approach “inferring topics from recurring patterns of word occurrence in documents” (Maier et al., 2018, p. 94). Note that topic models are mixed membership approaches, meaning that documents can be associated with multiple topics (Maier et al., 2018). Given the characteristics of our sample (i.e., topics are likely to be correlated), we estimated a

88   Adrian Meier ET AL. Correlated Topic Model (CTM) based on the text in articles’ abstracts (Blei & Lafferty,  2009). Common preprocessing steps such as word stemming and TFIDF weighting were implemented (Manning, Raghavan, & Schütze, 2008) with the R package tm_0.7-3 (Feinerer, Hornik, & Meyer, 2008). Following a common approach, we estimated 90 topic models from k = 20 to k = 200 in order to find the number of topics k that delivers the best model fit for our data. We then estimated our CTM with the resulting parameter value of k = 110 topics using the R topicmodels_0.2-7 package (Grün & Hornik, 2011). Based on the estimated hyperparameter values, we observed a few dominant topics per document (instead of a high number of equally distributed topics). To avoid skewed results, we selected the two topics with the highest probability, meaning the likelihood that a topic k occurs in a given abstract. Additionally, we only considered topics with a minimum probability of 0.1 in a given abstract. Manual topic selection and merger. After the automated analysis, we manually checked abstracts and titles for all topics that appeared as first or second most probable in more than 50 documents (Maier et al., 2018). Out of the identified 110 topics, we manually selected only those topics that fit our specific research focus for further analysis (see the section on Defining key constructs). This manual topic selection resulted in a reduction of our sample to 15 topics (N = 1780 abstracts). All analyses are based on this reduced sample. We then merged the 15 topics into nine based on our qualitative assessment that they showed high thematic overlap. That is, we retained the algorithmically identified 15 topics, but manually grouped them together on a more general level, based on common research themes investigated in these topics. This merger was done to ensure a parsimonious yet still exhaustive analysis. For each of the nine merged topics, we chose a label that best represents its content on a conceptual level above and beyond the words associated with each topic (see Table 4.2). Publication behavior in the field. Journal names were determined from article metadata. Additionally, we manually coded journals’ disciplinary affiliations for all journals that had published three or more articles in our sample. Coding was based on a journal’s Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) categorization (see end of chapter for URL). In a few cases, journals were not listed in the SSCI; disciplinary affiliations were then coded based on the journal’s self-description taken from its web presence. In a next step, SSCI sub-discipline categories (e.g., developmental psychology, social psychology, clinical psychology) were grouped in broad disciplines (e.g., psychology) to ensure comparability of results across a reasonable number of disciplines. Note that journals can be listed for multiple disciplines in the SSCI and were coded and analyzed accordingly (71 journals belonged to only one discipline, 30 belonged to two disciplines, five belonged to three disciplines, and two belonged to four disciplines). Publication outlets other than journals (e.g., Dissertation Abstracts databases) were not coded for disciplinary affiliation. Concepts. The two key mental health concepts, psychopathology (PTH) and psychological well-being (PWB), were identified via a keyword search based on lists of relevant expressions which we applied to the downloaded abstracts, title, and keywords of all

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   89 1780 documents (see Table 4.1). The keyword search included terms from our literature search string as well as additional terms originally not included in the literature search string due to high rates of false-positive search results (e.g., “social capital” or “disorder”). We ensured that both concepts were operationalized with roughly the same number of keywords to avoid bias. Software. All data management, cleaning, and analysis was performed using R (R Core Team, 2018). All visualization was done with the R package ggplot2_2.2.1 (Wickham, 2009).

Results Core Topics To answer RQ1, we illustrate each topic based on example research themes derived from documents associated with each of the 15 topics grouped into nine core topics (see Table 4.2). Due to the high number of documents, we can only include exemplary citations for each topic, taken from the complete topic modeling dataset (N = 1780). These only serve to illustrate a topic and do not represent the definitive state of the respective sub-field. However, we generally chose the most recent and most thematically fitting publications in order to provide an accurate description of the current state of the topic. The complete references for these citations can be found in the appendix. Topics are sorted in descending order based on the (aggregated) number of documents associated with each topic. Internet addiction & problematic Internet use. Internet addiction (IA; topic 1a) is a controversially debated, but dominant, approach to the study of CMC and mental health since the earliest days of commercial Internet use (e.g., Young & Rodgers, 1998). It postulates that excessive Internet use—for some—can result from or reflect impulse control, substance abuse, or compulsive disorders (Widyanto & Griffiths,  2006). While some use the terminology interchangeably, problematic or pathological Internet use (PIU; 1b) often represents one of several alternative approaches to this issue (e.g., Caplan, 2003; Kardefelt-Winther, 2014; Tokunaga, 2014). PIU recognizes problematic behaviors surrounding (excessive) Internet use, but does not necessarily see these behaviors as indicative of behavioral addiction. Numerous studies have linked IA/PIU to various psychopathological symptoms and disorders (e.g., Floros, Siomos, Stogiannidou, Giouzepas, & Garyfallos, 2014) or lacking social resources (e.g., Wu et al., 2016). However, beyond providing evidence of construct validity and assessing comorbidity, studies finding negative relationships between IA/PIU and mental health appear somewhat tautological, as its measures often include impaired mental health as a diagnostic criterion. Furthermore, a much contended issue pertains to the causal direction between comorbid psychopathology and IA/PIU (e.g., Carli et al., 2013).

90   Adrian Meier ET AL. Table 4.2  CTM with 15 Manually Selected Topics Merged into Nine Thematically Overlapping Topic Clusters, Sorted by Aggregated Frequencies (k = 110, N = 1780, Max. 2 topics/Document, Prob ≥ 0.1) Topic Label

Most relevant preprocessed words

Freq

1a

Internet addiction & problematic Internet use

addict, selfesteem, impuls, iad, iat, turkey, comorbid, sclr, excess, nonaddict

265

1b

Internet addiction & problematic Internet use

problemat, alcohol, piu, drink, addict, fomo, cellphon, excess, impuls, heavi

167

2a

Facebook & SNS use

facebook, selfesteem, updat, lone, extravers, passiv, gratif, impress, upward, selfpresent

322

2b

Facebook & SNS use

sns, selfpresent, authent, uncertainti, reconnect, passiv, snapchat, offlin, acquaint, tie

3a

Mobile & smartphone use

mobil, phone, spiritu, nurs, leisur, app, send, nomophobia, recreat, smart, dses

233

3b

Mobile & smartphone use

smartphon, selfefficaci, exercis, app, taiwan, disposit, gratif, tablet, locus, multitask

153

4a

Relationships & CMC

attach, style, gay, men, stressor, homoneg, secur, bisexu, romant, insecur

105

4b

Relationships & CMC

selfdisclosur, intimaci, romant, computermedi, disclosur, weibo, avatar, cue, partner, wechat

89

4c

Relationships & CMC

friendship, girl, violenc, date, boy, sibl, domest, violent, grade, parentchild

84

5a

Chatting & texting

loneli, chat, room, selfesteem, selfconcept, ciu, compuls, instant, clariti, teenag

5b

Chatting & texting

text, partner, talk, instant, voic, channel, afford, retic, sms, textmessag,

6

Cyberbullying

victim, cyberbulli, bulli, cyber, aggress, peer, cybervictim, perpetr, selfesteem, harass

185

7

ICT adoption

ict, incom, rural, swb, household, inequ, farm, agricultur, urban, broadband

136

8

Work-related CMC

job, employe, workplac, worker, workrel, worklif, intrus, burnout, supervisor, turnov

115

9

ICT use & sleep

sleep, insomnia, disturb, hygien, sensor, pittsburgh, perfectionist, telepressur, perfection, baselin

70

141 63

72

Facebook & SNS use. With the rise of SNS, specifically Facebook, a second large research topic has emerged. Often, studies extend classic research on CMC and mental health (e.g., on the displacement of face-to-face contact) to the SNS context (e.g., Dienlin, Masur, & Trepte,  2017). While some studies appear largely atheoretical and “effects-driven” (e.g., Huang,  2017; Shakya & Christakis,  2017), increasingly research

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   91 illuminates how the passive consumption of others’ (often positively biased) selfpresentations on SNS elicits upward social comparison and emotional reactions such as envy (e.g., Blease, 2015; Kross et al., 2013; Tromholt, 2016; Verduyn et al., 2015). Some of this research gathers under the label of “Facebook depression” (Steers, 2016). In contrast to this negative perspective on SNS and mental health, much work has assessed positive mental health effects of social support and social capital derived from SNS use (e.g., Nabi, Prestin, & So, 2013), albeit also finding mixed results (e.g., Utz & Breuer, 2017). Another theme within this broader topic has been the relationship between individuals’ loneliness and their SNS use (i.e., social compensation vs. social enhancement; e.g., Song et al., 2014). It should be noted that the Facebook sub-topic (2a) was considerably more frequent than the general SNS topic (2b), reflecting a “Facebook bias” in this research (see Table 4.2). Mobile & smartphone use. Research on the role of mobile phones (3a) and smartphones (3b) in mental health shows a variety of themes: Epidemiological and medical work, for example, is linking mobile screen time to impaired mental health, especially among adolescent users (e.g., Babic et al., 2017). Early mobile research, in contrast, has identified the emotional attachment that users have to their mobile devices as a double-edged sword (Vincent, 2006), providing positive feelings of connectedness to social ties, but eliciting anxiety once the mobile is absent (sometimes termed “nomophobia”; e.g., Hoffner, Lee, & Park, 2016). Another recent line of research investigates “phubbing,” the snubbing of conversation partners by using mobiles phones during face-to-face talk, which has been linked to reduced quality of social interactions and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Rotondi, Stanca, & Tomasuolo, 2017). Studies have also investigated the positive (Pearson, Mack, & Namanya, 2017) and negative (Xie, Zhao, Xie, & Lei, 2016) sides of mobile phone usage in rural and developing areas. Relationships & CMC. This topic encompasses three—partly overlapping—research foci that are tied together by their common theme of how people use CMC to develop and maintain relationships: attachment theory, self-disclosure, and friendship and ­dating via CMC. Research on attachment theory (4a) investigates how different attachment styles (e.g., anxious vs. avoidant) impact CMC usage in (romantic) relationships (Oldmeadow, Quinn, & Kowert, 2013) and its effects on relationship well-being (e.g., intimacy or satisfaction). Morey, Gentzler, Creasy, Oberhauser, and Westerman (2013), for instance, find that attachment style moderated most of the effects between CMC and relationship quality. Other work has studied how attachment style is related to using CMC for breakups or monitoring of ex-partners via SNS (Weisskirch & Delevi, 2012). Self-disclosure (4b) crucially contributes to maintaining interpersonal relationships and receiving social support, and is hence beneficial for mental health. Often coming from a hyperpersonal perspective (e.g., High & Caplan,  2009), this line of research investigates how social anxiety relates to more disinhibited disclosures in CMC (Schouten, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2007) and provides evidence for social compensation (“poor get richer”) effects (Weidman et al., 2012).

92   Adrian Meier ET AL. Finally, research on friendship and dating via CMC (4c) finds further evidence for such compensation effects (e.g., Desjarlais & Willoughby,  2010; Selfhout, Branje, Delsing, ter Bogt, & Meeus, 2009), but also for social enhancement (“rich get richer”) effects in online dating (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007). In dating relationships among adolescents, the role of social anxiety has further been studied with regard to “electronic intrusion,” that is, overcontrolling behavior towards one’s partner via CMC (Reed, Tolman, Ward, & Safyer, 2016). Chatting & texting. The research clustered around chatting (5a) and texting (5b) investigates several of the issues outlined previously with a specific focus on text-based CMC. Partly in reaction to Kraut et al.’s (1998) survey, researchers have, for instance, assessed the relation between chatting and mental health experimentally and found positive effects—specifically, reductions in depression and loneliness as well as increases in social support and self-esteem (e.g., Shaw & Gant, 2002). However, researchers have also studied chatting and texting from an addiction perspective, sometimes under the label of compulsive Internet use (CIU; van den Eijnden, Meerkerk, Vermulst, Spijkerman, & Engels,  2008), and found CIU to be linked longitudinally to higher depression levels. Text messaging has also been differentially associated with relationship well-being (Park, Lee, & Chung,  2016) and affective well-being (Hall,  2017). Notably, many studies in this topic assess and confirm mental health variables as predictors (e.g., loneliness, social anxiety, or depression symptoms), rather than outcomes of texting behavior (e.g., Coyne, Padilla-Walker, & Holmgren, 2018; Reid & Reid, 2010). Cyberbullying. The phenomenon of cyberbullying (6) has received much research attention over the past 20 years (Chen, Ho, & Lwin, 2017). Researchers have, for instance, studied whether cyberbullying extends or replaces offline bullying (Kubiszewski, Fontaine, Potard, & Auzoult, 2015) and tested whether cyberbullying uniquely contributes to victims’ mental health impairments when controlling for offline bullying (Hase, Goldberg, Smith, Stuck, & Campain, 2015; Sjursø, Fandrem, & Roland, 2014). Typical outcomes of cyber victimization include internalizing and externalizing psychopathology (Schultze-Krumbholz, Jäkel, Schultze, & Scheithauer, 2012), and stress (Wright, 2015). Researchers have also found psychopathology to predict whether adolescents become cyberbullies (Chen et al., 2017). Research on this topic shows a unique focus on children and adolescents, but has also recognized cyberbullying as a prevalent phenomenon in the workplace (Vranjes, Baillien, Vandebosch, Erreygers, & de Witte, 2018) and in the form of online trolling behavior (Hong & Cheng, 2018). ICT adoption. This topic (7) focusses on how the adoption of or access to ICTs affect the well-being of different (marginalized) populations (e.g., elderly, rural inhabitants, lowincome individuals, inhabitants of developing regions; Greyling,  2018; Ihm & Hsieh, 2015; Tseng & Hsieh, 2015). Some of this research comes from a digital divide or digital inequality perspective (e.g., Nie, Sousa-Poza, & Nimrod, 2017), studying differences in access, adoption, and effects depending on various sociodemographic factors. In contrast to emphasizing the desirability of equal access to ICTs, researchers have also proposed that increased ICT access can negatively affect well-being, for instance, by

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   93 raising material aspirations (Lohmann,  2015). Overall, research on this topic takes a more sociological and economical macro perspective. Work-related CMC. With the radical shift in work-environments towards email and mobile communication, research has been paying attention to the role that CMC plays for workers’ well-being (8). For instance, research has explored how email usage contributes to “technostress” and burnout (Carmago, 2008; Ninaus, Diehl, Terlutter, Chan, & Huang, 2015) or the well-being tradeoffs made when resisting interruptions from emails during work tasks (Russell, Woods, & Banks, 2017). Research by Sonnentag, Reinecke, Mata, and Vorderer (2018), however, shows that the effects of interruptions through messages at work are not uniformly negative and depend on the user’s responsiveness. The impact of incivility in email communication on well-being within organizations is another theme within this topic (e.g., Giumetti, McKibben, Hatfield, Schroeder, & Kowalski, 2012). Concerning positive effects, researchers also recognize the potential of CMC technologies to allow for micro-breaks at work, facilitating recovery and, hence, well-being (Ivarsson & Larsson, 2011). ICT use & sleep. Finally, emerging research increasingly links ICT use to poor sleep quality (9), for example, through sleep displacement (e.g., Rosen, Carrier, Miller, Rokkum, & Ruiz, 2016; Thomée, Eklöf, Gustafsson, Nilsson, & Hagberg, 2007). Poor sleep is a crucial risk factor for various psychopathologies. Research on this topic has found increased social media use, both overall and nighttime-specific, to be linked to decreased sleep quality among adolescents (Woods & Scott, 2016). A study also found that the collapse of social contexts resulting from constant connectivity via ubiquitously used ICTs created “telepressure” among college students (Barber & Santuzzi,  2017), which contributed to poorer sleep hygiene (e.g., not going to bed at a regular time).

Changes over Time Concerning the development of these nine core topics over time (RQ2), some topics did increase particularly sharply in the last decade (see Figure 4.1). While topic 2 “Facebook & SNS use” is only represented with one publication in 1998 and only two in 2008, in the year 2017 we already find 62 publications on the topic. The same is true for topic 1 “Internet addiction & problematic Internet use,” a topic only represented with four publications in 1998 and eleven in 2008, but 74 in 2017. Other topics such as topic 6 “cyberbullying” (2002: n = 1, 2008: n = 1, 2017: n = 28) increased less in the last decade. Overall, we observe a sharp increase in research on CMC and mental health since 1998. Accordingly, H1 was supported.

Publication Behavior in the Field Concerning RQ3, the number of outlets for research on CMC and mental health is very high, with 715 different publication outlets in our final sample. However, the number of

Figure 4.2  Top 20 journals.

Psych. of Pop. Media Culture

Int. J/o Env. Research & Pub. Health

2014

J. of Behavioral Addict.

Int. J/o Ment. Health & Addict.

2012

Conf. Papers American Sociological Assoc.

Journals

Turkish Online J. of Educ. Techn.

T4: T3: T2: T1:

2010

Behaviour & Inform. Tech.

ICT use & sleep Work−related CMC ICT adoption Cyberbullying Chatting & texting

Psychiatry Research

2008

J/o Med. Internet Research

2006

Front. in Psych.

Social Indic. Research

2004

J. of Computer−Mediated Comm.

T9: T8: T7: T6: T5:

J/o Adolescence

2002

Ind. J/o Health & Wellbeing

2000

PLOS ONE

Personality & I.D.

1998

Diss.Abstracts A

Cyberpsychology, B&S

Diss.Abstracts B

Computers in Human Behavior

Articles

Articles

94   Adrian Meier ET AL.

300

200

100

0 2016

Relationships & CMC Mobile & smartphone use Facebook & SNS use Internet addiction & PIU

Figure 4.1  Distribution of nine core topics over time.

150

100

50

0

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   95 documents per outlet is often low (i.e., the distribution is highly skewed towards a few outlets that publish most of the research in the field). Figure 4.2 displays the output of the 20 outlets with the highest number of documents in our sample. When interpreting these results, it is important to keep in mind that outlets differ both in terms of how far their archives date back, and in their yearly output (affected by number of issues per year and articles per issue). We clearly find two psychological journals, Computers in Human Behavior (n = 174) and Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking (n = 110) to have published the largest relative share of research on CMC and mental health. Interestingly, genuine communication journals do not play an important role, with only the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication (n = 14) among the top 20 publication outlets. Note that while journals dominate the publication outlets, there is also a  high number of dissertations on CMC and mental health both in the “Sciences and  Engineering” (Diss. Abstract B, n = 133) and “Humanities and Social Sciences” (Diss. Abstracts A, n = 51). We also analyzed the relative importance of disciplines for this research field. Clearly (see Figure 4.3), psychology is the discipline publishing most research on CMC and mental health (n = 510). We thus find support for H2. To answer RQ4, we look at the other disciplines and find psychiatry (117), other social sciences (101), health and medicine (74), and other (the residual category; 70), followed by communication (69), computer and information science (60), and education (55) to considerably contribute to this field. The remaining publications (n = 832) were either scattered over other outlets (e.g., Diss. Abstracts), which we could not clearly classify by discipline, or they were

Articles

150

100

50

0 1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Education Computer & Information Sciences Communication Other Disciplines

2010

2012

2014

2016

Health & Medical Sciences Social Sciences (Other) Psychiatry Psychology

Figure 4.3  Distribution of articles per discipline over time.

96   Adrian Meier ET AL. published in journals with fewer than three articles on CMC and mental health and hence not included in this analysis. Disciplines vary with regard to their growth rates of publications on CMC and mental health. Communication is not represented in the year 1998, has three articles in 2008, while the rate increased fourfold to 13 articles in 2017. Psychology has a similar output of only three articles in 1998 and 11 in 2008, but an almost sevenfold increase to 73 articles in 2017. The interest of psychology in CMC and mental health research thus seems to have increased particularly sharply.

Mental Health Concepts In order to answer RQ5a and test H3, we searched for terms representing each of the two concepts, psychopathology (PTH) and psychological well-being (PWB), in our sample. In general (see Figure 4.4), we found that research on PTH (n = 1205) is more prevalent than on PWB (n = 808). We thus find support for H3a. However, a number of publications addressed both concepts simultaneously (n = 368)—that is, they included both terms associated with PTH and terms associated with PWB. Note that 135 abstracts could not be classified in our sample as they included neither a term indicative of PTH or of PWB; specifically, the search term “mental health” was considered to capture both concepts and thus not included in the concept analysis (see Table 4.1 for details on the terms used). In order to test H3b we look at the increase over time in number of publications containing each concept. While PTH is represented with seven publications in the year 1998, and 32 in 2008, in 2017 we find 176 publications. PWB is represented with five publications in 1998, 19 in 2008, and 128 in 2017. While the increase rate is the same for both concepts 400

Articles

300

200

100

0 1998

2000

2002

Not Classified

2004

2006

Mixed

2008

2010

Well−Being

2012

2014

Psychopathology

Figure 4.4  Distribution of mental health concepts over time.

2016

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   97 for the last two decades (factor 25), we find a slightly higher increase for PWB in the last decade (factor 6.7) than for PTH (factor 5.5). Hence, we find weak support for H3b. With regard to RQ5b, we find differences concerning the disciplines that publish research on both concepts (see Table 4.3). While in communication journals the concept PTH (n = 49) is only 1.1 times as common as the concept PWB (n = 37), in psychology the rate is 1.8 (PTH: n = 397; PWB: n = 222), and in psychiatry studies on PTH (n = 90) were three times more common than on PWB (n = 31). Regarding the question of how the two mental health concepts are distributed over topics (RQ5c), we find several noteworthy differences (see Table 4.4). In most topics such as “Internet addiction & PIU,” “mobile & smartphone use,” “relationships & CMC,” Table 4.3  Mental Health Concepts Distributed over Disciplines Discipline

PTH

PWB

Both

Not classified

Communication Psychology Psychiatry Education Health & Medical Sciences Computer & Information Sciences Social Sciences (Other) Other disciplines

49 397 90 40 43 37 65 45

37 222 31 27 30 32 51 32

21 121 16 14 13 14 19 11

4 12 12 2 14 5 4 4

Note: PTH = psychopathology; PWB = psychological well-being. Based on the data from our CTM with manual selection of 15 relevant topics, merged into nine topics based on high ­thematic overlap, k = 110, N = 1780, max. 2 topics/document with topic probability ≥ 0.1.

Table 4.4  Mental Health Concepts Distributed over Topics Topic

PTH

PWB

Both

Not Classified

Internet addiction & PIU Facebook & SNS use Mobile & smartphone use Relationships & CMC Chatting & texting Cyberbullying ICT adoption Work-related CMC ICT use & sleep

355 254 231 194 180 151 47 67 52

138 231 159 113 82 66 96 81 25

88 105 52 50 63 43 17 41 13

27 12 48 21 5 11 10 8 8

Note: PTH = psychopathology; PWB = psychological well-being; based on the data from our CTM with manual selection of 15 relevant topics, merged into nine topics based on high t­ hematic overlap, k = 110, N = 1780, max. 2 topics/document with topic probability ≥ 0.1.

98   Adrian Meier ET AL. “chatting & texting,” “cyberbullying,” and “ICT use & sleep,” we find a clear focus on PTH. On the contrary, research on “Facebook & SNS use” shows an almost balanced distribution of the concepts, while in the topics “ICT adoption” and “work-related ICT use” we find more publications on PWB.

Discussion Summary and Contribution Since the mid-1990s, Internet and ICT use has firmly established itself in the everyday lives of billions of people around the globe (International Telecommunications Union, 2018). As this Handbook summarizes, a large part of our daily social behavior is now mediated by technology. The question of whether and how such computer-­ mediated communication is related to the mental health of users has been the center of much public debate and research attention. With the emergence of new, heterogeneous, and interdisciplinary lines of research on CMC and mental health (Meier & Reinecke, 2020), the challenge of defining and navigating this field has arisen. We face this challenge by presenting this scoping review, which identifies core topics as well as structural properties of the field. Our results underline that research interest in CMC and mental health has increased dramatically in the last 10 years. Beyond the general increase in publication output across disciplines (e.g., Günther & Domahidi, 2017), a likely explanation for this is the radical establishment of social media (e.g., SNS) and smartphones in daily life, and an increase in societies’ and researchers’ concerns surrounding their potential impact (e.g., Twenge, Martin et al., 2018). With regard to the core topics, research on Internet addiction and problematic Internet usage clearly dominates the field. However, there is a variety of topics that offer alternative approaches to the study of CMC and mental health. Specifically, there is a strong and fast growing research focus on Facebook and SNS, as well as on mobile (smart)phone usage, and the role that CMC plays in close interpersonal relationships. Our qualitatively derived topic descriptions imply that, instead of largely atheoretical overpathologizing of everyday life behavior (Billieux, Schimmenti, Khazaal, Maurage, & Heeren, 2015), researchers now also apply more fine-grained theoretical approaches that specify both how CMC can impact mental health (e.g., social comparison or attachment theory) and how mental health can be a predictor rather than an outcome of CMC (e.g., social compensation vs. social enhancement). The topics also highlight that while the focus of the first research decade (i.e., how CMC impacts social resources) is still very much present in the literature (Domahidi, 2018), there are numerous other important connections between CMC and users’ mental health that receive considerable research attention. Our qualitative topic descriptions also further specify the fragmentation and lack of theoretical integration of the research field. While research on some topics such as

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   99 “ICT adoption” or “ICT use & sleep” seems to focus more on global usage indicators such as access to ICTs or time spent in front of screens, research on other topics investigates the interpersonal communication unfolding within a specific ICT channel (see, e.g., “relationships & CMC”). That is, research on different topics focuses on different aspects and indicators of CMC, with potentially unique implications for its relation to mental health. A much needed systematization and integration of these different operationalizations of CMC would go beyond the focus of this scoping review, representing an important impulse for future research. Concerning mental health, both topics and disciplines differed in how much they addressed the two key concepts, psychopathology and psychological well-being. Overall, the research in this field emphasizes PTH, which may indicate a dominant presumption that CMC is more related to mental illness than to mental thriving. While this could also be interpreted as studies investigating how CMC reduces risks of mental illness (hence also focusing on PTH instead of PWB), the topics identified here suggest that this was not a common approach in our sample. However, some topics showed a focus on PWB, while only research on the topic “Facebook & SNS use” overall equally addressed both PTH and PWB concepts. We also found research on PWB to increase slightly more frequently in the last decade, potentially indicating researchers’ increasing—or reemerging (cf. Hiltz & Turoff,  1978)—recognition of the positive potentials of CMC for PWB. We encourage future researchers to further reflect upon whether a sole focus on negative (PTH) or positive (PWB) markers of mental health is justified for their specific research question and whether their investigation can benefit from a more comprehensive appreciation of the full mental health spectrum (Meier & Reinecke, 2020). Concerning the structural properties of the field, we find clear evidence for a dominance of psychological research. This appears understandable, given that any study of human behavior in relation to mental health requires a thorough understanding of the human psyche. However, it may also affect the kind of research questions that are (not) studied with regard to CMC and mental health. While psychological research typically focusses on an individual’s cognition, affect, and behavior vis-à-vis CMC, sociological research, for instance, may seek to explain relationships between CMC and mental health by investigating differences in users’ network structures (e.g., Haythornthwaite, 2005). Similarly, communication research may add a more detailed conceptualization of different aspects of communication unfolding within CMC channels (e.g., Walther & Parks, 2002), instead of conflating them in global “time spent” or “screen time” indicators of technology use. More research from perspectives beyond psychology may thus help fully understand how CMC affects and is affected by ICT users’ mental health.

Limitations The results of this scoping review need to be interpreted in light of several limitations concerning both sampling and analysis. First, our review only includes publications that explicitly mentioned both CMC and mental health concepts (as operationalized by our

100   Adrian Meier ET AL. search string) in their abstracts. Many more empirical and theoretical articles may inform research on how CMC relates to mental health and vice versa, but fail to mention this in their abstracts. Second, our review relies on a systematically drawn sample of publications on CMC and mental health. Systematic reviews, in general, can hardly include all available literature or even draw a representative sample, as the population of relevant documents is typically unknown. Instead, we aimed to balance the precision of our search (e.g., by excluding certain terms that resulted in high numbers of false-positives) with an adequately comprehensive recall of eligible articles (e.g., by relying on a broad interdisciplinary database search). Still, some research that may be relevant to this field could not be included here. For instance, we explicitly excluded the search term “suicide” due to very high numbers of false-positives in our initial literature searches. Research on how some forms of CMC (e.g., SNS use) may be related to suicide is thus not represented here (e.g., Twenge, Joiner et al., 2018). Third, the accessibility of databases used for sampling is contingent on a researcher’s institutional access to EBSCO Host, which in our case was provided by the Free University of Berlin, Germany. Fourth, each journal’s terms of publication (frequency of issues and number of articles per year), the year in which a journal was launched, and the extent to which older issues are digitized determine the availability and total number of abstracts and metadata online. Not all journal archives are fully digitized; thus, some relevant abstracts may be missing from our dataset. Fifth, we only included research published in English. Research from some parts of the world is likely underrepresented in this review. Concerning our topic modeling analysis, a number of characteristics of this approach need to be taken into account when interpreting the results. First, given the generally increasing rates of scientific outputs (Günther & Domahidi, 2017), a characteristic of our sample is that the number of journals and abstracts has increased over time. As such, the choice of the most relevant words per topic (see Table 4.2) is likely to be skewed towards recently published research. It should also be emphasized that a traditional manual coding of research topics may have resulted in a different set of topics. Topic modeling represents a large-scale, data-driven, and bottom-up approach to the identification of research topics and does not require an a priori coding scheme that predefines what constitutes a research topic. As the two approaches (computational vs. manual) are analytically (bottom-up vs. top-down) and pragmatically different (feasibility for large vs. small samples), they are likely to arrive at different results. None of these arguments represents a limitation in a strict sense, but should be kept in mind when evaluating the topic modeling results. Concerning the impact of different disciplines on the research field, we only assessed disciplines based on journals’ SSCI categories and our manual aggregation of these categories into broad groups of disciplines. However, researchers from various disciplines may publish in journals relevant to their research topics, not just those from their home discipline. For example, communication researchers also publish in psychological journals (e.g., Meier et al., 2016). Accordingly, our statements about disciplinary impact are only based on journals’, not researchers’, disciplinary affiliations. Moreover, 34% of

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   101 coded journals belonged to more than one discipline, indicating that many journals themselves are somewhat interdisciplinary. Also, while our sample includes over 700 publication outlets, some of these may be duplicates due to slightly different spelling in different databases searched by EBSCO Host. We only deduplicated outlets with three or more documents in our sample. Accordingly, the actual number of unique outlets may be slightly lower. Finally, with regard to our two umbrella constructs, CMC and mental health, we only analyzed the mental health concepts PTH and PWB in detail. A similar analysis with regard to CMC concepts could not be realized, as a consistent typology of CMC concepts is currently missing from the literature and would go beyond the scope of this review.

Future Research Agenda Based on this review, we suggest several directions for future research. First, researchers should reflect more on whether their research question implies a relation between CMC and PTH, or PWB, or both. Addressing both PWB and PTH appears preferable, as it avoids overlooking potential positive associations between CMC and mental health that are difficult to capture with PTH indicators only (and vice versa). Second, future research syntheses on this field should treat PTH and PWB in a more detailed manner than was possible here. For instance, research on CMC and mental health could be further differentiated by whether externalizing versus internalizing PTH or hedonic versus eudaimonic PWB is addressed (Meier & Reinecke, 2020). Third, theory-driven research beyond a psychological and clinical (e.g., addiction) paradigm is much needed to achieve a fuller understanding of the complex relationships between CMC and mental health. Fourth, a more in-depth and systematic synthesis of research from some of the broader topics (e.g., “Facebook & SNS use,” “relationships & CMC,” or “mobile & smartphone use”) appears warranted in order to assess how relationships between specific aspects of CMC (e.g., active vs. passive SNS use) differ with regard to mental health. Finally, while our concept analysis only focused on mental health, we encourage researchers to develop analytical frameworks for the analysis of the various concepts and indicators of CMC that have been studied in relation to mental health. Without a more systematic approach to both umbrella constructs, CMC and mental health, further integration of the fast growing literature is hampered. We believe that our review represents one step in this direction by providing a first higher-level overview of the emerging research field and by charting its development over the last 20 years.

References Baker, D. A., & Algorta, G. P. (2016). The relationship between online social networking and depression: A systematic review of quantitative studies. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(11), 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0206

102   Adrian Meier ET AL. Bargh, J.  A., & McKenna, K.  Y.  A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922 Billieux, J., Schimmenti, A., Khazaal, Y., Maurage, P., & Heeren, A. (2015). Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(3), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.009 Blei, D. M., & Lafferty, J. D. (2009). Topic models. In A. N. Srivastava & M. Sahami (Eds.), Text mining: Classification, clustering, and applications (pp. 71–94). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P.T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to metaanalysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Buckingham, D., & Strandgaard Jensen, H. (2012). Beyond “media panics”: Reconceptualising public debates about children and media. Journal of Children and Media, 6(4), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2012.740415 Carli, V., Durkee, T., Wasserman, D., Hadlaczky, G., Despalins, R., Kramarz, E., . . . Kaess, M. (2013). The association between pathological internet use and comorbid psychopathology: A systematic review. Psychopathology, 46(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337971 Chan, M. (2015). Mobile phones and the good life: Examining the relationships among mobile use, social capital and subjective well-being. New Media & Society, 17(1), 96–113. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444813516836 Choi, M., & Toma, C.  L. (2014). Social sharing through interpersonal media: Patterns and effects on emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 530–541. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.026 Clayton, R. B., Leshner, G., & Almond, A. (2015). The extended iSelf: The impact of iPhone separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12109 Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O’Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., . . . Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 De Chavez, A.  C., Backett-Milburn, K., Parry, O., & Platt, S. (2005). Understanding and researching wellbeing: Its usage in different disciplines and potential for health research and health promotion. Health Education Journal, 64(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 001789690506400108 Domahidi, E. (2018). The associations between online media use and users’ perceived social resources: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23, 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy007 Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. Feinerer, I., Hornik, K., & Meyer, D. (2008). Text mining infrastructure in R.  Journal of Statistical Software, 25(5). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i05 Forsman, A. K., & Nordmyr, J. (2015). Psychosocial links between Internet use and mental health in later life: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 36(12), 1471–1518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464815595509 Greenspoon, P. J., & Saklofske, D. H. (2001). Toward an integration of subjective well-being and psychopathology. Social Indicators Research, 54(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1007219227883 Grün, B., & Hornik, K. (2011). Topicmodels: An R package for fitting topic models. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(13). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i13

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   103 Günther, E., & Domahidi, E. (2017). What communication scholars write about: An analysis of 80 years of research in high-impact journals. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3051–3071. Hall, J. A. (2018). When is social media use social interaction? Defining mediated social interaction. New Media & Society, 20(1), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816660782 Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society, 8(2), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180500146185 Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. London: Addison-Wesley. Huang, C. (2010). Internet use and psychological well-being: a meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0217 Huang, C. (2017). Time spent on social network sites and psychological well-being: A metaanalysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(6), 346–354. Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0 International Telecommunications Union. (2018). Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.itu. int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx Jensen, J. (1990). Redeeming modernity: Contradictions in media criticism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Keyes, C. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. The American Psychologist, 62(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.95 Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1540-4560.00248 Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.53.9.1017 Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., . . . Sueur, C. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLOS One, 8(8), e69841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841 Lahey, B. B., Krueger, R. F., Rathouz, P. J., Waldman, I. D., & Zald, D. H. (2017). A hierarchical causal taxonomy of psychopathology across the life span. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 142–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000069 Lee, E.-J., & Oh, S.  Y. (2015). Computer-mediated communication. Retrieved from http:// www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-97801997568410160.xml Liu, D., Ainsworth, S. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). A meta-analysis of social networking online and social capital. Review of General Psychology, 20(4), 369–391. https://doi. org/10.1037/gpr0000091 Maier, D., Waldherr, A., Miltner, P., Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A., Keinert, A., . . . Adam, S. (2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 93–118. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754

104   Adrian Meier ET AL. Manning, C.  D., Raghavan, P., & Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mays, N., Roberts, E., & Popay, J. (2001). Synthesising research evidence. In N. Fulop, P. Allen, A.  Clarke, & N.  Black (Eds.), Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods. London: Routledge. Meier, A., & Reinecke, L. (2020, April 6). Computer-mediated communication, social media, and mental health: A conceptual and empirical meta-review. https://doi.org/10.31234/ osf.io/573ph. Meier, A., Reinecke, L., & Meltzer, C.  E. (2016). “Facebocrastination”? Predictors of using Facebook for procrastination and its effects on students’ well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.011 Mikal, J. P., Rice, R. E., Abeyta, A., & DeVilbiss, J. (2013). Transition, stress and computermediated social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A40–A53. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.012 Nie, N.  H., Hillygus, D.  S., & Erbring, L. (2002). Internet use, interpersonal relations and sociability: Findings from a detailed time diary study. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The Internet in everyday life (pp. 215–243). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Peng, T.-Q., Zhang, L., Zhong, Z.-J., & Zhu, J. J. H. (2013). Mapping the landscape of internet studies: Text mining of social science journal articles 2000–2009. New Media & Society, 15(5), 644–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812462846 Pham, M. T., Rajić, A., Greig, J. D., Sargeant, J. M., Papadopoulos, A., & McEwen, S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123 Przybylski, A.  K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438 R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/ Rauchfleisch, A. (2017). The public sphere as an essentially contested concept: A co-citation analysis of the last 20 years of public sphere research. Communication and the Public, 2(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317691054 Reinecke, L., & Oliver, M. B. (2017). Media use and well-being: Status quo and open questions. In L. Reinecke & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Routledge. Rice, R. E. (1980). The impacts of computer-mediated organizational and interpersonal communication. In M.  Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (Vol. 15). Whiteplains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. Song, H., Zmyslinski-Seelig, A., Kim, J., Drent, A., Victor, A., Omori, K., & Allen, M. (2014). Does Facebook make you lonely? A meta analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 446–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.011 Tokunaga, R. S., & Rains, S. A. (2010). An evaluation of two characterizations of the relationships between problematic Internet use, time spent using the Internet, and psychosocial problems. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 512–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-2958.2010.01386.x

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   105 Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212474694 Tsafnat, G., Glasziou, P., Choong, M. K., Dunn, A., Galgani, F., & Coiera, E. (2014). Systematic review automation technologies. Systematic Reviews, 3, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/ 2046-4053-3-74 Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books. Twenge, J.  M., Joiner, T.  E., Rogers, M.  L., & Martin, G.  N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617723376 Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Decreases in psychological well-being among American adolescents after 2012 and links to screen time during the rise of smartphone technology. Emotion. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000403 Twomey, C., & O’Reilly, G. (2017). Associations of self-presentation on Facebook with mental health and personality variables: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 20(10), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0247 Valkenburg, P.  M., & Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the Internet for adolescents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678721.2009.01595.x Van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.035 Verduyn, P., Ybarra, O., Résibois, M., Jonides, J., & Kross, E. (2017). Do social network sites enhance or undermine subjective well-being? A critical review. Social Issues and Policy Review, 11(1), 274–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12033 Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication Research, 19(1), 52–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003 Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer. Zuccala, A. (2006). Modeling the invisible college. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20256

Appendix: Publications Analyzed from the Topic Modeling Dataset (N = 1780) Used for Topic Description Babic, M. J., Smith, J. J., Morgan, P. J., Eather, N., Plotnikoff, R. C., & Lubans, D. R. (2017). Longitudinal associations between changes in screen-time and mental health outcomes in adolescents. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 12, 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. mhpa.2017.04.001 Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2017). Telepressure and college student employment: The costs of staying connected across social contexts. Stress and Health, 33(1), 14–23. https://doi. org/10.1002/smi.2668 Blease, C. R. (2015). Too many ‘friends,’ too few ‘likes’? Evolutionary psychology and ‘Facebook depression’. Review of General Psychology, 19(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000030

106   Adrian Meier ET AL. Caplan, S. E. (2003). Preference for online social interaction: A theory of problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being. Communication Research, 30(6), 625–648. https://doi. org/10.1177/0093650203257842 Carli, V., Durkee, T., Wasserman, D., Hadlaczky, G., Despalins, R., Kramarz, E., . . . Kaess, M. (2013). The association between pathological internet use and comorbid psychopathology: A systematic review. Psychopathology, 46(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337971 Carmago, M.  R. (2008). A grounded theory study of the relationship between e-mail and burnout. Information Research, 13(4), paper 383. Chen, L., Ho, S. S., & Lwin, M. O. (2017). A meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: From the social cognitive and media effects approach. New Media & Society, 19(8), 1194–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816634037 Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Holmgren, H. G. (2018). A six-year longitudinal study of texting trajectories during adolescence. Child Development, 89(1), 58–65. https://doi. org/10.1111/cdev.12823 Desjarlais, M., & Willoughby, T. (2010). A longitudinal study of the relation between adolescent boys’ and girls’ computer use with friends and friendship quality: Support for the social compensation or the rich-get-richer hypothesis? Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 896–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.004 Dienlin, T., Masur, P. K., & Trepte, S. (2017). Reinforcement or displacement? The reciprocity of FtF, IM, and SNS communication and their effects on loneliness and life satisfaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcc4.12183 Floros, G., Siomos, K., Stogiannidou, A., Giouzepas, I., & Garyfallos, G. (2014). The relationship between personality, defense styles, Internet addiction disorder, and psychopathology in college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 17(10), 672–676. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0182 Giumetti, G. W., McKibben, E. S., Hatfield, A. L., Schroeder, A. N., & Kowalski, R. M. (2012). Cyber incivility @ work: The new age of interpersonal deviance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(3), 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0336 Greyling, T. (2018). Internet access and its relationship to subjective well-being in a developing region. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 21(1), a1841. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v21i1.1841 Hall, J. (2017). The experience of mobile entrapment in daily life. Journal of Media Psychology, 29(3), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000228 Hase, C. N., Goldberg, S. B., Smith, D., Stuck, A., & Campain, J. (2015). Impacts of traditional bullying and cyberbullying on the mental health of middle school and high school students. Psychology in the Schools, 52(6), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21841 High, A. C., & Caplan, S. E. (2009). Social anxiety and computer-mediated communication during initial interactions: Implications for the hyperpersonal perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.011 Hoffner, C.  A., Lee, S., & Park, S.  J. (2016). “I miss my mobile phone!”: Self-expansion via mobile phone and responses to phone loss. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2452–2468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815592665 Hong, F.-Y., & Cheng, K.-T. (2018). Correlation between university students’ online trolling behavior and online trolling victimization forms, current conditions, and personality traits. Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.12.016

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   107 Huang, C. (2017). Time spent on social network sites and psychological well-being: A metaanalysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(6), 346–354. Ihm, J., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2015). The implications of information and communication technology use for the social well-being of older adults. Information, Communication & Society, 18(10), 1123–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1019912 Ivarsson, L., & Larsson, P. (2011). Personal Internet usage at work: A source of recovery. Journal of Workplace Rights, 16(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.2190/WR.16.1.e Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of internet addiction research: Towards a model of compensatory internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059 Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological wellbeing? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017 Kross, E., Verduyn, P., Demiralp, E., Park, J., Lee, D. S., Lin, N., . . . Sueur, C. (2013). Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLOS ONE, 8(8), e69841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069841 Kubiszewski, V., Fontaine, R., Potard, C., & Auzoult, L. (2015). Does cyberbullying overlap with school bullying when taking modality of involvement into account? Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.049 Lohmann, S. (2015). Information technologies and subjective well-being: Does the Internet raise material aspirations? Oxford Economic Papers, 67(3), 740–759. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oep/gpv032 Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1771–1778. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.019 Nabi, R.  L., Prestin, A., & So, J. (2013). Facebook friends with (health) benefits? Exploring social network site use and perceptions of social support, stress, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(10), 721–727. https://doi.org/10.1089/ cyber.2012.0521 Nie, P., Sousa-Poza, A., & Nimrod, G. (2017). Internet use and subjective well-being in China. Social Indicators Research, 132(1), 489–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1227-8 Ninaus, K., Diehl, S., Terlutter, R., Chan, K., & Huang, A. (2015). Benefits and stressors— Perceived effects of ICT use on employee health and work stress: An exploratory study from Austria and Hong Kong. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and WellBeing, 10, 28838. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v10.28838 Oldmeadow, J. A., Quinn, S., & Kowert, R. (2013). Attachment style, social skills, and Facebook use amongst adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1142–1149. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.006 Park, N., Lee, S., & Chung, J. E. (2016). Uses of cellphone texting: An integration of motivations, usage patterns, and psychological outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 712–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.041 Pearson, A.  L., Mack, E., & Namanya, J. (2017). Mobile phones and mental well-being: Initial evidence suggesting the importance of staying connected to family in rural, remote communities in Uganda. PLOS One, 12(1), e0169819. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0169819

108   Adrian Meier ET AL. Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., Ward, L. M., & Safyer, P. (2016). Keeping tabs: Attachment anxiety and electronic intrusion in high school dating relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.019 Reid, F. J. M., & Reid, D. J. (2010). The expressive and conversational affordances of mobile messaging. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01449290701497079 Rosen, L., Carrier, L. M., Miller, A., Rokkum, J., & Ruiz, A. (2016). Sleeping with technology: Cognitive, affective, and technology usage predictors of sleep problems among college students. Sleep Health, 2(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2015.11.003 Rotondi, V., Stanca, L., & Tomasuolo, M. (2017). Connecting alone: Smartphone use, quality of social interactions and well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 63, 17–26. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.09.001 Russell, E., Woods, S. A., & Banks, A. P. (2017). Examining conscientiousness as a key resource in resisting email interruptions: Implications for volatile resources and goal achievement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(3), 407–435. https://doi. org/10.1111/joop.12177 Schouten, A. P., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Precursors and underlying processes of adolescents’ online self-disclosure: Developing and testing an “Internet-attribute-perception” model. Media Psychology, 10(2), 292–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701375686 Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Jäkel, A., Schultze, M., & Scheithauer, H. (2012). Emotional and behavioural problems in the context of cyberbullying: A longitudinal study among German adolescents. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3-4), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13632752.2012.704317 Selfhout, M. H. W., Branje, S. J. T., Delsing, M., ter Bogt, T. F. M., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). Different types of Internet use, depression, and social anxiety: The role of perceived friendship quality. Journal of Adolescence, 32(4), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2008.10.011 Shakya, H.  B., & Christakis, N.  A. (2017). Association of Facebook use with compromised well-being: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 185(3), 203–211. https:// doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww189 Shaw, L. H., & Gant, L. M. (2002). In defense of the Internet: The relationship between Internet communication and depression, loneliness, self-esteem, and perceived social support. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493102753770552 Sjursø, I. R., Fandrem, H., & Roland, E. (2014). Emotional problems in traditional and cyber victimization. Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.20 14.996718 Song, H., Zmyslinski-Seelig, A., Kim, J., Drent, A., Victor, A., Omori, K., & Allen, M. (2014). Does Facebook make you lonely? A meta analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 446–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.011 Sonnentag, S., Reinecke, L., Mata, J., & Vorderer, P. (2018). Feeling interrupted–being responsive: How online messages relate to affect at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2239 Steers, M.-L.  N. (2016). ‘It’s complicated’: Facebook’s relationship with the need to belong and  depression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. copsyc.2015.10.007 Thomée, S., Eklöf, M., Gustafsson, E., Nilsson, R., & Hagberg, M. (2007). Prevalence of perceived stress, symptoms of depression and sleep disturbances in relation to information and communication technology (ICT) use among young adults: An explorative prospective

Computer-Mediated Communication and Mental Health   109 study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1300–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2004.12.007 Tokunaga, R. S. (2014). A unique problem or the manifestation of a preexisting disorder? The mediating role of problematic Internet use in the relationships between psychosocial ­problems and functional impairment. Communication Research, 41(4), 531–560. https://doi. org/10.1177/0093650212450910 Tromholt, M. (2016). The Facebook experiment: Quitting Facebook leads to higher levels of well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(11), 661–666. https://doi. org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0259 Tseng, S.-F., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2015). The implications of networked individualism for social participation. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(9), 1157–1172. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0002764215580620 Utz, S., & Breuer, J. (2017). The relationship between use of social network sites, online social support, and well-being: Results from a six-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Media Psychology, 29(3), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000222 Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). Who visits online dating sites? Exploring some characteristics of online daters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(6), 849–852. https://doi. org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9941 Van den Eijnden, R.  J.  J.  M., Meerkerk, G.-J., Vermulst, A.  A., Spijkerman, R., & Engels, R.  C.  M.  E. (2008). Online communication, compulsive Internet use, and psychosocial well-being among adolescents: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 655–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.655 Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., . . . Kross, E. (2015). Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/ xge0000057 Vincent, J. (2006). Emotional attachment and mobile phones. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 19(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-006-1013-7 Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., Vandebosch, H., Erreygers, S., & de Witte, H. (2018). When workplace bullying goes online: Construction and validation of the inventory of cyberbullying acts at work (ICA-W). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 28–39. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1363185 Weidman, A.  C., Fernandez, K.  C., Levinson, C.  A., Augustine, A.  A., Larsen, R.  J., & Rodebaugh, T.  L. (2012). Compensatory internet use among individuals higher in social anxiety and its implications for well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 191–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.003. Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi, R. (2012). Its ovr b/n u n me: Technology use, attachment styles, and gender roles in relationship dissolution. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(9), 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0169 Widyanto, L., & Griffiths, M. (2006). ‘Internet addiction’: A critical review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-006-9009-9 Woods, H. C., & Scott, H. (2016). #Sleepyteens: Social media use in adolescence is associated with poor sleep quality, anxiety, depression and low self-esteem. Journal of Adolescence, 51, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.008 Wright, M.  F. (2015). Cyber victimization and perceived stress. Youth & Society, 47(6), 789–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14537088 Wu, X.-S., Zhang, Z.-H., Zhao, F., Wang, W.-J., Li, Y.-F., Bi, L., . . . Sun, Y.-H. (2016). Prevalence of Internet addiction and its association with social support and other related factors among

110   Adrian Meier ET AL. adolescents in China. Journal of Adolescence, 52, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2016.07.012 Xie, X., Zhao, F., Xie, J., & Lei, L. (2016). Symbolization of mobile phone and life satisfaction among adolescents in rural areas of China: Mediating of school-related relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 694–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.053 Young, K.  S., & Rodgers, R.  C. (1998). The relationship between depression and Internet addiction. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 1(1), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.1998.1.25

chapter 5

Digita l I nclusion a n d Wom en ’s H e a lth a n d W ell-Bei ng i n Ru r a l Com m u n ities Sharon Wagg, Louise Cooke, and Boyka Simeonova

Introduction Digital inclusion is of global importance as government digital-by-default agendas increasingly recognize the need for society to possess strong digital skills and capabilities to fully benefit from living in a digital world. Yet a global gender digital divide exists where women lack access to information and digital skills, particularly in rural areas (IFLA & TASCHA, 2017). Women are 14% less likely to own a mobile phone than men in low and middle income countries (GSMA, 2015); globally, the proportion of women using the Internet is 12% lower than that of men using the Internet (ITU, 2017a); and while the gender gap in Internet access has narrowed in most regions since 2013, it has widened in Africa, where the proportion of women using the Internet is 25% lower than the proportion of men (ITU, 2017a, p. 3). Digital inclusion initiatives around the world, designed to provide access and the development of digital skills, are critical to bridging the digital divide in local communities (Mervyn et al. 2014). However, the multiple factors that contribute to digital exclusion are complex and make the task of implementing workable digital inclusion solutions particularly challenging for policymakers (Bach et al., 2013). Information literacy helps people make informed choices and decisions about their lives, including the health and well-being of individuals and their families (CILIP, 2018, p. 5). However, as argued by Dunn (2013), “insufficient attention is being paid to the urgency of information literacy as a key component to any strategy to redress the digital

112   Sharon Wagg ET AL. divide” (p. 326), potentially leaving those newly connected to the Internet or with low information literacy vulnerable to poor information content and choices. Anderson and Johnston (2016) argue that without the development of information literacy, “the benefits of digital participation will be significantly diminished” (p. 8). Challenges to access and meaningful use of online information underline the necessity of increased levels of information literacy. “While this may affect both men and women, the challenges are often greater for women (particularly in developing countries) because past information isolation leaves them less equipped to deal with these challenges” (IFLA & TASCHA, 2017, p. 80).

What Is Digital Inclusion? Broadly, digital inclusion refers to the activities necessary to ensure that all individuals and communities, including the most disadvantaged, have access to and meaningful use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Digital inclusion activities essentially include five key elements: (1) affordable, broadband Internet service, (2) Internet-enabled devices, (3) quality technical support, (4) applications and online content designed to enable and encourage self-sufficiency, participation, and collaboration, and (5) access to digital skills training (NDIA, 2017, n.p.). Such activities are driven by governments to address the digital divide (those without access, skills or the motivation to use ICTs), and implement the digital-by-default agenda (the drive to replace services delivered through face-to-face, telephone and paper-based interactions, with web-based services), and are delivered by a plethora of organizations and community partners (ITU, 2017b; Rhinesmith, 2016). Digital inclusion research emerged from research on the digital divide, a topic widely accepted as a complex and dynamic issue, that continues to evolve, particularly as ICTs evolve and diffuse (Jaeger et al., 2012; Van Dijk, 2005). Digital inclusion is addressed by researchers across various disciplines, but compared to the established area of research on the digital divide, digital inclusion research is relatively new (Jaeger et al.,  2012). Indeed, the Rapid review of evidence for basic digital skills (McGillivray et al., 2017) concluded that there is a notable dearth of academic research in relation to digital inclusion solutions and initiatives, and particularly in relation to the role and responsibilities dig­ital inclusion intermediaries and actors play. Similar to research on the digital divide, digital inclusion is a complex area of enquiry and suffers from conceptual inconsistencies and dichotomies that lead to ambiguities in understanding why and what it takes to be included in the information society (Nemer, 2015).

What Is Information Literacy? The Library and Information Association defines information literacy as “the ability to think critically and make balanced judgements about any information we find and use.

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   113 It empowers us as citizens to develop informed views and to engage fully with society” (CILIP, 2018, p. 3). This definition relates to information in all its forms, including digital and online, reinforcing the relevance and need to consider information literacy when using and accessing the Internet for online information (Anderson & Johnston, 2016; CILIP, 2018; Dunn, 2013). While some scholars advocate information literacy as a set of skills (Andretta, 2005; Burke, 2010), others advocate information literacy as a way of learning (Kuhlthau, 1993), or as an appreciation of the complex ways of interacting with information (Bruce, 2000, p. 97). Yet information literacy research as a concept has traditionally been siloed in the library and information science sector. While there is a significant amount of information literacy research within educational (Corrall, 2008; Secker & Coonan, 2013) and workplace (Lloyd, 2010) settings, and an emerging body of research in information literacy in everyday life contexts (Martzoukou & Abdi, 2017), information literacy research within community settings (relevant to digital inclusion) is barely recognized as a research area (Hepworth & Walton, 2013). However, the CILIP definition emphasizes how information literacy is relevant to everyone in a wide variety of contexts, specifically the contexts of everyday life, health, citizenship, education, and the workplace (Secker, 2018), and as such makes information literacy relevant to digital inclusion and an essential part of this review.

Women’s Health and Well-Being in Rural Communities The importance of digital inclusion and information literacy has been emphasized in a few areas including health and well-being (Ferreira et al., 2016; Park, 2017. It is further emphasized that access to online services could lead to improved health and well-being, particularly in rural areas (Freeman et al., 2016; Hart et al., 2004). However, the specific benefits of digital inclusion and information literacy to women’s health and well-being in rural communities have not been explicated. Therefore, the review aims to examine the literature to outline the specific benefits of digital inclusion initiatives on women’s health and well-being in rural communities.

Rationale for Review This systematic literature review considers research that focuses on the information experiences of women, specifically those who were previously digitally excluded or limited users of the Internet, especially in rural communities, and have benefitted from the support of digital inclusion initiatives and technology. The review provides an opportunity to unpack the complexity of this situation of enquiry by problematizing the concept of digital inclusion; exploring if and how digital inclusion has been linked with the concept of information literacy and digital skills training; providing insight on the role of digital inclusion on women’s health and well-being in rural communities; and revealing tensions and contradictions within digital inclusion practice.

114   Sharon Wagg ET AL. To guide this systematic literature review, the following two questions are addressed. (1) What role do digital inclusion initiatives play with regard to women’s health and wellbeing in rural communities? (2) How have the concepts of digital inclusion with information literacy been linked with regard to digital inclusion skills training? The chapter concludes with an agenda for future research within the realms of digital inclusion and information literacy. The chapter includes the following sections: an outline of the methodology of the systematic literature review; description of the reviewed literature; the findings from the selected papers (with respect to theory and methodologies, terminologies, approaches to digital inclusion initiatives, digital inclusion training, digital inclusion, information literacy, health, and well-being); a brief discussion; and a conclusion.

Methods The review was conducted on journal articles—excluding conference proceedings, PhD theses and book chapters—reporting primary research published worldwide in English language sourced from the Web of Science and Scopus. Search terms included the phrases information literacy, and digital inclusion, combined with the terms rural, gender, health and well-being appearing in the topic. The search yielded 194 results, which following the exclusion of conference proceedings, duplicates, articles that were irrelevant, or in a non-English language, was refined to a final set of 66 journal articles. Articles were identified and selected on the basis of their relevance to digital inclusion and women’s health and well-being in rural communities and links to the concept of information literacy within that context. Due to the multidisciplinary nature of the topic, articles were identified across different research domains such as information science, educational research, computer science, and the broader field of social science research. Drawing on the researcher’s previous experience in digital inclusion and librarianship, a small collection of relevant grey literature (16 items) was also selected to provide richness, context, and currency to the review. These items were predominantly in the form of reports published by thirdsector, corporate, and public policy organizations, such as Development and Access to Information (IFLA & TASCHA, 2017), Lloyds Bank consumer digital index (Lloyds, 2017), and “Smartphone by default” internet users (Ofcom, 2016). Grey literature is cited hereafter with an asterisk (*) to differentiate it from journal articles. The final set of materials (n = 82) of 66 journal articles and 16 grey literature items was coded using thematic analysis. This first involved a general categorization of the articles into a number of foci important on the basis of digital inclusion and information literacy, such as Internet access, digital skills, social inclusion, and learning. The second level of analysis involved the meticulous reading of the texts in order to identify and refine themes and subthemes. Through this process the following themes and subthemes emerged: Theory and Methodologies; Terminology (including subthemes on Digital

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   115 Inclusion, Information Literacy, and Rurality); Approaches to Digital Inclusion (including subthemes on Differentiation of Digital Inclusion Initiatives, Examples of Digital Inclusion Initiatives Intended for Women, the Use of Mobile Technology in Digital Inclusion, Digital Inclusion Frameworks, Measurements and Evaluations); Digital Inclusion Training; and Digital Inclusion, Information Literacy, Health, and Well-Being. Although all the papers were coded, for the purpose of conciseness not every paper is referred to in the text of the analysis; however, a supplementary reference list provides the complete set of analyzed journal articles and grey literature.

Description of the Reviewed Literature The reviewing identified a number of key themes and relationships that paint a complex landscape of enquiry, scope for critique, and opportunities for further research. Journal articles focused across a range of demographics, with a limited number related to just women. Indeed, only a fraction of the academic studies sourced, such as Freeman et al. (2016), Jiménez-Cortés et al. (2015), Martínez-Cantos (2017), Potnis (2015), Rashid (2016), and Rebollo and Vico (2014) specifically link digital inclusion and women’s health and well-being in rural communities. The majority of the journal articles tended to be more focused on the digital divide (Adhikari et al., 2016) and digital inclusion initiatives across a range of sub-groups in developing countries (Correa & Pavez,  2016) and developed countries (Freeman & Park, 2015; Shade, 2014; Turkalj et al., 2013); the development of information literacy (Papen,  2013; Yu et al.,  2017) and health information literacy (Enwald et al.,  2016; Niemelä et al., 2012) or digital literacy skills (Hughes et al., 2017); gender differences in attitudes and use of ICTs and the Internet (Singh, 2017); and the relationships between digital inclusion, digital inequalities, and social inclusion (Park, 2017). Journal articles related to information literacy tended to come from the discipline of information science, although researchers in other fields used varying terminology such as multiliteracy, transliteracy, or digital literacy to describe aspects of information literacy (Aires, 2014). In comparison, journal articles related to digital inclusion came from a wider selection of disciplines such as ICT for Development (ICT4D), Human Computer Interaction, Geography, Education, Health, Rural Studies, and Information Science. There was only a limited crossover between the concepts of digital inclusion and information literacy. Journal articles related to information literacy tended to focus on effective use of the Internet (Berger & Croll,  2012) or Internet/technology adoption (Chiu & Liu, 2017; Yu et al., 2017). Whereas journal articles regarding digital inclusion referred to a plethora of vocabulary related to digital skills and literacies, and technology and infrastructure, the angle of the articles was often influenced by the research discipline of the journal. For example, journal articles from Computer Science and ICT4D

116   Sharon Wagg ET AL. tended to have more of a bias towards digital infrastructure, technology and access (Ferreira et al., 2016; Whitney et al., 2011) whereas Geography focused more on rurality (Roberts et al.,  2015) and Information Science on digital skills and motivation (Thompson & Paul, 2016). Journal articles referred to a plethora of organizations where people would go to access computers and the Internet such as public libraries (Fourie & Meyer, 2016; Real et al., 2014); community centers, cybercafés, and local agencies (Berger & Croll, 2012); telecenters (Ferreira, 2016; Kapondera & Hart, 2016); and education centers and schools (Salinas & Sánchez, 2009; Wei et al., 2013). Bertot et al. (2014) state that public libraries were often the only providers of free broadband Internet service and computer terminals for communities. Overall, the limited number of journal articles specifically on the review topic highlights that there is little academic research in relation to digital inclusion on women’s health and well-being in rural communities. While the majority of the journal articles focused more broadly around the subject of the review, academic research on this topic appears fragmented, meaning research is spread across a range of disciplines and the focus of the articles, theoretical stance, and methods used vary, thus potentially hampering the development of a coherent body of work (Meijer & Bekkers, 2015). The inclusion of some grey literature was essential in addition to the academic literature in order to provide further understanding, richness, and currency. Therefore, the review includes interdisciplinary research in the area and the grey literature, while highlighting gaps and setting an agenda for future research.

Theory and Methods As Table  5.1 summarizes, the studies used a variety of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. While the review highlights some use of theory, only a very small number of journal articles used any underpinning theory (8 out of the 66 journal articles). For example, apart from Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers, 2003), which appears in two articles, all the other theories have only been used in one paper. Activity Theory is discussed by Aires (2014) to explore the opinions of parents and teachers on the Magellan (Magalhães) digital inclusion Initiative in Portugal, to investigate common understandings and contradictions in the dissemination of the digital technologies and digital inclusion in families and schools in rural communities; Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory is used in two articles. Correa et al. (2017) use elements of DOI combined with Van Dijk’s (2005) Relational/Network approach to understanding digital inclusion, where consideration of people’s context, position in a community, resources, and social networks are necessary to understand their adoption of ICTs. Kapondera and Hart (2016) invoke DOI as a theoretical framework to examine the factors influencing the use of telecentres in rural areas by means of a case study of Lupaso Community Telecentre, in a remote region of Malawi. Potnis (2015) employs the Global Model of

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   117 Table 5.1  Range of Theories and Methods Identified in Review Theories

Methods

Activity theory (1) Diffusion of innovation theory (2) Global model of human information behaviour (1) Informed learning theory (1) * Institutional theory (1) Media richness theory (1) Relational/network approach (1) * Structuration theory (1)

Action research Case study Ethnography Interviews Literature reviews Observations Questionnaire surveys

Note: (#) = Number of papers using that theory (n = 8 papers); * = same paper

Human Information Behavior as a conceptual model using three constituent constructs—(1) context of information needs, (2) information-seeking behavior, and (3) information processing and use—to examine the information use of poor female mobile phone users in rural India. Hughes et al. (2017) use Informed Learning theory to underpin the development of a new framework to support digital literacy learning through social living labs examined through, a voluntary community organisation in North Queensland, Australia. Madon et al. (2009) apply Institutional theory to analyze three digital inclusion projects to identify processes of institutionalization crucial to the long-term value, sustainability, and scalability of digital inclusion projects. Yu et al. (2017) use Media Richness theory to discover the psychological factors that influence ICT adoption behavior of residents in a rural village in Taiwan. Finally, Structuration theory is used by Correa and Pavez (2016) to explore Internet adoption in isolated rural communities in remote villages in Chile, considering people’s capabilities to choose what they value (i.e., psychological resources, attitudes toward technologies) and social structures (social institutions, cultural norms, and social context).

Terminology Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the review topic, the theme of the need for shared vocabulary and standardization of terminology emerged from the journal articles, ­particularly in relation to the concepts of digital inclusion and information literacy.

Digital Inclusion Very few journal articles defined or attempted to describe or explain the concept of dig­ital inclusion. Indeed, not all journal articles specifically included the phrase “digital inclusion,”

118   Sharon Wagg ET AL. but were clearly focused on research in relation to digital inclusion activities using alternative phrases such as adoption of the Internet and ICT access. Jaeger et al. (2012) define digital inclusion as “the policy developed to close the digital divide” and to “promote digital literacy through outreach to unserved and underserved populations” (p. 3). Thompson et al. (2016) state that digital inclusion is a key component of modern social justice as “the ability of the individual to participate fully in society is increasingly tied to the ability to access and to use digital technologies in a meaningful way for social, political, and economic participation” (p. 93). Hashim et al. (2012) propose that digital inclusion encompasses three areas: access, technology literacy, and content services. According to Rashid (2016), digital inclusion focuses not just on levels of access to ICTs, but also on factors such as motivation, knowledge, and skills that enable individuals to have the ability to meaningfully engage with technology and online information.

Information Literacy Journal articles related to information literacy sometimes included a definition or clarification of the concept such as the Association of College and Research Libraries’ Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (Dorner & Gorman, 2011), the American Library Association and the Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework (Williamson & Asla, 2009), or the 2005 Alexandria Proclamation on Information Literacy (Jacobs & Berg, 2011, p. 384). Further clarification of the concept of information literacy was provided by Martzoukou and Abdi (2017) within the context of everyday life, stating that information literacy “is regarded as an important condition for civic participation and engagement, informed citizenship, health and well-being” (p. 634). Drawing on theories from information science and new literacy studies, Papen (2013) presents a view of information literacy not primarily as a skill but as a social information practice. Papen argues that researchers studying information literacy need to look beyond people’s abilities to search for and understand information; rather, they need to focus their attention on the contexts within which such information is used. As Yu et al. (2017) highlight, information literacy is about making sense of information found online that is relevant to an individual’s circumstances and specific context, and argue that “information literacy is an important factor in new ICT adoption and increased ICT usage” (p. 206). Information literacy is also clarified in relation to how it helps make informed choices relating to the health and well-being of individuals and families, such as in articles referring to the concepts of health information literacy (HIL) (Martzoukou & Abdi, 2017) and everyday life health information literacy (EHIL) (Niemelä et al., 2012). The presence of HIL “is essential for making health decisions and is considered an important prerequisite for promoting and maintaining an individual’s health” (Martzoukou & Abdi, 2017 p. 649) and for “engaging in an informed dialogue with healthcare professionals” (CILIP, 2018, p. 5).

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   119

Rurality The issue of rurality was discussed within the journal articles but with limited clarification of the actual meaning of the term. Despite the high levels of connectivity in developed countries and growing Internet access in developing countries, digital inclusion in rural areas remains a strong concern for policymakers (Correa & Pavez, 2016; Yueh et al., 2013). Indeed, despite many policymaking efforts that have promoted Internet connection in rural areas, the evidence suggests that digital inclusion is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon that is not “solved” after access is provided (Correa et al., 2017). Boulos et al. (2015) discuss how the higher costs associated with the installation of digital infrastructure for mobile and broadband in rural areas compared to urban areas is overcome through the concept of “distributed cities,” where small neighboring towns and villages (e.g., the Scottish Highlands and Islands) unite together and pool their resources to form a larger “distributed city” and improved economies of scale. Pavez et al. (2017) highlight the importance of understanding rurality, and exploring how people from rural and geographically isolated contexts may experience digital connection differently from an urban perspective. This supports findings by Correa and Pavez (2016) which showed that remote rural communities face specific characteristics, such as lack of economic resources, geographic isolation, an aging population, and outmigration of young people, that need to be considered when thinking about digital inclusion initiatives for their particular context.

Approaches to Digital Inclusion Initiatives The following section provides details of approaches to digital inclusion initiatives, following the subthemes of Differentiation of Digital Inclusion Initiatives; Examples of Digital Inclusion Initiatives Intended for Women; The Use of Mobile Technology in Digital Inclusion; and Digital Inclusion Frameworks, Measurements, and Evaluations.

Differentiation of Digital Inclusion Initiatives: Levels and Approaches When describing approaches to digital inclusion initiatives, journal articles tend to use a macro- or micro-level perspective. Journal articles using a macro-level perspective take a top-down approach to describing digital inclusion and focus primarily on digital inclusion policy and agenda setting issues on a national or international scale (Hughes et al., 2017; Shade, 2014; Martínez-Cantos, 2017). This compares with journal articles taking a

120   Sharon Wagg ET AL. micro-level perspective, which look at specific local or regional digital inclusion projects and case studies (Madon et al., 2009). Some journal articles initially provide a macro perspective and then provide an example of an initiative at micro-level (Berger & Croll, 2012; Broadbent & Papadopoulos, 2013). Digital inclusion initiatives are also described in relation to their activities. For example, Armenta et al. (2012) differentiates digital inclusion initiatives between those that take an access driven/infrastructure approach and those that take a user-centric approach. Indeed, the debate that the provision of technology, infrastructure, and access alone is not enough to get people online is acknowledged in several journal articles (Correa et al., 2017; Freeman & Park, 2015; Haenssgen, 2018; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007). Haenssgen (2018) adds that the techno-centric focus in ICT4D has been criticized for its emphasis on the social embeddedness of technology, user behavior, and different forms of use, yet highlights that the discipline is gradually transitioning towards broader research on technological and social development that permits locally grounded conclusions. Armenta et al. (2012) provide an example of how a techno-centric approach in Mexico was not effective and lacked community participation. Correa and Pavez (2016) note similar findings when evaluating the experiences of individuals in rural communities in Chile that had benefitted from a public/private initiative called Todo Chile Comunicado (All Chile Connected), which provided subsidies for 3G wireless connections. They found a lack of motivation and a level of skepticism among the community participants in adopting the new mobile technologies, again confirming physical access alone is not sufficient. Correa et al. (2017) highlight government top-down approaches to digital inclusion initiatives by discussing programs in Latin America targeting rural areas in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. Their research confirmed that most of these policymaking initiatives focused on the provision of infrastructure; yet while access to both devices and infrastructure connection cannot be dismissed as a logical first step, it does not necessarily entail Internet adoption, particularly in isolated, rural contexts. The researchers recommend that policymakers take into account the social, cultural, and economic context of where these initiatives are implemented. In comparison, Madon et al. (2009) provide a micro-level analysis of three digital inclusion projects: the Akshaya e-literacy project in the state of Kerala in India, a community-based ICT project in South Africa, and a telecenter project in Sau Paulo in Brazil. The researchers describe how the projects changed significantly over time and demonstrate a complex mix of success and failure, and how, while the projects are unique in themselves, they also share common features: • Enrolling government support • Generating linkage to viable revenue streams • Getting symbolic acceptance by the community • Stimulating valuable social activity in relevant social groups The Kerala project, for example, got symbolic acceptance by the community by linking the e-literacy project to Kerala’s development philosophy through grassroots

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   121 campaigning; and stimulated valuable social activity in relevant social groups by widespread participation of groups, such as Muslim women who are often part of the socially excluded. Madon et al. (2009) argue these successful common features are of relevance to digital inclusion projects, particularly in the developing world.

Examples of Digital Inclusion Initiatives Intended for Women The main drivers behind most digital inclusion initiatives aimed at women are related to ensuring access, improving digital literacy, and working towards gender equality and participation of women in the digital world (ITU,  2017a*). ITU’s Gender Digital Inclusion Map (2017b*) provides a list of digital inclusion initiatives from 97 countries around the world aimed at women. In the grey literature, the report Development and access to information (IFLA & TASCHA, 2017*) has a specific focus on women and the need for meaningful access to information and information capabilities, and it provides examples of digital inclusion initiatives, mainly in public libraries. In Uganda, the National Library’s digital skills training program is offered in local languages and is designed for female farmers. In Burkina Faso, the Girls’ Mobile Health Clubs located in village libraries provide access to health information while providing information literacy and technology skills. In Chile, women, young adults, and low-income families receive preferential access to all BiblioRedes, Chile’s national network of some 400 library-based infocentros, which offer free digital literacy classes. Additionally, governments have started to consolidate publicprivate collaboration with different organizations, driving initiatives that empower women through technology. Some examples are Intel’s “She Will Connect” program in Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa; Mexico’s “Código X;” and India’s “Internet Saathi” (IFLA & TASCHA, 2017*). In most cases these digital inclusion initiatives, through the use of technology, empowered women by ensuring that they have equal access to information and education, enabling them to gain knowledge and confidence and make informed decisions on issues such as family planning and health care. Chile’s network of Infocentros, designed to be women-friendly spaces, is an example of an initiative that has empowered women through the combination of providing a trusted, safe place with digital skills training that has enabled them to develop knowledge and skills which they can use in their everyday life. Importantly, this initiative has stepped away from the “macho culture found in Internet cafés,” enabling women to talk and help each other and get help from directors of the centers (often female), in a way not possible with men (IFLA & TASCHA, p. 81, 2017*). However, for any of this digital inclusion work to happen, social barriers such as cultural demands, illiteracy, and lack of access to education need to be overcome (IFLA & TASCHA, 2017*). The World Wide Web Foundation (2015*) supports this point, stating that “the Internet can support women in making informed choices about their bodies and health, but without adequate access to safe, legal and affordable sexual and reproductive

122   Sharon Wagg ET AL. health services and action against practices such as early marriage, these choices cannot be implemented” (p. 47). As alluded to earlier, only a very small proportion of the journal articles sourced in the review—such as Freeman et al. (2016), Jiménez-Cortés et al. (2015), MartínezCantos (2017), Potnis (2015), Rashid (2016), and Rebollo and Vico (2014)—specifically related to digital inclusion initiatives aimed at women, with reference to health and wellbeing in rural communities. This therefore highlights the limited amount of research on this topic and the potential for further research. The gender digital divide was clearly referenced in the literature and was particularly evidenced in case studies from the developing world and in rural areas (Ferreira et al.,  2016; Rashid,  2016; Rebollo & Vico, 2014). These outlined the information experiences of women, particularly in relation to their access and adoption of using technology and the Internet and the barriers that they faced. A recent report by Intel (2013*) entitled Women and the Web reported that one in five women in India believes the Internet is “not appropriate” for them or useful, and that their families would disapprove. Yet positive aspects about being more connected included how mothers noted that it supports their children with homework and education (Correa et al., 2016). Rashid (2016) states that research on gender and ICTs has for the most part been centered on the concept of the gender digital divide, particularly in relation to access to provision and the fact that proportionally more men than women use the Internet. However, other articles, such as Martínez-Cantos (2017), looked more towards gender differences in attitudes, self-efficacy, and the experiences of men and women in using computers and the Internet. Shade (2014) provides a critical overview of the changing digital inclusion agenda in Canada, describing how that country played an international role in promoting gender equity in access to the Internet. Yet in recent years, despite the continued persistent issue of digital exclusion, the government agenda of online gender equity has significantly diminished and there has been a gradual disinvestment in funding for programs for Internet access. As highlighted by Rashid (2016), to reduce the gender digital divide there is a need for digital inclusion policy interventions to not only focus on the supply-side of providing ICT equipment and connectivity infrastructure, but to also include “a more nuanced understanding of the behavior and use of ICTs by women in meaningful ways to enable them to fulfil specific individual motivations and needs” (p. 327).

The Use of Mobile Technology in Digital Inclusion The use of mobile technology was identified as a key element in digital inclusion activities in the review. In the grey literature, IFLA and TASCHA, (2017*) confirm that “for the billions of people coming online for the first time, mobile phone and increasingly smartphones are their point of entry to the Internet” (p. 31). GSMA’s report Bridging the gender gap: Mobile access and usage in low-and middle-income countries (2015*), and the report Development and access to information (IFLA & TASCHA, 2017*), both provide insights

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   123 into the use of mobile technology by women and its impact on digital inclusion. Although not specifically focused on women, the UK Ofcom report “Smartphone by default” internet users (2016*) provides further insight into the use and behavior of individuals whose only access to the Internet is via a smartphone, and the implications this has in relation to the user experience and digital inclusion. For example, completing online forms (for government services) and creating and editing a document (such as for a CV) via a mobile phone were cited as being particularly challenging. In the Good Things Foundation’s Library Digital Inclusion Fund Action Research project evaluation, the use of mobile technology was a key enabler for the research participants getting online through public library WiFi (Good Things Foundation, 2016c*). The use of mobile technology was also referenced in the academic literature. Correa et al. (2016) found that despite not being able to get good service, many people from Chilean rural communities purchased mobile phones to use when they travelled outside their village. Haenssgen’s (2018) study in rural India argued that households without mobile phones are increasingly disadvantaged in their health care access, stating that “phone diffusion leads [healthcare] providers to expect health-related phone use among the population” (p. 371). Rashid (2016; based on research in developing countries) found that although women rely less on computers and the Internet, they are more likely to use mobile phones compared to men. Yet Potnis’s (2016) research on rural women in India highlighted that women often spoke about rumors and gossip on how mobile phones can cause health problems, thus deterring them from adopting and using mobile phones. Focus group discussions in research by Pavez et al. (2017) also revealed negative perceptions of how the Internet and mobile devices were viewed as intrusive and disruptive to their way of life, with participants referring to the “adverse and harmful consequences attributed to the Internet, including addiction and isolation” (p. 17). Haenssgen (2018) also states that mobile technology has become so pervasive in some domains of Western urban life that it is simply expected of everyone to use it so as to not inconvenience others. Yet as stated by Freeman et al. (2016), not everyone has access, the motivation, or indeed the skills to use online services, and many rural regions struggle with slow or unreliable broadband and mobile phone connectivity.

Digital Inclusion Frameworks, Measurements, and Evaluations Only a limited number of articles focused on the actual process of measuring or evaluating the success and outcomes of digital inclusion initiatives, highlighting a lack of both underpinning theory as well as evaluation procedures to guide digital inclusion research. Smith (2015) provides a conceptual framework for analyzing the success of digital inclusion projects, and Madon et al. (2009) identify three crucial factors that must be considered when planning digital inclusion initiatives: the value, sustainability, and scalability of the project. Armenta et al. (2012) provide a seven-stage framework for rural, underserved and less-privileged populations: (1) identification and evaluation of regional socioeconomic condition, (2) assessment of external factors that impact the region’s sustainable development, (3) identification of those ICT more favorable to

124   Sharon Wagg ET AL. support sustainable development, (4) analysis of financial viability of ICT infrastructure and operations deployment, (5) development and implementation of a technology adoption and training program, (6) development and implementation of and ICT application focused on the regional sustainable development needs, and (7) evaluation of the project. The work of Boulos et al. (2015) related to digital inclusion provides well-being measures calculated through the Organization for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD) Better Life Index for the 34 OECD member countries, and the related OECD Regional Well-Being “How’s life where you are?” tool that covers 362 OECD regions. In addition, digital inclusion research by Jones et al. (2015) include Tennant’s Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) to measure well-being. The grey literature contains examples of “outcomes-based evaluation” of digital inclusion initiatives often in the form of a logic model, as an evaluation and communication tool. According to Rhinesmith and Siefer (2017*), this method is useful for communicating the goals and the “theory of change” underlying the work of digital inclusion initiatives to funders. The grey literature also included two frameworks to measure the  level of people’s digital skills. The UK Essential Digital Skills Framework (Tech Partnership, 2018*) includes five categories of essential digital skills for life and work: communicating, handling information and content, transacting, problem solving, and  being safe and legal online. The European Commission’s Digital Competence Framework for Citizens 2.1 (Carretero et al.,  2017*), includes five competence areas: information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and problem solving. Both frameworks have been updated to remain relevant. Using the UK Essential Digital Skills Framework (Tech Partnership, 2018*) measures, the Lloyds Bank Digital Index reported that there is a small but increasing digital skills gap between men and women in the United Kingdom (Lloyds Bank, 2017*). Rashid’s (2016) research on gender differences in ICT access and use in five developing countries also involves the development of a digital inclusion index. Based on five broad categories— skills, attitude, frequency of use, location of use, and breadth of use—Rashid developed the index specifically to challenge a commonly held assumption in the discourse on technology and gender that “compared to men women are more likely to be lacking in digital competencies” (p. 326).

Digital Inclusion Training The review identified digital skills training as an important aspect of digital inclusion and the effective use of ICT (Hughes et al.,  2017; Yueh et al.,  2013). For example, Martinez-Cantos (2017) note that the EU, in line with academic research and other political institutions around the world, “considers that digital literacy and associated competences play a key role in the development of the Information Society, and is becoming a priority in initiatives for social inclusion and human capital” (p. 420). As stated by Ferreira (2016) “users need to feel capable of using ICT administered through

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   125 training classes and peer support to overcome lack of experience and to encourage participation” (p. 39). References were made to training and interventions, referring to varying terminology such as digital literacy or digital skills (Martinez-Cantos, 2017) or other inter-related terms such as digital competence (Hatlevik et al., 2015), digital capabilities (Britz et al., 2012), online skills (Zhou & Purushothaman,  2015), Internet literacy (Livingstone & Helsper, 2007), Internet skills (Van Deursen, 2012), computer literacy (Hart et al., 2004), and information literacy (Yu et al., 2017). However, in general few explanations are provided about each of these terms, leaving the reader unclear of the meaning of such terminology. Only a small fraction of the studies linked the concepts of digital inclusion and information literacy. For example, the research of Yu et al. (2017) on understanding factors influencing ICT adoption behavior found that when a digital divide exists, it is important to keep on investing in information literacy development activities for rural communities to help them develop their ICT competence. Wyatt et al. (2005) extend this point by clarifying that while there needs to be an ability to find and make sense of information found online, it is also important to have “the ability to make sense of generic information that is relevant to one’s own circumstances” (p. 213). Approaches to digital inclusion digital skills training are also discussed. Pischetola (2011) emphasizes the need for investment in education and training in schools to use the ICT infrastructure and enhance learning. Berger and Croll (2012), in their work on training in basic Internet skills for special target groups in non-formal educational settings, discuss the trainer/learner relationship and the importance of trust. The researchers highlight a successful intervention in Germany where a female teacher was appointed for a group of female learners to prevent them from feeling intimidated and to help create an open learning atmosphere where any question could be raised without embarrassment. Madon et al.’s (2009) research confirms the importance of this approach, highlighting how a digital inclusion project in Mpumalanga, South Africa failed for a number of reasons, including that the trainers were outsiders whose motives were often suspected. While the review identified the importance of digital skills training, and provided details of specific approaches, there appeared to be a lack of depth in relation to what and how was actually being taught, and this thus provides another opportunity for further research.

Digital Inclusion, Information Literacy, Health, and Well-Being The health and well-being benefits of digital inclusion initiatives received few mentions in the literature (Ferreira et al., 2016; Park, 2017; Rashid, 2016) and did not always relate

126   Sharon Wagg ET AL. specifically to women in rural areas, or provide specific examples of how health and well-being benefits are gained through digital inclusion initiatives. For example, Broadbent and Papadopoulos (2013) found that participants reported some improvement in their sense of well-being attributed to the provision of ICT, citing connecting with relatives, reading news in their own language, and getting access to online services as important conduits to improved health and well-being. Other journal articles referred specifically to health practices. For instance, Freeman et al. (2016) state how poor connectivity inhibits basic health practices, such as contact between patients, physicians, and colleagues, and how rural health services would benefit enormously from effective mobile and Internet services, particularly to communicate with their patients. Hart et al. (2004) highlight how the use of the Internet can increase patients’ knowledge about their health conditions, although patients in their study were often too overwhelmed by the information available on the Internet to make an informed decision about their own care. In the grey literature, as part of their evaluation of the NHS Widening Digital Participation, Good Things Foundation (2016a*) stated there is “a huge crossover between those who are digitally excluded, and those at risk of poor health” (p. 8). Although not specifically aimed at women or rural areas, the project was set up to help improve the digital health skills of people in hard-to-reach communities. Similarly, the English My Way project, also evaluated by Good Things Foundation, designed to help people gain English language skills through a blend of digital tools and face-to-face training sessions, found that participants gained health and well-being benefits (Good Things Foundation, 2016b*). Both projects depended on a network of hyperlocal community organizations and agents who were able to reach out to hard-to-reach communities. Deloitte’s (2014*) report highlights how an empirical study undertaken in rural villages in India to analyze the impact of Internet access on child mortality rates found that villages with Internet access that “provided specific online health information to women during and after pregnancy had 14% lower child mortality rates than villages without the Internet” (p. 19*). As referred to earlier, information literacy is important for health and well-being (Martzoukou & Abdi,  2017) and people’s adoption of the Internet (Yu et al.,  2017). Williamson and Asla (2009) state that information literacy is crucial to the well-being of people in the “fourth age” (a stage of increasing dependence and disability, for those aged 85+). Martzoukou and Abdi’s (2017) work on information literacy in everyday life makes a specific reference to the significant role information literacy can play in both the physical and psychological well-being of women. This is particularly the case in a critical life situation, for example, during pregnancy and childbirth, where the way in which women evaluate different sources of information can have a significant impact. Adekannbi and Adeniran’s (2017) work on the information literacy of women in rural communities in Nigeria discovered that women had limited, basic knowledge of family planning and that the acquisition of information on family planning was accidental, as a majority of research participants did not have access to health centers.

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   127

Discussion The review highlights a number of specific tensions and contradictions in relation to digital inclusion initiatives, definitions, and the relationship with public policy.

Vague and Inconsistent Terminology For example, very few journal articles defined or attempted to describe or explain the concept of digital inclusion, which as evidenced from conducting this review, has led to ambiguities in the understanding and meaning of digital inclusion in academic research. Further confirmation of this tension was revealed by practitioners, funders, policymakers, and other key digital inclusion stakeholders at the 2016 Net Inclusion Summit, who identified a lack of a shared vocabulary in defining digital inclusion (Rhinesmith & Siefer, 2017*). Jaeger et al. (2012) neatly sum up the consequence of this tension stating, “it is a challenge to solve a problem you cannot define, and the inconsistency of definitions has affected policymaking processes that have attempted to address these issues” (p. 4).

Relations between Information Literacy and Digital Inclusion Similarly, tensions in relation to information literacy and how it relates to digital inclusion are also identified through the review. For example, information literacy, despite its association with critical thinking skills (Bingham et al., 2016) and its clear relevance to digital literacy and digital inclusion (Adhikari et al., 2016; Turkalj et al., 2015), continues to be overlooked in digital inclusion policy and practice. This is also confirmed by the lack of linkages found between digital inclusion and information literacy in the review (Wyatt et al., 2005; Yu et al., 2017), as highlighted earlier. The reason for this is partly explained in the work by Jaeger et al. (2012), which explores the inter-relationships between digital literacy, digital inclusion, and public policy, and the fragmented nature of research in this area. They highlight that “while the terms digital divide and digital literacy have entered into common usage, the term digital inclusion is still in its infancy” (p. 3). This suggests that the use of digital inclusion as a term may grow over the forthcoming years, thus providing future opportunities to reveal linkages with information literacy. Another explanation for the lack of linkages found between digital inclusion and information literacy within the review, and a further tension, as alluded to earlier, is that researchers in other fields use varying terminology to describe information literacy and digital inclusion concepts. For example, a small selection of authors including Britz et al. (2012) referred to the application of Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach in relation to an

128   Sharon Wagg ET AL. information-based rights framework, in which an individuals’ ability to use information is influenced by their relative capabilities. Whilst this approach displays similarities with the concepts of information literacy and digital inclusion, it is also highlights the need for a shared vocabulary within digital inclusion research to reduce ambiguities and fragmentation of the research landscape.

Differences between Developing and Developed Country Contexts Contradictions were also revealed within the review. For example, a clear split was identified between digital inclusion initiatives in developing countries and those in developed countries, which were often discussed in contradictory terms. Research in developed countries tended to make a number of assumptions in relation to access, knowledge, and skills. For example, Whitney et al. (2011) ascertained through their research in five European countries that there is increasingly an assumption that people should be able to participate in a wide range of formal activities such as eGovernment, eHealth and eEducation via their computers and mobile phones. Research in developing countries, however, tended to be more about access and infrastructure; how access does not necessarily entail Internet adoption, particularly in isolated contexts; and how digital inclusion needs the support of reliable broadband and electricity (Correa, et al., 2017; Pavez et al., 2017; Potnis, 2015). Contradictions were also highlighted in relation to digital inclusion in public libraries in developed countries. For example, Jaeger (2012) states that libraries report acrossthe-board increases in the use of their public-access technologies, Wi-Fi, training classes, and online resources. Indeed Real et al. (2014) state that public libraries—and rural public libraries in particular—are still the primary source of broadband access for many, highlighting the importance of public libraries for digital inclusion activities. Yet as highlighted by Fourie and Meyer (2016), Jaeger (2012), and Real et al. (2014), this increase in use has occurred concurrently with dramatic decreases in library budgets, government support, and well-trained staff.

Complexity of and Theoretical Approaches toward Initiatives Another major insight identified from the review is the tension regarding the need to better understand the complexity of digital inclusion initiatives (Madon et al., 2009). For example, only a small number of journal articles, as noted earlier, contain an underpinning theory to guide the research and attempt to unpick the complexity of digital inclusion projects. This in turn has led to clear gaps in digital inclusion research, such as

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   129 the lack of insight on the content of digital skills training, leaving scope for criticism, but also providing opportunities for future research into this area.

Conclusion This review provides a number of contributions to the existing literature on digital inclusion and information literacy. First, while the review confirms that there is a global gender digital divide where women lack access to information and digital skills, particularly in rural areas, there is limited research with regard to the role of digital inclusion in women’s health and well-being in rural communities. Second, the review identifies that digital inclusion initiatives are attempting to close the digital divide by providing infrastructure and access to digital technologies; by building capabilities and skills in how to use such technologies and online information; and that mobile technology is playing an increasing role in digital inclusion initiatives. Third, from the limited research that does exist, the review confirms that digital inclusion has the potential to contribute to the improvement of women’s health and well-being in rural communities and that information literacy can play a key role in digital inclusion. Fourth, the review confirms that digital inclusion is a complex area of enquiry, and that digital inclusion research appears fragmented and requires more depth (particularly in relation to terminology, digital skills training, linkages with information literacy and use of theory). Indeed, the inclusion of some grey literature was essential in the review in order to provide further understanding, richness and currency. Finally, the review reveals that significant tensions and contradictions exist within digital inclusion practice and policy. The review does come with its limitations. This review was limited to using two databases, and a selection of grey literature, and so is by no means exhaustive. The exclusion of books and conference papers rendered the search more manageable, as did the omission of the phrase “digital divide” from the search terms which, if included, would have produced a far greater number of articles but perhaps with less specific relevance. The identification of such issues in the literature and limitations of this study helps identify a future research agenda. First, there is a need for further systematic reviews across more databases and grey literature on the research topic with inclusion of a greater number of search terms/phrases. Second, there is opportunity for further research, particularly in relation to (1) the processes and mechanisms of digital inclusion initiatives, (2) digital inclusion digital skills training where the concepts of information literacy and digital inclusion are brought together, and (3) the experiences of women who have benefitted from digital inclusion initiatives. Finally, there is scope to incorporate more underpinning research theory in digital inclusion research to make sense of this complex situation of enquiry and provide a deeper foundation for both shaping research in this area as well as in understanding and evaluating the process and results.

130   Sharon Wagg ET AL.

References Not in Review Database Anderson, A. & Johnston, B. (2016). From information literacy to social epistemology: Insights from psychology. Cambridge, UK: Chandos Publishing. Andretta, S. (2005). Information literacy: A practitioner’s guide. Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing. Bach, A., Shaffer, G., & Wolfson, T. (2013). Digital human capital: Developing a framework for understanding the economic impact of digital exclusion in low-income communities. Journal of Information Policy, 3, 247–266. Bruce, C. (2000). Information literacy research: Dimensions of the emerging collective consciousness. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 31(2), 91–109. Burke, M. (2010). Overcoming challenges of the technological age by teaching information literacy skills. Community & Junior College Libraries, 16(4), 247–254. Corrall, S. (2008). Information literacy strategy development in higher education: An exploratory study. International Journal of Information Management, 28(1), 26–37. Dunn, H. S. (2013). Information literacy and the digital divide: Challenging e-exclusion in the Global South. In Information Resources Management Association (2013) digital literacy: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 20–38). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Hepworth, M., & Walton, G. (2013). Developing people’s information capabilities: Fostering information literacy in educational, workplace and community contexts. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. Kuhlthau, C. (1993). A principle of uncertainty for information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 49, 339–355. Lloyd, A. (2010). Framing information literacy as information practice: Site ontology and practice theory. Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 245–258. McGillivray, D., Jenkins, N., & Mamattah, S. (2017). Rapid review of evidence for basic digital skills. School of Media, Culture & Society, University of the West of Scotland, Ayr, Scotland. https://digitalparticipation.storage.googleapis.com/reports/Tackling_Digital_Exclusion_ Literature_Review.pdf Meijer, A., & Bekkers, V. (2015). A metatheory of e-government: Creating some order in a fragmented research field. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 237–245. Mervyn, K., Simon, A., & Allen, D. K. (2014). Digital inclusion and social inclusion: A tale of two cities. Information, Communication & Society, 17(9), 1086–1104. NDIA (2017). Definitions. National Digital Inclusion Alliance.https://www.digitalinclusion. org/definitions/ Nemer, D. (2015). From digital divide to digital inclusion and beyond: A positional review. Journal of Community Informatics, 11(1). http://ci-journal.org/index.php/ciej/article/view/1030 Rhinesmith, C. (2016). Digital inclusion and meaningful broadband adoption initiatives. Evanston, IL: Benton Foundation. https://www.benton.org/publications/digital-inclusionand-meaningful-broadband-adoption-initiatives Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Secker, J. & Coonan, E. (2013). Rethinking information literacy: A practical framework for supporting learning. London: Facet. Secker, J. (2018). The revised CILIP definition of information literacy. Journal of Information Literacy, 12(1), 156–158. Van Dijk, J.  A.  G.  M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   131 Appendix: Publications Analyzed: Journal Articles (N = 66) and Grey Literature (N = 16) * Grey literature ** Journal articles not cited in the text

Adekannbi, J. O., & Adeniran, O. M. (2017). Information literacy of women on family planning in rural communities of Oyo State Nigeria. Information Development, 33, 351–360. doi:10.1177/0266666916661387 Adhikari, J., Mathrani, A., & Scogings, C. (2016). Bring your own devices classroom: Exploring the issue of digital divide in the teaching and learning contexts. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(4), 323–343. doi:10.1108/ITSE-04-2016-0007 Aires, L. (2014). From dissemination to the domestication of digital technologies in rural communities: Narratives of parents and teachers. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21(4), 337–352. doi:10.1080/10749039.2014.947654 Armenta, A., Serrano, A., Cabrera, M., & Conte, R. (2012). The new digital divide: The confluence of broadband penetration, sustainable development, technology adoption and community participation. Information Technology for Development, 18, 345–353. doi:10.1080/02 681102.2011.625925 Berger, A., & Croll, J. (2012). Training in basic Internet skills for special target groups in nonformal educational settings: Conclusions from three pilot projects. Research in Learning Technology, 20(4).https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index.php/rlt/article/view/1330 Bingham, T.  J., Wirjapranata, J., & Chinnery, S. (2016). Merging information literacy and evidence-based practice for social work students. New Library World, 117(3/4), 201–213. Blackstock, O. J., Cunningham, C. O., Haughton, L. J., Garner, R. Y., Norwood, C., & Horvath, K.  J. (2016). Higher eHealth literacy is associated with HIV risk behaviors among HIVinfected women who use the Internet. Journal of the Association of Nurses in Aids Care, 27(1), 102–108. ** Boulos, K., Tsouros, A. D., & Holopainen, A. (2015). Social, innovative and smart cities are happy and resilient: Insights from the WHO EURO 2014 International Healthy Cities Conference. International Journal of Health Geographics, 14(3).https://ij-healthgeographics. biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-072X-14-3 Britz, J., Hoffmann, A., Ponelis, S., Zimmer, M., & Lor, P. (2012). On considering the application of Amartya Sen’s capability approach to an information-based rights framework. Information Development, 29(2), 106–113. doi:10.1177/0266666912454025 Broadbent, R., & Papadopoulos, T. (2013). Impact and benefits of digital inclusion for social housing residents. Community Development, 44(1), 55–67. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. EUR 28558 EN, doi:10.2760/38842 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technicalresearch-reports/digcomp-21-digital-competence-framework-citizens-eight-proficiencylevels-and-examples-use * Chiu, C. J., & Liu, C. W. (2017). Understanding older adult’s technology adoption and withdrawal for elderly care and education: Mixed method analysis from national survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e374. CILIP (2018). What is information literacy. Library and Information Professionals Association.http://www.cilip.org.uk/?page=informationliteracy *

132   Sharon Wagg ET AL. Correa, T., & Pavez, I. (2016). Digital inclusion in rural areas: A qualitative exploration of challenges faced by people from isolated communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 247–263. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12154 Correa, T., Pavez, I., & Contreras, J. (2017). Beyond access: A relational and resource-based model of household Internet adoption in isolated communities. Telecommunications Policy, 41, 757–768. Crawford, J., & Irving, C. (2007). Information literacy: The link between secondary and tertiary education project and its wider implications. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 39(1), 17–26. doi:10.1177/0961000607074812 ** Deloitte (2014). Value of connectivity: Economic and social benefits of expanding internet access. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/Technology MediaCommunications/2014_uk_tmt_value_of_connectivity_deloitte_ireland.pdf * Dorner, D. G., & Gorman, G. E. (2011). Contextual factors affecting learning in Laos and the implications for information literacy education. Information Research, 16, 1–23. Enwald, H., Hirvonen, N., Huotari, M.  L., Korpelainen, R., Pyky, R., Savolainen, M., & Niemelä, R. (2016). Everyday health information literacy among young men compared with adults with high risk for metabolic syndrome: A cross-sectional population-based study. Journal of Information Science, 42(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551516628449 Eynon, R., & Helsper, E. (2015). Family dynamics and Internet use in Britain: What role do children play in adults’ engagement with the Internet? Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 156–171. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.942344 ** Ferreira, S. M., Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2016). Going beyond telecenters to foster the digital inclusion of older people in Brazil: Lessons learned from a rapid ethnographical study. Information Technology for Development, 22, sup 1, 26–46. doi:10.1080/02681102.2015.1091974 Fotopoulou, A. (2016). Digital and networked by default? Women’s organisations and the social imaginary of networked feminism. New Media & Society, 18(6), 989–1005. ** Fourie, I., and Meyer, A. (2016). Role of libraries in developing an informed and educated nation. Library Hi Tech, 34, 422–432. doi:10.1108/LHT-01-2016-0009 Freeman, J., & Park, S. (2015). Rural realities: Digital communication challenges for rural Australian local governments. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9(4), 465–479. Freeman, J., Park, S., Middleton, C., & Allen, M. (2016). The importance of broadband for socio-economic development: A perspective from rural Australia. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 20, 1–18. Gerli, P., Wainwright, D., & Whalley, J. (2017). Infrastructure investment on the margins of the market: The role of niche infrastructure providers in the UK. Telecommunications Policy, 41, 743–756. ** Good Things Foundation. (2016a). Health & digital: Reducing inequalities, improving society: An evaluation of the Widening Digital Participation programme.https://www.goodthingsfoundation.org/sites/default/files/research-publications/improving_digital_health_skills_ report_2016_1.pdf * Good Things Foundation. (2016b). English My Way Phase 2 Evaluation: Final evaluation report.https://www.goodthingsfoundation.org/sites/default/files/research-publications/ emw-phase-2-evaluation-report_-_rev_a.pdf * Good Things Foundation. (2016c). Library Digital Inclusion Fund Action Research Project evaluation final report.https://www.goodthingsfoundation.org/sites/default/files/researchpublications/library_digital_inclusion_fund_action_research_project_final_report.pdf *

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   133 GSMA. (2015). Bridging the gender gap: Mobile access and usage in low-and middle-income countries.https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ GSM0001_03232015_GSMAReport_NEWGRAYS-Web.pdf * Haenssgen, M. J. (2018). The struggle for digital inclusion: Phones, healthcare, and marginalisation in rural India. World Development, 104, 358–374. Hart, A., Henwood, F., & Wyatt, S. (2004). The role of the Internet in patient-practitioner relationships: Findings from a qualitative research study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3), 1. Hashim, R., Kartika, S. I., Ustadi, Y. A., Merican, F. M., & Fuzi, S. F. S. M. (2012). Digital inclusion and lifestyle transformation among the Orang Asli: Sacrificing culture for modernity? Asian Social Science, 8(12), 80–87. Hatlevik, O. E., Ottestad, G., & Throndsen, I. (2015). Predictors of digital competence in 7th grade: A multilevel analysis paper. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 220–231. doi:10.1111/jcal.12065 Hughes, H., Wolf, R., & Foth, M. (2017). Informed digital learning through social living labs as participatory methodology: The case of Food Rescue Townsville. Information and Learning Science, 118(9/10), 518–534. IFLA & TASCHA. (2017). Development and access to information. International Federation of  Library Associations and Institutions, and Technology & Social Change Group. University of Washington.https://da2i.ifla.org/sites/da2i.ifla.org/files/uploads/docs/da2i2017-full-report.pdf * Intel. (2013). Women and the Web. https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/ documents/pdf/women-and-the-web.pdf * ITU. (2017a). ICT facts and figures. International Telecommunication Union.http://www.itu. int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf * ITU. (2017b). Gender digital inclusion map. International Telecommunication Union.https:// www.itu.int/en/action/gender-equality/Pages/equalsGDImap.aspx * Jacobs, H. L. M., & Berg, S. (2011). Reconnecting information literacy policy with the core values of librarianship. Library Trends, 60(2), 383–394. Jaeger, P. T., Bertot, J. C., Thompson, K. M., Katz, S. M., & DeCoster, E. J. (2012). The intersection of public policy and public access: Digital divides, digital literacy, digital inclusion, and public libraries. Public Library Quarterly, 31(1), 1–20. doi:10.1080/01616846.2012.654728 Jiménez-Cortés, M., Rebollo-Catalán, M.  A., García-Pérez, R., & Buzón-García, O. (2015). Social network user motivation: An analysis of rural women’s profiles. RELIEVE, 21(1), art. 2. doi:10.7203/relieve.21.1.5153 Jones, R. B., Ashurst, E. J., Atkey, J., & Duffy, B. (2015). Older people going online: Its value and before-after evaluation of volunteer support. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(5), 1. doi:10.2196/jmir.3943 Julien, H., & Breu, R. D. (2005). Instructional practices in Canadian public libraries. Library & Information Science Research, 27, 281–301. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2005.04.002 ** Kapondera, S. K., & Hart, G. (2016). The use of multipurpose community telecentres and their services in Malawi: The case of Lupaso Community Telecentre. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 82(1), 13–25. doi:10.7553/82-1-1589 Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696. Lloyds Bank (2017). Lloyds Bank consumer digital index.https://www.thetechpartnership.com/ globalassets/pdfs/research-2017/consumerdigitalindex_mar17.pdf *

134   Sharon Wagg ET AL. Madon, S., Reinhard, N., Roode, D., & Walsham, G. (2009). Digital inclusion projects in developing countries: Processes of institutionalization. Information Technology for Development, 15, 95–107. doi:10.1002/itdj.20108 Martínez-Cantos, J. L. (2017). Digital skills gaps: A pending subject for gender digital inclusion in the European Union. European Journal of Communication, 32(5), 419–438. Martzoukou, K., & Abdi, E. S. (2017). Towards an everyday life information literacy mind-set: A review of literature. Journal of Documentation, 73(4), 634–665. Mehra, B. (2017). Mobilization of rural libraries toward political and economic change in the aftermath of the 2016 Presidential election. Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 87(4), 369–390. ** Niemelä, R., Ek, S., Eriksson- Backa, K., & Huotari, M. L. (2012). A screening tool for assessing everyday health information literacy. Libri, 62, 125–134. Ofcom (2016). “Smartphone by default” internet users.https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/ assets/pdf_file/0028/62929/smarphone_by_default_2016.pdf * Papen, U. (2013). Conceptualising information literacy as social practice: A study of pregnant women’s information practices. Information Research, 18(2), n2. Park, S. (2017). Digital inequalities in rural Australia: A double jeopardy of remoteness and social exclusion. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 399–407. Pavez, I., Correa, T., & Contreras, J. (2017). Meanings of (dis)connection: Exploring non-users in isolated rural communities with internet access infrastructure. Poetics, 63, 11–21. Pischetola, M. (2011). Digital media and learning evolution: A research on sustainable local empowerment. Global Media Journal, 11(18), 1–14. Potnis, D. D. (2015). Beyond access to information: Understanding the use of information by poor female mobile users in rural India. Information Society, 31, 83–93. doi:10.1080/0197224 3.2014.976687 Rashid, A. T. (2016). Digital inclusion and social inequality: Gender differences in ICT access and use in five developing countries. Gender, Technology and Development, 20(3), 306–332. Real, B., Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger, P. T. (2014). Rural public libraries and digital inclusion: Issues and challenges. Information Technology and Libraries, 33(1), 6–24. doi:10.6017/ital.v33i1.5141 Rebollo, A. M, &.Vico, A. (2014). Perceived social support as a factor of rural women’s digital inclusion in online social networks. Comunicar, 22, 173–180. doi:10.3916/C43-2014–17 Renteria, C. (2015). How transformational mobile banking optimizes household expenditures: A case study from rural communities in Mexico. Information Technologies & International Development, 11, 39–54.** Rhinesmith, C. & Siefer, A. (2017). Digital inclusion: Outcomes-based evaluation. Evanston, IL: Benton Foundation.https://www.benton.org/publications/digital-inclusion-outcomesbased-evaluation * Roberts, E., Farrington, J., & Skerratt, S. (2015). Evaluating new digital technologies through a framework of resilience. Scottish Geographical Journal, 131(3–4), 253–264. Salinas, A., & Sánchez, J. (2009). Digital inclusion in Chile: Internet in rural schools. International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 573–582. doi:10.1016/j. ijedudev.2009.04.003 Sanchez, M. S. O., & Sanchez, M. R. F. (2017). Digital technologies and rural women’s entrepreneurship. Prisma Social, 18, 259–277. ** Shade, L.  R. (2014). Missing in action: Gender in Canada’s digital economy agenda. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 39(4), 887–896.

Digital Inclusion and Women’s Health in Rural Communities   135 Singh, S. (2017). Bridging the gender digital divide in developing countries. Journal of Children and Media, 11(2), 245–247. doi:10.1080/17482798.2017.1305604 Smith, C. (2015). An analysis of digital inclusion projects: Three crucial factors and four key components. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14(1), 179–188. Stevenson, S.  A., & Domsy, C. (2016). Redeploying public librarians to the front-lines: Prioritizing digital inclusion. Library Review, 65, 370–385. doi:10.1108/LR-02-2016-0015 ** Tech Partnership (2018). Basic digital skills framework consultation. https://www.thetechpartnership.com/basic-digital-skills/basic-digital-skills-framework/ * Thompson, K.  M., & Paul, A. (2016). “I am not sure how much it will be helpful for me”: Factors for digital inclusion among middle-class women in India. Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 86(1), 93–106. Turkalj, D., Bilos, A., & Kelic, I. (2015). Integration of Croatian farmers in the EU information society—Issues and implications. Ekonomski Vjesnik, 28, 41–52. doi:http://www.efos.unios. hr/ekonomski-vjesnik/en/table-of-contents-by-issue/ Van Deursen, A.  J.  A.  M. (2012). Internet skill-related problems in accessing online health information. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 81, 61–72. Wei, Z., Jiang, G., Niu, T., Zou, T., & Dong, E. (2013). A tale of two counties: How two school libraries in rural western China serve local needs. Library Trends, 62, 205–233. doi:10.1353/ lib.2013.0029 Whitney, G., Keith, S., Buhler, C., Hewer, S., Lhotska, L., Miesenberger, K., . . . Engelen, J. (2011). Twenty five years of training and education in ICT design for all and assistive technology. Technology and Disability, 23(3), 163–170. Williamson, K., & Asla, T. (2009). Information behavior of people in the fourth age: Implications for the conceptualization of information literacy. Library & Information Science Research, 31, 76–83. World Wide Web Foundation. (2015). Women’s Rights Online: Translating Access into Empowerment—Global Report October 2015. http://webfoundation.org/docs/2015/10/womensrights-online21102015.pdf * Wyatt, S., Henwood, F., Hart, A., & Smith, J. (2005). The digital divide, health information and everyday life. New Media & Society, 7, 199–218. doi:10.1177/1461444805050747 Yu, T.-K., Lin, M.-L., & Liao, Y.-K. (2017). Understanding factors influencing information communication technology adoption behavior: The moderators of information literacy and digital skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 196–208. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.005 Yueh, H. P., Chen, T. L., Chiu, L. A., & Lin, W. C. (2013). Exploring factors affecting learner’s perception of learning information and communication technology: A HLM analysis of a national farmers’ training program in Taiwan. Educational Technology and Society, 16, 231–242. Zhou, C., & Purushothaman, A. (2015). The need to foster creativity and digital inclusion among women users in developing context: Addressing second order digital divide in online skills. iJET (International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning), 10(3), 69–74.

chapter 6

Digita l Tech nol ogy for Older Peopl e A Review of Recent Research Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas

Introduction One of the great challenges facing the world today is the aging of the population. The United Nations (2017) estimates that in 2017 there were 962 million people aged 60 or over worldwide, but by 2050 there will be 2.1 billion people in that group, a rise from 12.7% to 21.5% of the population. Currently, Europe and Japan have the greatest percentage of population aged 60 or over (over 25%), but by 2050 all regions of the world except Africa will have nearly a quarter or more of their populations aged over 60. An important consequence of the aging population is that the ratio of people of working age to older people (the Potential Support Ratio, PSR) is declining. Thus, there will be fewer people of working age to care and support the older population. Europe currently has a PSR of approximately 4 younger people for each older one, although many European countries have a PSR of less than 3 younger/older, and Japan’s is the lowest at 2.1 (United Nations, 2017). Digital technologies are often presented as a major solution to this increasing problem of providing care to older people. Increasingly, particularly in the wealthier countries, it is expected that older people will be cared for and will care for themselves using digital technologies. However, the relationship between digital technologies and older people is rather more complex than many commentators suggest. First, old age spans from people in their 60s to people well over 100 years old. People currently in their 60s may have been using digital technologies for many years, whereas those much older may have little experience with these technologies. So the acceptance and familiarity of digital technologies may be very different for different cohorts of older people. Second, we can think of two different ways of “being digital” for older people. In the first way of “being digital”, their use of mainstream technologies, older people both need

Digital Technology for Older People   137 and want to be able to use the many mainstream digital technologies that have emerged in recent years and that are continuing to emerge. For example, automated teller machines (ATMs) are now the most common way of withdrawing cash from one’s bank account. Twenty years ago, people over 60 rarely used ATMs (van Schaik, Petrie & Kirby, 1995). But as these machines have become more and more common, and bank branches less common, everyone, including older people, needs to use them, whether they wish to or not. Consequently, banks and ATM manufacturers have had to consider the needs of older users, for example that very short time-outs may not be appropriate, and that text, button sizes and colors need to be suitable for older eyes and fingers. In addition, older people want to use many mainstream digital technologies. For example, they often realize that the best way to communicate with their children and grandchildren is via email, Skype, or a social networking site (e.g., Sayago, Forbes & Blat, 2012). In the second way of “being digital”, the use of technologies specially developed to assist older people with problems they encounter in their daily lives, technologies have provided many opportunities for assisting older people in overcoming such problems. This may be as simple as an electronic pillbox that reminds older people to take their medicines, or complex systems involving the use of the global positioning system of satellites (GPS) to assist older people in navigating unfamiliar environments (Petrie, Johnson, & Strothotte, 1997) and to monitor and locate older people with dementia, who may wander and become confused (Jönsson & Svensk, 1995). So, these digital technologies must be acceptable and usable by older people. This chapter presents a review of recent research on digital technologies for older people, highlighting research in both of these ways of “being digital”. First, we will present the scope of our review and an overview of the 16 different research topics that emerged from this review. Then we will consider in more depth four of the topics of research, three related to the first way of “being digital”, that is older people’s use of mainstream digital technologies. These three emerged most frequently in our review, namely: older people’s 1) interaction with digital technologies, 2) lived experience of digital technologies, and 3) use of digital technologies for communication and social interaction. The fourth topic to be considered in depth is related to the second way of “being digital”: i.e. digital technologies that are specially developed to assist older people, with the specific topic being 4) that of monitoring their welfare. Finally, we reflect on some of the overarching themes that emerged from the research, some of the limitations of recent research, and further areas of research that need to be undertaken.

Scope of the Review As part of an ongoing review of research on technology for disabled and older people (Petrie, Gallagher, & Darzentas, 2014), research about older people published in a selection of peer-reviewed conferences and journals between 2005 and 2017 was identified for this chapter. Conferences and journals were chosen that deal primarily with the design

138   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas and  evaluation of technologies with the target users, rather than with the technical implementation of the technologies. This means that papers should provide insight into what area of need or interest for older people is being addressed, how older people were involved in the research, and what outcomes were achieved. A range of mainstream outlets in human-computer interaction and human factors, as well as specialist outlets in gerontology and rehabilitation technology, were selected (see Table 6.1). Outlets were selected for inclusion based on their Impact Factor (Thomson Reuters, 2013); journals with the highest impact factors for their sector were chosen. The Australian Research Council’s (2012) rankings of journals and conferences were also used in the decisions. Papers were included if they used words relevant to older people and technology in the title, abstract, or keywords. Terms included “older people”, “older adults,” or “elders” in mainstream papers (which were by definition about technology, although this was checked) and in addition terms such as “computer/s” and “assistive technology” in the specialist papers. Table 6.2 provides the search terms and how they were used. Only papers published in English were included. There is not a well-established definition of when old age begins and therefore at what age people become “older” or “elderly”. Typically, 60 or 65 years of age are used to indicate the start point of old age in chronological terms, although it is well accepted that there are wide individual differences in the aging process. Therefore, we made no attempt to impose a definition of older people Table 6.1  Mainstream and Specialist Outlets Included in the Review Mainstream outlets Journals ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction (ToCHI) Behaviour and Information Technology Human Computer Interaction Human Factors International Journal of Human-Computer Studies Conferences ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) British Computer Society Interaction Specialist Group Conference (BCS HCI) IFIP TC 13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT) Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI) Specialist outlets Journals ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (ToACCESS) Educational Gerontology Technology and Disability Universal Access to the Information Society Conferences ACM Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP)

Digital Technology for Older People   139 Table 6.2  Terms Related to Older People Used to Select Papers for Inclusion in the Review Category

Term

Referring to older people in general

aging (ambiguous alone, only used in conjunction with other terms) aging population elder/s elderly (people) geriatric/s grandparents older adult/s senior adult/s

Specific conditions related to aging

Alzheimer’s dementia Parkinson’s disease (if the emphasis is on the disabilities related to Parkinson’s)

Technology (if they later included reference to older people)

assistive technology/ies cognitive prosthetic/s web accessibility

on the selection of papers; if the paper stated it was about older people, it was included in the review. This process identified 407 papers. See the appendix at the end of the chapter for the full list of references analyzed. An initial analysis, based on the area of need or interest of older people, rather than on the technology deployed, grouped the research conducted into 16 topics (see Table 6.3).

Uses of Mainstream Technologies by and for Older People Four of these 16 topics were chosen for more detailed exploration in the remainder of this chapter.

Topic 1: Older People’s Interaction with Mainstream Digital Technologies This topic investigated how older people physically interact with mainstream digital technologies, the problems they might encounter, and different solutions that have been developed to overcome these problems. It was the most frequent in the research reviewed,

140   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Table 6.3  The 16 Topics of the Research in the Papers Reviewed Topic

Number of papers

*Interaction with digital technologies: physical use of technologies, for example use of mouse, touchscreen, voice input

90

*Older people’s lived experience of digital technologies: adoption, attitudes, holistic experiences, abandonment of digital technologies

58

*Communication and social interaction: using digital technologies to communicate with others and for social interaction, including use of email, social networking sites, online communities

52

Methods for research with/about older people: including problems of using existing methods and methodological innovations

39

Access and use of information: including access to and use of the Web, eBooks, eKiosks and other digital forms of information

37

Education and training (of older people and other stakeholders): education and training of older people (e.g., in computer skills), also education and training of others (e.g., doctors, nurses, carers, engineers) in working with older people

28

*Monitoring older people’s welfare: use of digital technologies to monitor older people’s movements, vital signs, home environments

28

Activities of everyday living: using digital technologies to support all kinds of everyday living activities, from writing a cheque to dispensing medicines

22

Mobility and wayfinding: indoor and outdoor mobility and wayfinding, also older drivers and driving cessation

20

Health and well being: use of digital technologies to support all aspects of health and well-being

17

Support for carers/others: use of digital technologies to support those who are supporting older people, including carers, family members, healthcare staff

14

Games and leisure: digital technologies for leisure, including video games for older people, digital versions of traditional games

13

Memory: digital technologies to support memory problems in older people, (e.g., medication reminders, calendars and appointment alert systems)

9

Exercise: digital technologies to support exercise in older people, for general fitness and rehabilitation exercise

8

Understanding general user requirements for using digital technologies: studies investigate older people’s acceptance, use across a range of digital technologies

7

Rehabilitation: digital technologies to support rehabilitation programs for older people

6

Notes 1: * indicates topics discussed in detail in this chapter. 2: Papers often covered several topics, so the numbers are greater than the total of 407 publications.

Digital Technology for Older People   141 with 90 papers addressing it. This topic included four subtopics: physical interaction, spoken dialogue interaction, multimodality, and security. Physical interaction. Physical interaction might include pointing and clicking with a mouse, or tapping on a touchscreen; research considered how these interaction styles might be adapted for older users. Hwang and colleagues (Hwang, Hollinworth, & Williams, 2013) proposed several ways in which items on a computer display, such as icons, can be expanded to make them easier for older people to select. They found that using such techniques substantially improved selection time and reduced error rates. Sayago and Blat (2008) found that older people were not concerned about how fast they could interact, but were very concerned about not making errors, so this second result is particularly important. Jochems, Vetter, and Schlick (2013) compared younger and older people in their use of mouse, touchscreen, and eye gaze control, and found that both groups were fastest with a touchscreen, particularly the older group. They also investigated combining eye gaze with input from a keyboard, speech input, or a foot pedal, finding that the best combination was eye gaze with keyboard confirmation. In research on touchscreen interaction specifically, Apted, Kay, and Quigley (2006) introduced older people to interaction with a tabletop computer using a digital photograph sharing application. They found that older people coped well with tasks in this application, although they took longer to complete them than did younger people. They also understood the new interface elements, although initially they had some difficulty with one of the elements, a copy operation. This was overcome with further training. Lepicard and Vigouroux took a more experimental approach to touchscreen interaction, investigating one-hand versus two-hand interaction (Lepicard & Vigouroux, 2010), and single-touch versus multi-touch interaction (Lepicard & Vigouroux, 2012). In relation to number of hands, older people were faster and more accurate when using one hand than using two hands. In relation to multi-touch, both younger and older people had more difficulty with multi-touch interaction, but especially the older people. Nicolau and Jorge (2012) investigated text entry via a touchscreen, comparing mobile phone input with tablet computer input. Older participants made more errors on a mobile than on a tablet; although input speed, but not accuracy, correlated with experience with the QWERTY keyboard. On the mobile in particular, the amount of hand tremor (a common problem for older people) correlated strongly with less accuracy. Wulf, Garschall, Klein et al. (2014) investigated younger and older people’s gesture performance on a tablet touchscreen, including dragging, pinching and rotating. Older people were slower than younger people, but both groups were more accurate when the tablet was in portrait rather than landscape orientation. Finally, Muskens, van Lent, Vijfvinkel et al. (2014) designed touchscreen applications to be particularly usable by older people. They successfully eliminated problems with button size, navigation, readability of fonts, and gesture execution. They found that older people had strong preferences for designs with low numbers of icons, direct input, no deep hierarchies, large buttons with immediate feedback, clear notification that screens have changed, and bright colors. Spoken dialogue interaction. In terms of more natural interaction paradigms, only two papers reviewed investigated spoken dialogue interaction for older people.

142   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Wolters, Kilgour, MacPherson et al. (2015) explored a bottom-up approach to adapting spoken dialogue systems for older people. In an analysis of a corpus of spoken interactions between an intelligent computer agent and both younger and older people, they found two main groups of people, a factual group and a social group. The factual users adapted quickly to the dialogue system and interacted with it efficiently; the social users treated the system more like a human being and did not change their interaction style when it did not understand their requests. Almost all the social users were older, although about a third of older users were factual in style. The authors concluded that spoken dialogue systems need to adapt to users based on observed behavior of users, not age per se. Vacher, Caffiau, Portet et al. (2015) also found that older users were more inclined to treat a spoken dialogue system as a human being and were disturbed by the rigid grammars needed to use such systems. Multimodality. Four papers explored multimodal aspects of interaction for older people. Carrasco, Epelde, Moreno et al. (2008) and Diaz-Orueta, Etxaniz, Gonzalez et al. (2014) studied the use of avatars for older people with Alzheimer’s disease, using a TV screen to display the avatar and a TV remote control for input. Both studies found that older people readily understood this interaction metaphor and were able to interact successfully in simple dialogues. Nunes, Kerwin, and Silva (2012) also tested a TV platform for interaction but used text and icons rather than a visual avatar. Again, they found that older people could interact successfully with the system, although there were interesting usability problems, for example around understanding standard icons for the video player. On the basis of a number of evaluations, the authors produced a set of guidelines for TV-based applications for older people. Finally, Warnock, McGee-Lennon, and Brewster (2013) investigated using multimodal notifications for home care reminder systems for older people. There were no particular differences between younger and older people in their reactions to textual, pictographic, abstract visual, speech, sound, tactile, and olfactory notifications in the context of playing a game in a laboratory setting. Security. A number of papers investigated security issues in interacting with digital technologies for older people. Renaud and Ramsay (2007) explored authentication mechanisms that would be easier for older users but equally secure, including recognition of handwritten numerals and doodles. Nicholson, Coventry, and Briggs (2013a) compared face-based and picture-based authentication systems, finding that older people performed better with the face-based authentication while younger people performed better with the picture-based authentication. However, in further work, Nicholson, Coventry, and Briggs (2013b) reported that older people performed better with age-appropriate faces.

Topic 2: Older People’s Lived Experience of Digital Technologies This topic addresses older people’s lived experience of digital technologies. It includes research into how older people understand meaningful practices with technology as

Digital Technology for Older People   143 well as issues such as quality of life, well-being, and aging-in-place, and how these might impact existing and future technologies. It was the second most frequent topic in the research reviewed, with 58 papers addressing it. Research reviewed often addressed issues of older people’s acceptance of, and motivation to use digital technologies, including research about understanding values (Briggs & Thomas, 2015); how older people account for their difficulties in learning to use a computer (Turner, Turner, & van de Walle, 2007); older people’s concerns about using mobile phones (Kurniawan, 2008); their emailing practices and the barriers to using email (Sayago & Blat, 2010); their use and sharing of YouTube videos (Sayago et al.,  2012); their perceptions of telecare (Bentley, Powell, Orrell et al.,  2014); and their attitudes toward robots as supportive devices (Pigini, Facal, Blasi et al.,  2012; Scopelliti, Giuliani, & Fornara,  2005). These issues constituted four subtopics: types of technology, acceptance of technology, value of technology, and the importance of stigma. Types of technology. A number of papers discussed a wide variety of experiences with different types of digital technology: the Internet (Briggs & Thomas,  2015; Larsson, Larsson-Lund, & Nilsson, 2013); videos (Ferreira, Sayago, & Blat, 2014); email (Sayago & Blat, 2010); telecare systems (Šimšík, Galajdová, Siman et al., 2012); a television-based information system (Ferreira et al., 2014); various features of smart homes (Brajnik & Giachin,  2014; Leitner, Fercher, Felfernig et al.,  2012); and domestic robots (Heerink, Kröse, Wielinga et al., 2009; Pigini et al., 2012; Scopelliti et al., 2005). As one example, Sáenz-de-Urturi, Zapirain, and Zorrilla (2015) investigated the suitability of a Kinectbased game for rehabilitation exercises for older users. Since the participants in their study included wheelchair users, people with Parkinson’s, people with one hand, and people with vision impairments, they needed to adapt the technology and make the games configurable for people in different situations. After testing the prototype, they also made other adjustments to the game presentation (e.g., animated instructions rather than text to read, larger fonts for scores). The game required reaching out for objects, thus creating exercises to use the arms, as well as activating cognitive processes, because players have to recognize the objects to catch from amongst other objects. They found that participants became absorbed in the game and engaged in the exercises as part of the game. Acceptance of technologies. Much research has attempted to investigate acceptance of digital technologies (Bentley et al., 2014; Heerink et al., 2009). Researchers have been able to develop nuanced accounts of barriers to take-up. For example, Kurniawan’s (2008) survey of older people revealed that the role of mobile phones was perceived to increase their feelings of safety, particularly when they felt themselves in vulnerable, or potentially vulnerable, situations such as being alone, going out, getting lost, or being in trouble. Consequently, the phones were not used primarily in their communication or entertainment capacities. The study also reported various problems with learning to use the devices. Heerink et al. (2009) investigated whether social abilities of robots and screen agents would influence their use by older people. In an experiment with two types of agent, an onscreen avatar and a tabletop robot, implemented in a highly sociable and a less sociable condition. They found that older people were more comfortable with the more social agent, particularly with the robot. They concluded that social

144   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas abilities are important to interaction and need to be implemented in intelligent support technologies for use by older people. Value of technology. Sayago and Blat (2008; also Sayago et al., 2012), studying older people at a computer club, found they had great motivation to learn. They wanted to use email and share videos to maintain social communication, especially with their families. For this motivated group, the researchers concluded that reducing cognitive load was more important in the design of systems for these older people than interface design (e.g., screen size, button size). For example, to reduce cognitive load in their use of YouTube each older people made use of familiar practices, such as copying and pasting links from emails, rather than querying the search engine; if using the search function, they typed complete sentences into the search box, rather than first using categories to narrow down the search (Sayago et al., 2012). In another study with older people learning to use computers, Turner et al. (2007) investigated the values older people placed on this activity. In practice this meant understanding the ways older people viewed their experiences and accounted for their learning difficulties and those of their peer group. Seven valuebased explanations emerged: alienation (“not my world”); lack of fit with one’s identity (“I worked with people not machines”); agency (the computer being in control, rather than the person; in addition, the pressure to use technology); anxiety; belief in being too old to learn; being too busy; and finally, questioning the purpose of learning to use computers. The researchers concluded that it is important to seek out older people’s values and understandings of themselves in relation to digital technologies and help them to reframe these values in more optimistic and positive ways. Larsson et al. (2013) investigated how older people’s perceptions and experiences of Internet activities reflected more generally on their being able to participate in society. Older people perceived that not undertaking Internet-based activities implied being moved to the sidelines. For instance, one interviewee explained that in a group she participates in, the group leader sent out information by email, forgetting that not all participants have access to this technology. Participants also noted that services with traditional delivery, such as health services, now take much longer compared to Internetbased delivery. This study was conducted with older people who were open to technology, but who also cited conditions that are required for them to engage in Internet activities, such as support and continual use (so that they remember what they have learnt), as well as problems with trust (e.g., buying online). A further issue was whether some Internet activities (e.g., social networking sites) are useful for older people, since the most commonly cited need was that of communication with family and friends, which they accomplished via email and video links. These findings were also echoed in other research with older people learning computer skills. Wanting to see whether the commonly used measures of usability, such as time to complete task, were relevant for older people, Sayago and Blat (2008) found slow task completion was not an issue. The participants valued accuracy more than efficiency and wanted to take their time. For them, it was important not to make mistakes, for they often found they could not recover from mistakes without asking for help. The researchers noted the importance of self-efficacy: they reported how one participant said that she

Digital Technology for Older People   145 enjoyed feeling of being competent despite never using a computer before and having a low level of education (Sayago et al., 2012). The importance of stigma. Bentley et al. (2014) discovered that stigma was a strong reason for non-acceptance of digital technologies by older people. They investigated whether telecare products, such as pendants and panic button systems, were considered acceptable by older people who were not current users of such products. They found resistance to these systems: older people saw them as symbols of old age and loss of autonomy and claimed that their designs were stigmatizing as well as impractical. However, the overall concept of being able to summon help was considered useful and important, and participants acknowledged that they might use such systems in the future. Other studies of home deployment of technologies also found that stigma was a concern. For instance, Doyle, Bailey, Scanaill et al. (2014) explained that an alertness awareness cushion was specifically designed to fit in with the home environment, and not look like a piece of assistive technology.

Topic 3: Older People’s Use of Digital Technology for Communication and Social Interaction Communication and social interaction are very important activities for health and well-being in later life, and the lessening of these activities poses risks as serious as those for cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, and obesity (Cohen, Underwood, & Gottlieb, 2000). Therefore, it is not surprising that there was a considerable amount of research on this topic with 52 papers addressing this topic in the papers reviewed. Subtopics included social networking, facilitating interaction, motivations for interaction, intergenerational interaction, communication habits, obstacles to communication, reminiscing, and loneliness. Social networking. Nine papers investigated the use of social networking sites (SNSs). A network analytic approach comparing different age groups (Arjan, Pfeil, & Zaphiris, 2008) revealed a number of interesting differences, including that, compared to younger people, older people had smaller networks of friends in SNSs and a greater variety in the age of their friends, and represented themselves in more formal ways. A study of older people in the UK and in Cyprus revealed the effect of different cultures in their attitudes to and use of online social support communities (Michailidou, Parmaxi, & Zaphiris, 2015). Older people in the UK who used such communities were happy to interact with people outside their family, but were reluctant to reveal too much about themselves, due to their fears about security in online situations. On the other hand, older people in Cyprus mostly used such communities to interact with family members: they were generally aware of and confident about online security issues, having discussed them with their families. Other studies about SNSs (Gibson, Moncur, Forbes et al., 2010; Lehtinen, Näsänen, & Sarvas,  2009) investigated older people’s attitudes to such sites after the researchers demonstrated and helped them register on the network. In both these studies, the older

146   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas users (located in Finland and Scotland) reported they did not feel they needed this channel of communication: they were happy communicating with people they knew by email. Privacy was a problem for two reasons: older people were wary of giving information about themselves, and they worried about information accidentally becoming public. They also felt it was not socially acceptable to broadcast information about themselves on SNSs. Results from an online questionnaire (Prieto & Leahy, 2012) supported these findings, noting that the main reasons for not using SNSs were privacy issues, complexity of their use, and friends not using them. Also, most older people who were users of SNSs had been using them for less than five years and got to know about them from family more than from friends. However, the researchers suggest that SNSs might be a more interesting way of introducing older people to computer usage than by browsing websites. Studying older users and their social interactions off and online, Harley, Howland, Harris et al. (2014) noted that older people were often passive users on Facebook, logging in to see what family members were doing, especially younger members who did not use email to communicate with them, but did not themselves post on Facebook. Norval, Arnott, and Hanson (2014) proposed recommendations for making SNSs more usable for older people who had expressed interest in using such sites, but for whom the complexity of the applications was a barrier. Finally, Coelho, Rito, Luz et al., (2015) investigated the problem of easier interactions for older people on SNSs, using familiar technologies like television and alternative interaction types such as speech and tapping on tablets. They also identified the functions that older people most value: to share photos and television content with family and close friends, and to be able to manage different groups of acquaintances. Facilitating interaction. On the theme of facilitating interaction with communication and social interaction technologies, Spreicer, Ehrenstrasser, and Tellioğlu (2012) investigated tangible interfaces (interfaces that include physical objects, using tokens to represent different functions, e.g., for calling or for sending photos), and explored the idea of personalized tokens that could be placed on a surface to initiate actions. The result was a playful interface design, using familiar objects. Older participants in workshops reacted to this concept very positively. They supplied meaningful objects from their own collections, the researchers enhanced these with RFID tags, and when placed on a special surface, these objects would, for example, start a Skype call, or send an email. One much appreciated aspect of the design was a reduced demand for space in the homes of older people, a need supported by other studies (e.g., Doyle, Skrba, McDonnell et al., 2010). Motivations for interaction. A number of papers investigated motivations for communication and social interaction with digital technologies by investigating what older people did with existing mainstream technologies. Conci, Pianesi, and Zancanaro (2009) showed that older people perceived mobile phones to be primarily a utilitarian device for enhancing safety, and that support with use was needed even with practice. Unlike younger users, older users showed little enjoyment or fulfilment in using their phones. Trying to understand the needs of people transitioning from working to retirement, Salovaara, Lehmuskallio, Hedman et al. (2010) showed that for many older people, the Internet, and in particular, email and online calendars, had become important

Digital Technology for Older People   147 means of maintaining and even initiating new social contacts. The older people felt that these tools helped them to cope with the stresses and conflicts of the transition from working to retirement which involved new activities and commitments, housing arrangements, etc. Intergenerational interaction. A number of papers investigated the theme of intergenerational interaction. Staying in contact with grandchildren is a major motivation for older people to engage with and learn to use digital technologies. Studies by Vutborg, Kjeldskov, Vetere et al. (2010) and Fuchsberger, Sellner, Moser et al. (2012) described systems to facilitate interactions between grandparents and grandchildren. Fuchsberger and colleagues were able to show that the motivation to use a technology for this purpose was very strong, even though users had low computer skills and found it difficult to use. Gamliel and Gambay (2014) investigated intergenerational teaching programs in schools, where children and older people taught one another, and found that older people showed strong learning motivation and took the assignments set by the children about learning how to use technology very seriously. Finally, in research about encouraging older people’s social interaction amongst themselves at a community center by playing games, Mubin, Shadid, and Mahmud (2008) reported that the participants were keen to include their grandchildren in the activity. Communication habits. Researchers have also examined the nature of older people’s habits with their communication technologies. Many older people prefer to sustain close relationships that are meaningful to them, rather than seek to make new acquaintances (Lindley, Harper, & Sellen, 2008). Older people are prepared to spend time keeping in touch with valued friends and maintaining family links (Lindley, Harper, & Sellen, 2009). Sokoler and Svensson (2007) concentrated on ways to include technologies for enabling social interaction that would not stigmatize older users as lonely people craving companionship. Dowds and Masthoff (2015) described a system to provide live video feeds for people who are unable to visit each other in person. The idea is that the “window on the outside world” will be stimulating and may lead to a desire to participate online in other activities. Doyle et al. (2010) reported on the deployment of a touchscreen device for communication activities. The device was designed to broadcast some content, with health suggested as being of particular interest to older people. The hypothesis was that the broadcast content would act as the trigger to begin interactions, as older people might send messages or call one another to comment on the broadcast program. In fact, it was found that the broadcasts were not much attended to, partly due to the fixed broadcast times. However, the long deployment period (7-9 weeks) yielded much information about how older people felt about such communication. While they agreed it would be useful for people who are housebound, particularly for calling and messaging, they were concerned about issues of disturbance and availability. Finally, Otjacques, Krier, Feltz et al. (2009) conducted an exploratory study in a large residential care facility about a social activities management system, allowing residents to book places on outings and events. The researchers noted a tendency for the physical spaces where the technologies are installed to become face-to-face meeting places for residents. Obstacles to communication. Several papers discussed specific health obstacles to communication, such as aphasia and dementia, and how technology could be used to

148   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas help with these. Tixier and Lewkowicz (2015) aimed to increase communication between family carers of people with Alzheimer’s disease, often spouses and hence older people themselves. Their results showed that online support could help facilitate meeting arrangements and help continue communication between carers of people with Alzheimer’s. Such support would help reinforce the interaction between carers that was already taking place, but only maintained via face-to face meetings. Kalman, Geraghty, Thompson et al. (2012) attempted to indirectly diagnose aphasia, showing that it could be reliably detected in online messages. Mahmud, Limpens, and Martens (2013) investigated the design of a tool for manipulating digital photographs to be used to communicate everyday happenings and stories. Both the researchers dealing with aphasia and those dealing with dementia sought to stimulate social interactions, making use of technologies to initiate reminiscence, which has been shown to be beneficial for older people. Reminiscing. Supporting reminiscing in older people as a way of stimulating basic social interactions was the goal of Nijhof, van Hoof, van Rijn et al. (2014) and Siriaraya and Ang (2014). Nijhof and colleagues compared two games, one supported by technologically enhanced objects, made to look like familiar objects such as a television or a telephone. When these enhanced objects were switched on they played a fragment of music or a movie clip, to trigger memories. The researchers studied older people’s responses to these enhanced objects, such as smiling, laughing out loud, making gestures, singing, and answering with a short answer or with a story. There were no significant differences between responses to the technologically enhanced game and a traditional one. The facilitators of the activities, who were staff in institutions where the players lived, gave feedback on the designs. For instance, they noted that the television, as a visual tool, was the most successful of the triggers, whereas the telephone was confusing, because when it rang and was answered, it started playing music instead of a voice being heard. The staff felt that the enhanced objects could help trigger more responses with less prompting by the facilitators if different types of content were used (more general subjects, like nature and animals). They could be very useful in helping to bring more novel approaches into stimulating communication with the older people. Siriaraya and Ang (2014) created a virtual world environment for people with dementia in a care home. They found that older people were attracted to the wonderland character of the virtual world, and that it triggered reactions from some residents who began to talk and reminisce, and to tell stories, helped and encouraged by the care staff. Loneliness. Finally, although research on communication and social interaction often mentioned social isolation, only one study specifically considered loneliness amongst older people. Van der Heide, Willems, Spreeuwenberg et al. (2012) investigated mitigating loneliness with a television-based system allowing older people living in­de­ pend­ently to interact with carers, family and friends. A large number of older people (130) completed a questionnaire at the beginning of the study and again a year later. Their responses were assessed in relation to both emotional loneliness (missing an intimate relationship) and social loneliness (missing a wider social network). Analysis showed that use of the system for social interaction was positive and that feelings of both emotional and (more so) social loneliness were reduced.

Digital Technology for Older People   149

Topic 4: Using Digital Technologies to Assist Older People: Monitoring Older People’s Welfare Research on monitoring older people’s welfare has investigated various aspects of safety and security. These included ways to monitor sleep, wandering, falls, and risky behaviors, via recording vital signs or tracking people’s movements. Indications that people may need help included irregular pulse or not moving. Since falls are a major source of accidents and anxiety about them is high, fall prevention is an active area of research (Kepski & Kwolek,  2012; Oberzaucher, Jagos, Zödl et al.,  2010; Schikhof, Mulder, & Choenni, 2010). Older people were also monitored for activity patterns, to determine behaviors that might be unusual, for instance spending a long time in the corridor or opening the front door. Other possibilities included monitoring activities of daily living by interpreting data from sensors placed in various parts of the home (e.g., on the fridge, in the bathroom) (Lexis, Everink, van der Heide et al., 2013), or interpreting sleep behavior (Carey-Smith, Evans, & Orpwood, 2013; Nijhof, van Gemert Pijnen, de Jong et al., 2012), as well as locating people who may have wandered out of the house, or who may be exhibiting erratic behaviors, e.g., not completing normal routines. Technologies for monitoring, quality of life, ethical concerns, and beneficiaries of monitoring systems were the subtopics. Technologies for monitoring. The term monitoring conjures up visions of people being under surveillance by closed circuit TV cameras, possibly without their knowledge, but in fact a range of technologies has been developed that track older people’s movements and vital functions in ways that are transparent to the users. Some are designed to enable older people to control their home environment with smart home technologies (Abascal, de Castro, LaFuente & Cia, 2008). Such technologies can be configured to individuals’ needs: for example, where mobility is an issue, they can enable remote opening and closing of windows, curtains and doors, or remote checking of who is at the front door. Similarly, environmental sensor-activated systems (Lexis et al., 2013) can be set up to switch on lights as an older person comes into a room, to keep rooms at appropriate temperatures, to check on appliances to ensure they are not left on, etc. Other monitoring technologies include a range of wearables such as watches, belts, or pendants (Ahanathapillai, Amor & James,  2015; Holliday, Ward, Fielden et al.,  2015; Nijhof et al., 2012), and even shoe insoles (Oberzaucher et al., 2010). The purpose of these is to monitor vital signs (e.g., heart beat or pulse), to send alerts (e.g., time to take medication, call for help in an emergency), or to monitor gait to prevent falls (as noted earlier, a common and serious occurrence amongst older people). Recently robotic devices (e.g., Mehdi & Berns, 2014) have been developed to search autonomously for an older person, to check their status, rather than have them under constant human supervision. Although most of the technologies are for indoor use, in private homes (e.g., Abascal et al., 2008; Casas, Marin, Robinet et al., 2008; Lozano, Hernáez, Picón et al., 2010; Orpwood, Gibbs, Adlam et al., 2005), or in assisted care settings (e.g., Lexis et al., 2013; Martin, Nugent, Wallace et al., 2007; Schikhof et al., 2010), some have been

150   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas developed for outdoor use, to allow people to move outside but still be protected from getting lost when wandering (Boulos, Anastasiou, Bekiaris et al., 2011; Wan, Müller, Wulf et al., 2014). Quality of life. Beyond concerns with physical safety and security, research in the monitoring topic investigated general quality of life. For instance, Schikhof et al. (2010) found that care staff in an assisted living facility expressed a concern about their charges, who were older people with dementia, having panic attacks while alone in their rooms. One of the technological solutions proposed and tested as a result was a system to detect if older people with dementia in the facility were having a panic attack: if an attack were detected, the system would help the care staff to quickly intervene to comfort and reassure them. Ethical concerns. Ethics was an important recurring subtopic. Some papers addressed this only in passing, as it was not the main thrust of the work being reported. Nevertheless, it was an important dimension of the type of work being undertaken. For example, there is a fine divide between tracking, monitoring, and surveillance (Holzinger, Searle, Kleingerger et al., 2008). Other papers treated this theme more fully: for instance, investigating the notion of trust (Ahanathapillai et al., 2015), and the ambivalence of feelings regarding freedom versus monitoring (Boström, Kjellström, & Björklund, 2013), while Casas, Marco, and Falcó et al. (2006) developed the basis for an ethics framework associated with digital technologies for older people. Beneficiaries of monitoring systems. In many cases the end-users of the monitoring systems were not older people, but family members, informal and professional carers, and nursing staff. Older people being monitored had a largely passive role, although in some cases they were in control of the system (Boulos et al., 2011; Holliday et al., 2015; Lexis et al., 2013). The primary beneficiaries of the monitoring system were, however, considered to be the older people who were being monitored. Such systems aimed to give them a sense of safety and well-being (Orpwood et al., 2005; Schikhof et al., 2010). However, there was also benefit for caregivers, for example, to professional care staff for better management of their time that necessarily had to be divided between a number of older people (Schikhof et al., 2010) and to be better able to tailor care (Boström et al., 2013; Carey-Smith et al., 2013; Lexis et al., 2013; Nijhof et al., 2012), and to give some peace of mind to families and carers.

Reflections on the Research on Uses of Digital Technology for Older People Particular Subtopics within Topics Our review of recent research on the use of digital technologies for older people shows that this is a vibrant area of research, with much activity on many different topics and over 400 papers identified. The four topics chosen for detailed discussion in this chapter

Digital Technology for Older People   151 demonstrate a range of themes and subtopics within them that together give a good representation of the questions investigated by researchers. In the first topic, older people’s interaction with digital technologies, in addition to the obvious subtopics corresponding to the interaction types based on current technologies such as natural dialogue and touch, there are also intriguing insights, such as the lack of concern for speed and greater ease with face-based than picture-based authentication systems. The second topic, older people’s lived experience of digital technologies, illustrated the wide range of technologies, both established and emergent, being investigated, from technologies deployed in smart homes, to those employed in health and well-being. In terms of particular subtopics of interest within this topic, researchers investigated people’s acceptance of technologies, developing a deeper understanding their value systems and beliefs. This included their dislike of technologies that declared too obviously that they needed assistance. The third topic, older people’s use of digital technology for communication and social interaction, moved to a specific application area, although involving many types of dig­ ital technologies. Social networking sites (SNSs) featured prominently, and age differences in their use were particularly interesting, showing that older people have smaller networks of friends, and were mostly passive users of such systems, feeling that to broadcast information about oneself publicly is not socially acceptable. Often researchers investigated ways to facilitate digital interaction for older people, for example in terms of interface design. But researchers also investigated older people’s motivations for using these technologies, for instance, for keeping in touch with their families, particularly grandchildren. They sought to understand better what older people’s communication habits are, and also obstacles to communication. They found that reminiscing, a wellknown technique to encourage social communication, could be encouraged with some technologies, and that loneliness could be reduced. Finally, the fourth topic, monitoring older people’s welfare, was chosen as an example of an area in which emerging technologies are being deployed in the care of older people. Besides the range of ways to monitor, subtopics that emerged from this topic were quality of life and ethical concerns, but also a call for clarity about acknowledging who are the beneficiaries of such systems.

Two Themes across the Four Topics Although the papers discussed in detail in this chapter covered four different topics, there were a number of themes that recurred across the topics. Here, we highlight two of these themes, control and familiarity. The issue of who is in control of digital technologies came up in many ways throughout the review. For instance, in the longitudinal study by Leitner et al. (2012) in which older people kept equipment for 36 months, they were able to pick and choose what they wanted installed, gradually gaining confidence and knowing they could ask for components to be removed. Also, Lexis et al. (2013) helped older people to understand the kind of data that was being collected from sensors in their bathrooms. They had imagined it

152   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas might be photographs but were shown that it was just numbers. Orpwood et al. (2005) found that a common problem for older people with dementia is flooding caused by bathroom or kitchen taps being left on. An engineering solution to this problem could use a sensor so that the water supply turns off when the water reaches too high a level. However, this would take control away from the older person and could confuse them, as they would find later that the taps no longer work. Instead, a system of reminder messages triggered by the sensor was proposed. Scopelliti et al. (2005) found that older people were more apprehensive than younger people at the prospect of a robot in the home, and so would like to be in control of it. Accordingly, they expressed preferences for robots to be small, slow moving, with limited autonomy, and with fixed well-defined tasks. The requirement that it is important that older people feel in control of their environment was also highlighted in the research by Doyle et al. (2014) and Pigini et al. (2012). One of the technologies deployed in people’s homes in the study by Doyle et al. (2014) for a balance and exercise system was meant to use a chair, but this was cumbersome and took up too much space. The kitchen sink was then proposed by the participants themselves as a stable place to hold onto while doing exercises, even if this meant the camera and screen had to be positioned in the kitchen. Thus, the older people reconfigured the positioning of the new technology themselves. Pirgini et al. (2012) found that older people voiced fears that a robot might be uncontrollable and clumsy, and damage or break things. The older people voiced strong psychological attachments to their homes, furniture, and ornaments, and said they would prefer no technology rather than technology they could not control and thus that might harm those possessions. The second theme, familiarity, in the context of this review refers to building upon older people’s existing knowledge and learning strategies (Ballegaard, Pedersen, & Bardram, 2006; Lehtinen et al., 2009). There was much support for the idea that at different stages in their lives people use different strategies when learning to use technology: trial and error is favored by young people, the reading of instructions and manuals by older people; and as well, older people often prefer to ask experts for help (Larsson et al., 2013; Leitner et al., 2012). This was found in numerous settings and technologies, from older people’s behavior in computer classes to their learning to use home monitoring systems. Following the principle of familiarity also means that the cognitive load to learn new routines will lessen the negative impact the perceived utility of the technology (Heerink et al., 2009; Sayago and Blat, 2010). Familiarity also referred to the technology fitting in with people’s routines or their physical environments. For example, the importance of building on objects and systems that people are already familiar with was discussed by Doyle et al. (2014) and Holzinger, Schaupp, and Eder-Halbedl (2008). That of fitting new technologies appropriately into older people’s lived routines was discussed by Dickinson and Gregor (2006) and Orpwood et al. (2005).

Limitations and Future Research It is important to note some of the limitations of the studies, as well as areas that could benefit from further research. In all the disciplines with research on older people, typically,

Digital Technology for Older People   153 chronological age is used as the measure of old age. But this is not a reliable guide, since there is a great deal of heterogeneity between older people, and even if a more specific set of groupings is sometimes used, for example “young-old”, “old-old”, and “oldest-old” (Petrie, 2001), people vary in experience and abilities. Particularly at present, in terms of digital literacy, someone aged 60 may have used computers in the workplace, while someone aged 80 may not. The questionnaire developed by Arning and Ziefle (2008) to assess computer experience and expertise was an interesting attempt to address this problem. Also, physical and mental health varies considerably across older people of different ages, and even with the same age. A further aspect that could offer more nuanced understandings of older people’s use of digital technologies is to address contextual and cultural differences in research. It was clear that many of the studies investigated technological practices embedded in a particular societal and organizational setting, such as residential assisted care homes in Holland (Nijhof et al.,  2014), occupational therapy in Sweden (Molin, Pettersson, & Jonsson et al.,  2007), and computer classes for older people in Spain (Sayago & Blat, 2008). There were also instances in the research when it was clear that cultural practices had an important effect on the outcomes of studies. The higher amount of religious content watched on television in Brazil compared to Spain meant the proposed interactive television service that was based around religious content was of more interest to older people in Brazil but did not work so well in Spain (Ferreira et al., 2014). Older people in the UK and in Cyprus revealed the effect of different cultures in their attitudes to and use of online social support communities (Michailidou et al., 2015). The different levels of Internet penetration in different countries was also important. Older people in Denmark mentioned that airline tickets could only be booked online and many government services were online (Ferreira et al., 2014), and Internet-based healthcare services were available for older people in Sweden (Larsson et al., 2013), but such services are not yet available in other countries. Other culture-based attitudes were noted by Pigini et al. (2012). Although older people in Germany, Italy, and Spain attached a similar level of importance to food preparation, so that the suggestion to have a robot help prepare meals by heating food in a microwave was considered a useless function, participants from Germany and Italy objected more to the proposed robot cooking functions than did their Spanish counterparts. Such results highlight the challenges of cultural influences on digital technology use and attitudes amongst older people. It is also important that researchers disseminate their results back to the appropriate diverse disciplines. Awareness of issues and updates are important within disciplines, and across disciplines, as seen by papers that dealt with lack of awareness about telecare and fall alert systems (Bentley et al., 2014), or were about health and social care professionals who need help to bridge gaps in organizational knowledge about what technology is available and how to determine what is suitable for their older people (Molin et al., 2007). We have attempted to illustrate the range of research on digital technologies for older people. Research in this area is particularly challenging as it needs to draw on work from many disciplines as different as gerontology and engineering. It is also vital to work very closely with the relevant users, older people themselves but also other stakeholders such

154   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas as family members, carers, and professionals, to ensure that digital technologies are useful to, and are acceptable, understandable, and usable by, older people and their caregivers.

Conclusion This review has shown that research on digital technologies for older people, both the use of mainstream technologies and the use of specially developed technologies, is a very diverse area of endeavor, with many lines of research on a wide range of themes. Research ranges from studies that are developing new methods to help older people physically interact with digital technologies to those exploring the meanings of digital technologies for older people. As with all research, the more we explore these topics, the more questions we raise.

Acknowledgments The research for this chapter has been partly funded by the European Union under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action Experienced Researcher Fellowship Program, as part of the Education and Engagement for inclusive Design and Development of Digital Systems and Services Project (E2D3S2, Grant No. 706396). We would like to thank Bláithín Gallagher and Leonardo Sandoval for their help in gathering material for this chapter.

References Abascal, J., de Castro, I. F., Lafuente, A., & Cia, J. M. (2008). Adaptive interfaces for supportive ambient intelligence environments. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 30–37). Ahanathapillai, V., Amor, J. D., & James, C. J. (2015). Assistive technology to monitor activity, health and wellbeing in old age: The wrist wearable unit in the USEFIL project. Technology and Disability, 27(1–2), 17–29. Apted, T., Kay, J., & Quigley, A. (2006). Tabletop sharing of digital photographs for the elderly. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2006) (pp. 781–790). Arjan, R., Pfeil, U., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Age differences in online social networking. In Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ‘08) (pp. 2739–2744). Arning, K., & Ziefle, M. (2008). Development and validation of a computer expertise questionnaire for older adults. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(1), 89–93. Australian Research Council. (2012). Excellence in research for Australia (ERA): ERA outcomes 2012. Available at: http://www.arc.gov.au/era-outcomes-2012 Ballegaard, S. A., Pedersen, J. B., & Bardram, J. E. (2006). Where to, Roberta? Reflecting on the role of technology in assisted living. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on humancomputer interaction (NordiCHI ‘06) (pp. 373–376). Bentley, C. L., Powell, L. A, Orrell, A., & Mountain, G. A. (2014). Addressing design and suitability barriers to telecare use: Has anything changed? Technology and Disability, 26, 221–235.

Digital Technology for Older People   155 Boström, M., Kjellström, S., & Björklund, A. (2013). Older persons have ambivalent feelings about the use of monitoring technologies. Technology and Disability, 25(2), 117–125. Boulos, M. N. K., Anastasiou, A., Bekiaris, E., & Panou, M. (2011). Geo-enabled technologies for independent living: Examples from four European projects. Technology and Disability, 23(1), 7–17. Brajnik, G., & Giachin, C. (2014). Using sketches and storyboards to assess impact of age difference in user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72, 552–566. Briggs, P., & Thomas, L. (2015). An inclusive, value sensitive design perspective on future identity technologies. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(5), art 23. Carey-Smith, B., Evans, N.  M., & Orpwood, R. (2013). A user-centred design process to develop technology to improve sleep quality in residential care homes. Technology and Disability, 25(1), 49–58. Carrasco, E., Epelde, G., Moreno, A., Ortiz, A., Garcia, I., Buiza, C. et al. (2008). Natural interaction between avatars and persons with Alzheimer’s disease. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 38–45). Casas, R., Marco, Á., Falcó, J. L., Artigas, J. I., & Abascal, J. (2006). Ethically aware design of a location system for people with dementia. In Proceedings of 10th computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 777–784). Casas, R., Marín, R. B., Robinet, A., Delgado, A. R., Yarza, A. R., McGinn, J. et al. (2008). User modelling in ambient intelligence for elderly and disabled people. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 114–122). Coelho, J., Rito, F., Luz, N., & Duarte, C. (2015). Prototyping TV and tablet Facebook interfaces for older adults. In J.  Abascal, S.  Barbosa, M.  Fetter, T.  Gross, P.  Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings of human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9296 (pp. 110–128). Cohen, S., Underwood, L. G., & Gottlieb, B. H. (2000). Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Conci, M., Pianesi, F., & Zancanaro, M. (2009). Useful, social and enjoyable: Mobile phone adoption by older people. In T. Gross et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2009). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5726, (pp. 63–76). Diaz-Orueta, U., Etxaniz, A., Gonzalez, M. F., Buiza, C., Urdaneta, E., & Yanguas, J. (2014). Role of cognitive and functional performance in the interactions between elderly people with cognitive decline and an avatar on TV. Universal Access to the Information Society, 13, 89–97. Dickinson, A., & Gregor, P. (2006). Computer use has no demonstrated impact on the wellbeing of older adults. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 744–753. Dowds, G., & Masthoff, J. (2015). A virtual “window to the outside world”: Initial design and plans for evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI conference (British HCI ‘15) (pp. 265–266). Doyle, J., Bailey, C., Scanaill, C. Ni, & Berg, F. (2014). Lessons learned in deploying in­de­pend­ ent living technologies to older adults’ homes. Universal Access in the Information. Society, 13(2), 191–204. Doyle, J., Skrba, Z., McDonnell, R., & Arent, B. (2010). Designing a touch screen communication device to support social interaction amongst older adults. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference (BCS HCI ‘10) (pp. 177–185). Ferreira, S. M., Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2014). Towards iTV services for older people: Exploring their interactions with online video portals in different cultural backgrounds. Technology and Disability, 26(4), 199–209.

156   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Fuchsberger, V., Sellner, W., Moser, C., & Tscheligi, M. (2012). Benefits and hurdles for older adults in intergenerational online interactions. In: Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP 2012) (pp. 697–704). Gamliel, T., & Gabay, N. (2014). Knowledge exchange, social interactions, and empowerment in an intergenerational technology program at school. Educational Gerontology, 40(8), 597–617. Gibson, L., Moncur, W., Forbes, P., Arnott, J., Martin, C., & Bhachu, A. S. (2010). Designing social networking sites for older adults. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference (BCS HCI ‘10) (pp. 186–194). Harley, D., Howland, K., Harris, E., & Redlich, C. (2014). Online communities for older users: What can we learn from local community interactions to create social sites that work for older people. In Proceedings of the 28th international BCS human computer interaction conference on HCI 2014 (BCS-HCI ‘14) (pp. 42–51). Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Wielinga, B., & Evers, V. (2009). Measuring the influence of social abilities on acceptance of an interface robot and a screen agent by elderly users. In Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers: celebrating people and technology (pp. 430–439). Holliday, N., Ward, G., Fielden, S., & Williams, S. (2015). Exploration of information needs and development of resources to inform and support those at risk of falling. Technology and Disability, 27(1–2), 31–40. Holzinger, A., Schaupp, K., & Eder-Halbedl, W. (2008). An investigation on acceptance of ubiquitous devices for the elderly in a geriatric hospital environment: Using the example of person tracking. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP 2008) (pp. 22–29). Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Kleingerger, T., Seffah, A., & Javahery, H. (2008). Investigating usability metrics for the design and development of applications for the elderly. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP 2008) (pp. 98–105). Hwang, F., Hollinworth, N., & Williams, N. (2013). Effects of target expansion on selection performance in older computer users. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 5(1), 1. Jochems, N., Vetter, S., & Schlick, C. (2013). A comparative study of information input devices for aging computer users. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(9), 902–919. Jönsson, B., & Svensk, A. (1995). Isaac—a personal digital assistant for the differently abled. In I.  Placencia-Porrero, & R.  Puig de la Bellacasa (Eds.), The European context for assistive technology (Proceedings of the 2nd TIDE Congress) (pp. 356–361). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Kalman, Y. M., Geraghty, K., Thompson, C. K., & Gergle, D. (2012). Detecting linguistic HCI markers in an online aphasia support group. In Proceedings of the 14th International ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 65–70). Kepski, M., & Kwolek, B. (2012). Fall detection on embedded platform using Kinect and wireless accelerometer. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special Needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 407–414). Kurniawan, S. (2008). Older people and mobile phones: A multi-method investigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(12), 889–901. Larsson, E., Larsson-Lund, M., & Nilsson, I. (2013). Internet Based Activities (IBAs): Seniors’ experiences of the conditions required for the performance of and the influence of these conditions on their own participation in society. Educational Gerontology, 93(3), 155–167. Lehtinen, V., Näsänen, J., & Sarvas, R. (2009). “A little silly and empty-headed”: Older adults’ understandings of social networking sites. In Proceedings of British HCI 2009 (pp. 45–54).

Digital Technology for Older People   157 Leitner, G., Fercher, A. J., Felfernig, A., & Hitz, M. (2012). Reducing the entry threshold of AAL systems: Preliminary results from Casa Vecchia. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP 2012 (pp. 709–715). Lepicard, G., & Vigouroux, N. (2010). Touch screen user interfaces for older subjects: Effect of the targets number and the two hands use. In Proceedings of 12th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 592–599). Lepicard, G., & Vigouroux, N. (2012). Comparison between single-touch and multi-touch interaction for older people. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 658–665). Lexis, M., Everink, I., van der Heide, L., Spreeuwenberg, M., Willems, C., & de Witte, L. (2013). Activity monitoring technology to support homecare delivery to frail and psychogeriatric elderly persons living at home alone. Technology and Disability, 25(3), 189–197. Lindley, S. E., Harper, R., & Sellen, A. (2008). Designing for elders: Exploring the complexity of relationships in later life. In Proceedings of BCS HCI 2008 (pp. 77–86). Lindley, S. E., Harper, R., & Sellen, A. (2009). Desiring to be in touch in a changing communications landscape: Attitudes of older adults. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘09) (pp. 1693–1702). Lozano, H.  Hernáez, I., Picón, A., Camarena, J., & Navas, E. (2010). Audio classification techniques in home environments for elderly/dependant people. In Proceedings of 12th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 320–323). Mahmud, A. A., Limpens, Y., & Martens, J.-B. (2013). Expressing through digital photographs: an assistive tool for persons with aphasia. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(3), 309–326. Martin, S., Nugent, C., Wallace, J., Kernohan, G., McCreight, B., & Mulvenna, M. (2007). Using context awareness within the “Smart home” environment to support social care for adults with dementia. Technology and Disability, 19(2,3), 143–152. Mehdi, S. A. & Berns, K. (2014). Behaviour-based search of human by an autonomous indoor mobile robot in simulation. Universal Access Information Society, 13, 45–58. Michailidou, E., Parmaxi, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2015). Culture effects in online social support for older people: perceptions and experience. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(2), 281–293. Molin, G., Pettersson, C., Jonsson, O., & Keijer, U. (2007). Living at home with acquired cognitive impairment—Can assistive technology help? Technology and Disability, 19(2, 3), 91–101. Mubin, O., Shahid, S., & Mahmud, A. A. (2008). Walk 2 Win: Towards designing a mobile game for elderly’s social engagement. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI conference (BCS-HCI ‘08) (pp. 11–14). Muskens, L., van Lent, R., Vijfvinkel, A., van Cann, P., & Shahid, S. (2014). Never too old to use a tablet: Designing tablet applications for the cognitively and physically impaired elderly. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 391–398). Nicholson, J., Coventry, L., & Briggs, P. (2013a). Faces and pictures: Understanding age differences in two types of graphical authentications. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(10), 958–966. Nicholson, J., Coventry, L., & Briggs, P. (2013b). Age-related performance issues for PIN and face-based authentication systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘13) (pp. 323–332).

158   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Nicolau, H., & Jorge, J. (2012). Elderly text-entry performance on touchscreens. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 127–134). Nijhof, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C., de Jong, G. E. N., Ankoné, J. W., & Seydel, E. R. (2012). How assistive technology can support dementia care: A study about the effects of the IST Vivago watch on patients’ sleeping behavior and the care delivery process in a nursing home. Technology and Disability, 24(2), 103–115. Nijhof, N., van Hoof, J., van Rijn, H., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C. (2014). The behavioral outcomes of a technology-supported leisure activity in people with dementia. Technology and Disability, 25(4), 263–273. Norval, C., Arnott, J. L., & Hanson, V. L. (2014). What’s on your mind? Investigating recommendations for inclusive social networking and older adults. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘14) (pp. 3923–3932). Nunes, F., Kerwin, M., & Silva, P. A. (2012). Design recommendations for TV user interfaces for older adults: Findings from the eCAALYX project. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 41–48). Oberzaucher, J., Jagos, H., Zödl, C., Hlauschek, W., & Zagler, W. (2010). Using a wearable insole gait analyzing system for automated mobility assessment for older people. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on computers helping people with special Needs (ICCHP’10) (pp. 600–603). Orpwood, R., Gibbs, C., Adlam, T., Faulkner, R., & Meegahawatte, D. (2005). The design of smart homes for people with dementia—user-interface aspects. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(2), 156–164. Otjacques, B., Krier, M., Feltz, F., Ferring, D., & Hoffmann, M. (2009). Helping older people to manage their social activities at the retirement home. In Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘09) (pp. 375–380). Petrie, H. (2001). Accessibility and usability requirements for ICTs for disabled and elderly people: A functional classification approach. In J. G. Abascal & C. Nicolle (Eds.), Inclusive guidelines for human computer interaction (pp. 47–78). London: Taylor and Francis. 0-748,409-48-3. Petrie, H., Gallagher, B., & Darzentas, J. (2014). A critical review of eight years of research on technologies for disabled and older people. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 260–266). Petrie, H., Johnson, V., Strothotte, T., Michel, R., Raab, A., Reichert, L., & Schalt, A. (1997). User-centred design in the development of a navigational aid for blind travellers. In Proceedings of human-computer interaction: INTERACT ‘97 (IFP TC13 international ­conference on human-computer interaction) (pp. 220–227). London: Chapman and Hall. ISBN 0 412 80,950 8. Pigini, L., Facal, D., Blasi, L., & Andrich, R. (2012). Service robots in elderly care at home: Users’ needs and perceptions as a basis for concept development. Technology and Disability, 24(4), 303–312. Prieto, G., & Leahy, D. (2012). Online social networks and older people. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP’12) (pp. 666–672). Renaud, K., & Ramsay, J. (2007). Now what was that password again? A more flexible way of identifying and authenticating our seniors. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 309–322.

Digital Technology for Older People   159 Sáenz-de-Urturi, Z., Zapirain, B. G., & Zorrilla, A. M. (2015). Elderly user experience to improve a Kinect-based game playability. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(11), 1040–1051. Salovaara, A., Lehmuskallio, A., Hedman, L., Valkonen, P., & Näsänen, J. (2010). Information technologies and transitions in the lives of 55–65-year-olds: The case of colliding life interests. International Journal of Human-Computing Studies, 68(11), 803–821. Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M. V., & Fornara, F. (2005). Robots in a domestic setting: A psychological approach. Universal Access to the Information Society, 4(2), 146–155. Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2008). Exploring the role of time and errors in real-life usability for older people and ICT. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP 2008) (pp. 46–53). Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2010). Telling the story of older people e-mailing: An ethnographical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(1–2), 105–120. Sayago, S., Forbes, P., & Blat, J. (2012). Older people’s social sharing practices in YouTube through an ethnographical lens. In Proceedings of the 26th annual BCS interaction specialist group conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘12) (pp. 185–194). Schikhof, Y., Mulder, I., & Choenni, S. (2010). Who will watch (over) me? Humane monitoring in dementia care. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(6), 410–422. Šimšík, D., Galajdová, A., Siman, D., Bujňák, J., Andrášová, M., & Novák, M. (2012). MonAMI platform in elderly household environment: Architecture, installation, implementation, trials and results. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP 2012) (pp. 419–422). Siriaraya, P., & Ang, C. S. (2014). Recreating living experiences from past memories through virtual worlds for people with dementia. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘14) (pp. 3977–3986). Sokoler, T., & Svensson, M. S. (2007). Embracing ambiguity in the design of non-stigmatizing digital technology for social interaction among senior citizens. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 297–307. Spreicer, W., Ehrenstrasser, L., & Tellioğlu, H. (2012). kommTUi: Designing communication for elderly. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP’12) (pp. 705–708). Thomson Reuters. (2013). The Thomson Reuters impact factor. Available at: http://ipsciencehelp.thomsonreuters.com/inCites2Live/indicatorsGroup/aboutHandbook/usingCitationIndicatorsWisely/jif.html Tixier, M., & Lewkowicz, M. (2015). Looking for respite and support: Technological opportunities for spousal caregivers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘15) (pp. 1155–1158). Turner, P., Turner, S., & Van De Walle, G. (2007). How older people account for their experiences with interactive technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 287–296. United Nations (2017). World population prospects: Key findings and advance tables (2017 revision). New York: United Nations. Vacher, M., Caffiau, S., Portet, F., Meillon, B., Roux, C., Elias, E., Lecouteux, B., & Chahuara, P. (2015). Evaluation of a context-aware voice interface for ambient assisted living: Qualitative user study vs quantitative system evaluation. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 7(2), art. 5. van der Heide, L. A., Willems, C. G., Spreeuwenberg, M. D., De Witte, L. P., & Rietman, J. (2012). Implementation of CareTV in care for the elderly: The effects on feelings of loneliness and safety and future challenges. Technology and Disability, 24(4), 283–291.

160   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas van Schaik, P., Petrie, H., & Kirby, V. (1995). Task performance and technology acceptance: The use of an automatic teller machine by elderly people. In Proceedings of third European conference for the advancement of rehabilitation technology (ECART3) (pp. 62–64). Vutborg, R., Kjeldskov, J., Vetere, F., & Pedell, S. (2010). Family storytelling for grandparents and grandchildren living apart. In Proceedings of NordiCHI 2010 (pp. 531–540). Wan, L., Müller, C., Wulf, V., & Randall, D. W. (2014). Addressing the subtleties in dementia care: Pre-study and evaluation of a GPS monitoring system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘14) (pp. 3987–3996). Warnock, D., McGee-Lennon, M., & Brewster, S. (2013). Multiple notification modalities and older users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ‘13) (pp. 1091–1094). Wolters, M.  K., Kilgour, J., MacPherson, S.  E., Dzikovska, M., & Moore, J.  D. (2015). The CADENCE corpus: A new resource for inclusive voice interface design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2015) (pp. 3963–3966). Wulf, L., Garschall, M., Klein, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2014). The influence of age and device orientation on the performance of touch gestures. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP’14) (pp. 583–590).

Appendix: Publications Analyzed Abascal, J., de Castro, I. F., Lafuente, A., & Cia, J. M. (2008). Adaptive interfaces for supportive ambient intelligence environments. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 30–37). Adam, S., Mukasa, K. S., Breiner, K., & Trapp, M. (2008). An apartment-based metaphor for intuitive interaction with ambient assisted living applications. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI group annual conference (BCS-HCI ‘08) (pp. 67–75). Ahanathapillai, V., Amor, J. D., & James, C. J. (2015). Assistive technology to monitor activity, health and well being in old age: The wrist wearable unit in the USEFIL project. Technology and Disability, 27(1–2), 17–29. Ahmad, D., Komninos, A., & Baillie, L. (2008). Future mobile health systems: Designing personal mobile applications to assist self diagnosis. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI group annual conference (BCS-HCI ‘08) (pp. 39–42). Aksan, N., Dawson, J. D., Emerson, J. L., Yu, L., Uc, E. Y., Anderson, S. W., & Rizzo, M. (2013). Naturalistic distraction and driving safety in older drivers. Human Factors, 55(4), 841–853. Albinet, C., Tomporowski, P. D., & Beasman, K. (2006). Aging and concurrent task performance: Cognitive demand and motor control. Educational Gerontology, 32(9), 689–706. Alelis, G., Bobrowicz, A., & Ang, C.  S. (2015). Comparison of engagement and emotional responses of older and younger adults interacting with 3D cultural heritage artefacts on personal devices. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(11), 1064–1078. Al Mahmud, A., Limpens, Y., & Martens, J. B. (2013). Expressing through digital photographs: An assistive tool for persons with aphasia. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(3), 309–326. Al Mahmud, A., Mubin, O., Shahid, S., & Martens, J. B. (2008). Designing and evaluation the tabletop game experience for senior citizens. In K. Tollmar, & B. Jönsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘08) (pp. 403–406).

Digital Technology for Older People   161 Almer, S., Kolbitsch, J., Oberzaucher, J., & Ebner, M. (2012). Assessment test framework for collecting and evaluating fall-related data using mobile devices. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 83–90). Arning, K., & Ziefle, M. (2008). Development and validation of a computer expertise questionnaire for older adults. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(4), 325–329. Arning, K., & Ziefle, M. (2009). Effects of age, cognitive and personal factors on PDA menu navigation performance. Behaviour and Information Technology, 28(3), 251–268. Astell, A., Alm, N., Dye, R., Gowans, G., Vaughan, P., & Ellis, M. (2014). Digital video games for older adults with cognitive impairment. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 264–271). Augusto, J., Mulvenna, M., Zheng, H., Wang, H., Martin, S., McCullagh, P., & Wallace, J. (2014). Night optimised care technology for users needing assisted lifestyles. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(12), 1261–1277. Aula, A. (2005). User study on older adults’ use of the Web and search engines. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 67–81. Ayoade, M., Uzor, S., & Baillie, L. (2013). The development and evaluation of an interactive system for age related musculoskeletal rehabilitation in the home. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part IV (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8117 (pp. 1–18). Baecker, R., Sellen, K., Crosskey, S., Boscart, V., & Neves, B. (2014). Technology to reduce social isolation and loneliness. In Proceedings of the 15th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘14) (pp. 27–34). Bagalkot, N., Nassi, E., & Sokoler, T. (2010). Facilitating continuity: Exploring the role of dig­ ital technology in physical rehabilitation. In E. Hvannberg, M. K. Lárusdóttir, A. Blandford, & J. Gulliksen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘10) (pp. 42–51). Baharin, H., Rintel, S., & Viller, S. (2013). Rhythms of the domestic soundscape: Ethnomethodological soundwalks for phatic technology design. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction Part IV (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8117 (pp. 463–470). Baharin, H., Viller, S., & Rintel, S. (2015). SonicAIR: Supporting independent living with reciprocal ambient audio awareness. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(4), Art. 18. Ballegaard, S. A., Bunde-Pedersen, J., & Bardram, J. E. (2006). Where to, Roberta? Reflecting on the role of technology in assisted living. In A. Mørch, K. Morgan, T. Bratteteig, G. Ghosh, & D. Svanaes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘06) (pp. 373–376). Bauer, S. M., & Lane, J. P. (2006). Convergence of assistive devices and mainstream products: Keys to university participation in research, development and commercialization. Technology and Disability, 18(2), 67–77. Beach, S., Schulz, R., Downs, J., Matthews, J., Barron, B., & Seelman, K. (2009). Disability, age, and informational privacy attitudes in quality of life technology applications: Results from a national web survey. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 2(1), Art. 5. Bechtold, U., & Sotoudeh, M. (2008). Participative approaches for “Technology and Autonomous Living”. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 78–81).

162   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Beer, J. M., Smarr, C.-A., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2015). Younger and older users’ recognition of virtual agent facial expressions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 75(March), 1–20. Bentley, C. L. (2014). Addressing design and suitability barriers to telecare use: Has anything changed? Technology and Disability, 26(4), 221–235. Berkowsky, R. W., Cotton, S. R., Yost, E. A., & Winstead, V. P. (2013). Attitudes towards and limitations to ICT use in assisted and independent living communities: Findings from a specially-designed technological intervention. Educational Gerontology, 39(11), 797–811. Bertera, E. M . (2014). Storytelling slide shows to improve diabetes and high blood pressure knowledge and self-efficacy: Three-year results among community dwelling older African Americans. Educational Gerontology, 40(11), 785–800. Bertera, E. M., Bertera, R. L., Morgan, R., Wuertz, E., & Attey, A. M. O. (2007). Training older adults to access health information. Educational Gerontology, 33(6), 483–500. Bidwell, N. J., & Jay Siya, M. J. (2013). Situating asynchronous voice in rural Africa. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8117 (pp. 36–53). Blanco-Gonzalo, R., Sanchez-Reillo, R., Martinez-Normand, L., Fernandez-Saavedra, B., & Liu-Jimenez, J. (2015). Accessible mobile biometrics for elderly. In Proceedings of the 17th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘15) (pp. 419–420). Bobillier Chaumon, M.  E., Michel, C., Tarpin Bernard, F., & Croisile, B. (2014). Can ICT improve the quality of life of elderly adults living in residential home care units? From actual impacts to hidden artefacts. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(6), 574–590. Boechler, P. M., Foth, D., & Watchorn, R. (2007). Educational technology research with older adults: Adjustments in protocol, materials, and procedures. Educational Gerontology, 33(3), 221–235. Boström, M., Kjellström, S., & Björklund, A. (2013). Older persons have ambivalent feelings about the use of monitoring technologies. Technology and Disability, 25(2), 17–25. Boulos, M. N. K., Anastasiou, A., Bekiaris, E., & Panou, M. (2011). Geo-enabled technologies for independent living: Examples from four European projects. Technology and Disability, 23(1), 7–17. Boulton-Lewis, G. M., Buys, L., Lovie-Kitchin, J., Barnett, K., & David, N. L. (2007). Ageing, learning, and computer technology in Australia. Educational Gerontology, 33(3), 253–270. Brajnik, G., & Giachin, C. (2014). Using sketches and storyboards to assess impact of age difference in user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(6), 552–566. Brandtzaeg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanović, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital divide: A typology of Internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(3), 123–138. Briggs, P., & Thomas, L. (2015). An inclusive, value sensitive design perspective on future identity technologies. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(5), Art. 23. Brown, P. S., & Hanks, R. S. (2008). Implementing an online writing assessment strategy for gerontology. Educational Gerontology, 34(5), 397–399. Bruder, C., Blessing, L., & Wandke, H. (2014). Adaptive training interfaces for less-experienced, elderly users of electronic devices. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(1), 4–15. Cabreira, A. T., & Hwang, F. (2016). How do novice older users evaluate and perform mid-air gesture interaction for the first time? In S.  Björk, E.  Eriksson, M.  Fjeld, S.  Bødker,

Digital Technology for Older People   163 W. Barendregt, & M. Obaid (Eds.) Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘16) (Art. 122). Cahill, S., Begley, E., Faulkner, J. P., & Hagen, I. (2007). “It gives me a sense of independence”— Findings from Ireland on the use and usefulness of assistive technology for people with dementia. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 133–142. Cahill, S., Macijauskiene, J., Nygård, A.-M., Faulkner, J.-P., & Hagen, I. (2007). Technology in dementia care. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 55–60. Caird, J.  K., Chisholm, S.  L., & Lockhart, J. (2007). Do in-vehicle advanced signs enhance older and younger driver’s intersection performance? Driving simulation and eye movement results. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(3), 132–144. Caird, J. K., Edwards, C. J., Creaser, J. I., & Horrey, W. J. (2005). Older driver failures of attention at intersections: Using change blindness methods to assess turn accuracy. Human Factors, 47(2), 235–249. Caprani, N., Doyle, J., Komaba, Y., & Inomata, A. (2015). Exploring healthcare professionals’ preferences for visualising sensory data. In Proceedings of the 2015 British human computer interaction conference (British HCI 2015) (pp. 26–34). Carey-Smith, B. E., Evans, N. M., & Orpwood, R. D. (2013). A user-centred design process to develop technology to improve sleep quality in residential care homes. Technology and Disability, 25(1), 49–58. Carmichael, A., Rice, M., MacMillan, F., & Kirk, A. (2010). Investigating a DTV-based physical activity application to facilitate wellbeing in older adults. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference (BCS HCI ‘10) (pp. 278–288). Caroux, L., Consel, C., Dupuy, L., & Sauzeon, H. (2014). Verification of daily activities of older adults: A simple, non-intrusive, low-cost approach. In Proceedings of the 16th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘14) (pp. 43–50). Carrasco, E., Epelde, G., Moreno, A., Ortiz, A., Garcia, I., Buiza, C., . . . Arruti, A. (2008). Natural interaction between avatars and persons with Alzheimer’s disease. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 38–45). Carrington, P., Kuber, R., Anthony, L., Hurst, A., & Prasad, S. (2012). Developing an interface to support procedural memory training using a participatory-based approach. In Proceedings of the 26th annual BCS interaction specialist group conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘12) (pp. 333–338). Casas, R. (2008). User modelling in ambient intelligence for elderly and disabled people. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 114–122). Casas, R., Marco, A. Falco, J. Artigas, J., & Abascal, J. (2006). Ethically aware design of a location system for people with dementia. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 777–784). Castilla, D., Garcia-Palacios, A., Breton-Lopez, J., Miralles, I., Banos, R.  M., Etchemendy, E.,. . . Botella, C. (2013). Process of design and usability evaluation of a telepsychology web and virtual reality system for the elderly: Butler. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(3), 350–362. Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Giuliani, V., Pecora, F., Rasconi, R., Scopellitti, M., & Tiberio, L. (2007). Proactive assistive technology: An empirical study. In C. Baranauskas, P. Palanque, J. Abascal, & S. D. J. Barbosa. (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2007). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4662, (pp. 255–268).

164   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Chaffin, A. J., & Harlow, S. D. (2005). Cognitive learning applied to older adult learners and technology. Educational Gerontology, 31(4), 301–329. Chase, C. A. (2010). An intergenerational email pal project on attitudes of college students toward older adults. Educational Gerontology, 37(1), 27–37. Chen, J.-M., Chen, Y.-C., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). The K-shape learning project for senior citizens. Educational Gerontology, 38(12), 841–853. Chen, S.-Y. (2008). Reading practices and profiles of older adults in Taiwan. Educational Gerontology, 34(5), 427–441. Chou, W. H., Lai, Y.-T., & Liu, K.-H. (2013). User requirements of social media for the elderly: A case study in Taiwan. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(9), 920–937. Chu, C., Rebola, C.  B., & Kao, J. (2015). BUMP: Bridging unmet modes of participation. In Proceedings of the 2015 British human computer interaction conference (British HCI 2015) (pp. 261–262). Chung, J., Chaudhuri, S., Le, T., Chi, N.-C., Thompson, H. J., & Demiris, G. (2015). The use of think-aloud to evaluate a navigation structure for a multimedia health and wellness application for older adults and their caregivers. Educational Gerontology, 41(12), 916–929. Coelho, J., & Duarte, C. (2015). Socially networked or isolated? Differentiating older adults and the role of tablets and television. In J.  Abascal, S.  Barbosa, M.  Fetter, T.  Gross, P.  Palanque, & M.  Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part I (INTERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9296, (pp. 129–146). Coelho, J., Rito, F., Luz, N., & Duarte, C. (2015). Prototyping TV and tablet Facebook interfaces for older adults. In J.  Abascal, S.  Barbosa, M.  Fetter, T.  Gross, P.  Palanque, & M.  Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part 1 (INTERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9296 (pp. 110–128). Conci, M., Pianesi, F., & Zancanaro, M. (2009). Useful, social and enjoyable: Mobile phone adoption by older people. In T. Gross, J. Gulliksen, P. Kotzé, L. Oestreicher, P. Planaque, R.  Oliveira Prates & M.  Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2009). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5726 (pp. 63–76). Convertino, G., Farooq, U., Rosson, M. B., Carroll, J. M., & Meyer, B. J. F. (2007). Supporting intergenerational groups in computer supported cooperative work (CSCW). Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 275–285. Cornejo, R., Tentori, M., & Favela, J. (2013). Enriching in-person encounters through social media: A study on family connectedness for the elderly. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 71(9), 889–899. Cresci, M. K., Jarosz, P. A., & Templin, T. A. (2012). Are health answers online for older adults? Educational Gerontology, 38(1), 10–19. Cresci, M. K. & Novak, J. M. (2012). Information technologies as health management tools: Urban elders’ interest and ability in using the Internet. Educational Gerontology, 38(7), 491–506. Cresci, M. K., Yarandi, H. N., & Morell, R. W. (2010). Pro-nets versus no-nets: Differences in urban older adults’ predilections for Internet use. Educational Gerontology, 36(6), 500–520. Crete-Nishihata, M., Baecker, R.  M., Massimi, M., Ptak, D., Campigotto, R., Kaufman, L. D., . . . Black, S. E. (2012). Reconstructing the past: Personal memory technologies are not just personal and not just for memory. Human-Computer Interaction, 27(1–2), 92–123. Czaja, S.  J., Schulz, R., Perdomo, D., & Nair, S.  N. (2014). The feasibility and efficacy of technology-based support groups among family caregivers of persons with dementia. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 455–458).

Digital Technology for Older People   165 Dahn, I., Ferdinand, P., & Lachmann, P. (2014). Supporting senior citizen using tablet computers. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 323–330). Dale, O. (2010). Usability and usefulness of GPS based localization technology used in dementia care. In Proceedings of 12th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 300–307). Darroch, I., Goodman, J., Brewster, S., & Gray, P. (2005). The effect of age and font size on reading text on handheld computers. In M. F. Costabile & F. Paternò (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 3585, (pp. 253–266). Davidse, R. J., Hagenzieker, M. P., van Wolffelaar, P. C., & Brouwer, W. H. (2009). Effects of in-car support on mental workload and driving performance of older drivers. Human Factors, 51(4), 463–476. de Beer, R., Keijers, R., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Mubin, O. (2010). PMD: Designing a portable medicine dispenser for persons suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. In Proceedings of 12th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 332–335). DeCoster, V. A., & George, L. (2005). An empowerment approach for elders living with diabetes: A pilot study of a community-based self-help group—The Diabetes Club. Educational Gerontology, 31(9), 699–733. Diaz-Orueta, U., Etxaniz, A., Gonzalez, M. F. Buiza, C., Urdaneta, E., Yanguas, J., Carrasco, E., & Epelde, G. (2014). Role of cognitive and functional performance in the interactions between elderly people with cognitive decline and an avatar on TV. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13(1), 89–97. Dickinson, A., Arnott, J., & Prior, S. (2007). Methods for human–computer interaction research with older people. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 343–352. Dickinson, A., Eisma, R., Gregor, P., Syme, A., & Mile, S. (2005). Strategies for teaching older people to use the World Wide Web. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 3–15. Dickinson, A., & Gregor, P. (2006). Computer use has no demonstrated impact on the wellbeing of older adults. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 744–753. Dickinson, A., & Hill, R. L. (2007). Keeping in touch: Talking to older people about computers and communication. Educational Gerontology, 33(8), 613–630. Dickinson, A., Smith, M., Arnott, J., Newell, A., & Hill, R. (2007). Approaches to web search and navigation for older computer novices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2006) (pp. 281–290). Diño, M.  J.  S., & de Guzman, A.  B. (2015). Using partial least squares (PLS) in predicting behavioural intention for telehealth use among Filipino elderly. Educational Gerontology, 41(1), 53–68. Dobosz, K., Dobosz, M., Fiolka, T., Wojaczek, M., & Depta, T. (2014). Tablets in the rehabilitation of memory impairment. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 399–402). Dogruel, L., Joeckel, S., & Bowman, N. D. (2015). The user and acceptance of new media entertainment technology by elderly users: Development of an expanded technology acceptance model. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(11), 1052–1063. Donorflo, L. K. M., & Healy, C. (2008). Teaching an interactive television course on adulthood and aging: Making it happen. Educational Gerontology, 34(6), 531–549.

166   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Dorin, M. (2007). Online education of older adults and its relation to life satisfaction. Educational Gerontology, 33(2), 127–143. Dowds, G., & Masthoff, J. (2015). A virtual “Window to the Outside World”: Initial design and plans for evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2015 British human computer interaction conference (British HCI 2015) (pp. 265–266). Doyle, J., Bailey, C., Ni Scanaill, C., & van den Berg, F. (2014). Lessons learned in deploying independent living technologies to older adults’ homes. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13(2), 191–204. Doyle, J., O’Mullane, B., McGee, S., & Knapp, R. B. (2012). YourWellness: Designing an application to support positive emotional wellbeing in older adults. In Proceedings of the 26th annual BCS interaction specialist group conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘12) (pp. 221–226). Doyle, J., Sassu, A., & McDonagh, T. (2013). “We were all the same age once”: Experiences of intergenerational app. design. In Proceedings of the 27th international BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS-HCI ‘13) (Art. 24). Doyle, J., Skrba, Z., McDonnell, R., & Arent, B. (2010). Designing a touch screen communication device to support social interaction amongst older adults. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference (BCS HCI ‘10) (pp. 177–185). Duff, P. & Dolphin, C. (2007). Cost-benefit analysis of assistive technology to support independence for people with dementia–Part 1: Development of a methodological approach to the ENABLE cost-benefit analysis. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 73–78. Duff, P. & Dolphin, C. (2007). Cost-benefit analysis of assistive technology to support independence for people with dementia–Part 2: Results from employing the ENABLE costbenefit model in practice. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 79–90. Eaton, J., & Salari, S. (2005). Environments for lifelong learning in senior centers. Educational Gerontology, 31(6), 461–480. Edlund, C., & Björklund, A. (2011). Family caregivers’ conceptions of usage of and information on products, technology and Web-based services. Technology and Disability, 23(4), 205–214. Ejupi, A., Gschwind, Y.  J., Valenzuela, T., Lord, S.  R., & Delbaere, K. (2016). A Kinect and inertial sensor-based system for the self-assessment of fall risk: A home-based study in older people. Human-Computer Interaction, 31(3–4), 261–293. Elias, S. M., Smith, W. L., & Barney, C. E. (2012). Age as a moderator of attitude towards technology in the workplace: Work motivation and overall job satisfaction. Behaviour and Information Technology, 31(5), 453–467. Elton, E., & Nicolle, C. (2013). Designing inclusive products for everyday environments: The effects of everyday cold temperatures on older adults’ dexterity. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(3), 247–261. Ezer, N., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. (2008). Age-related differences in reliance behaviour attributable to costs within a human-decision aid system. Human Factors, 50(6), 853–863. Fan, C., Forlizzi, J., & Dey, A. (2012). Considerations for technology that support physical activity by older adults. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 33–40). Fang, Y.-M. & Chang, C.-C. (2016). Users’ psychological perception and perceived readability of wearable devices for elderly people. Behaviour and Information Technology, 35(3), 225–232. Farina, K., & Nitche, M. (2015). Outside the brick: Exploring prototyping for the elderly. In Proceedings of the 2015 British Human Computer Interaction Conference (British HCI 2015) (pp. 11–17).

Digital Technology for Older People   167 Fernandes, F., Rodrigues, A., Duarte, C., Jion-Neira, R., & Carrico, L. (2014). Web accessibility of mobile and desktop representations. In Proceedings of the 28th International BCS human computer interaction conference on HCI (BCS-HCI ‘14) (pp. 195–200). Ferreira, S. M., Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2014). Towards iTV services for older people: Exploring their interactions with online video portals in different cultural backgrounds. Technology and Disability, 26(4), 199–209. Ferreira, S. M., Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2017). Older people’s production and appropriation of digital videos: An ethnographic study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 36(6), 557–574. Ferreira, S., Torres, A., Mealha, O., & Veloso, A. (2015). Effects on older adults in information and communication technologies considering psychosocial variables. Educational Gerontology, 41(7), 482–493. Fezzani, K., Albinet, C., Thon, B., & Marquie, J. C. (2010). The effect of motor difficulty on the acquisition of a computer task: A comparison between young and older adults. Behaviour and Information Technology, 29(2), 115–124. Fried-Oken, M., Rowland, C., Baker, G., Dixon, M., Mills, C., Schultz, D., & Oken, B. (2009). The effect of voice output on AAC-supported conversations of persons with Alzheimer’s disease. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 1(3), Art. 15. Fronemann, N., Weisener, A., Pollmann, K., & Peisnner, M. (2016). Happily ever after: Positive aging through positive design. In S. Björk, E. Eriksson, M. Fjeld, S. Bødker, W. Barendregt, & M. Obaid, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘16) (Art. 105). Fuchsberger, V., Sellner, W., Moser, C., & Tscheligi, M. (2012). Benefits and hurdles for older adults in intergenerational online interactions. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 697–704). Gagliardi, C., Mazzarini, G., Papa, R., Giuli, C., & Marcellini, F. (2008). Designing a learning program to link old and disabled people to computers. Educational Gerontology, 34(1), 15–29. Gamliel, T. & Gabay, N. (2014). Knowledge exchange, social interactions, and empowerment in an intergenerational technology program at school. Educational Gerontology, 40(8), 597–617. Gao, Q., & Sun, Q. (2015). Examining the usability of touch screen gestures for older and younger adults. Human Factors, 57(5), 835–863. Gappa, H., Nordbrock, G., Mohamad, Y., Pullmann, J., & Velasco, C. A. (2012). Controlled natural language sentence building as a model for designing user interfaces for rule editing in assisted living systems–A user study. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 415–418). Gappa, H., Nordbrock, G., Thelen, M., Pullmann, J., Mohamad, Y., & Velasco, C. A. (2014). Extended scaffolding by remote collaborative interaction to support people with dementia in independent living–A user study. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 445–450). Gatto, S.  L., & Tak, S.  H. (2008). Computer, internet, and e-mail use among older adults: Benefits and barriers. Educational Gerontology, 34(9), 800–811. Gibson, L., Moncur, W., Forbes, P., Arnott, J., Martin, C., & Bhachu, A. S. (2010). Designing social networking sites for older adults. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference (BCS HCI ‘10) (pp. 186–194). Gil, S. R. & Sánchez Martín, V. (2014). ELDERS-UP! Adaptive system for enabling the elderly collaborative knowledge transference to small companies. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 148–151).

168   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Giusti, L., Mencarini, E., & Zancanaro, M. (2010). “Luckily, I don’t need it”: Elderly and the use of artifacts for time management. In E.  Hvannberg, M.  K.  Lárusdóttir, A.  Blandford & J. Gulliksen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘10) (pp. 198–206). González, A. M., Ramírez, P., & Viadel, V. (2012). Attitudes of the elderly toward information and communications technologies. Educational Gerontology, 38(9), 585–594. Goodman, J., Brewster, S. A., & Gray, P. (2005). How can we best use landmarks to support older people in navigation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(1), 3–20. Grabowski, P. J., & Mason, A. H. (2014). Age differences in the control of a precision reach to grasp task within a desktop virtual environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(4), 383–392. Gramss, D., & Struve, D. (2009). Instructional videos for supporting older adults who use interactive systems. Educational Gerontology, 35(2), 164–176. Grill, T., Osswald, S., & Tscheligi, M. (2012). Task complexity and user model attributes: An analysis of user model attributes for elderly drivers. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 642–649). Grimes, G. A., Hough, M. G. Mazur, E., & Signorella, M. L. (2010). Older adults’ knowledge of internet hazards. Educational Gerontology, 36(3), 173–192. Gudur, R. R., Blackler, A., Popovic, V., & Mahar, D. (2013). Ageing, technology anxiety and intuitive use of complex interfaces. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 564–581). Gusi, N., Prieto, J., Forte, D., Gomez, I., & González-Guerreroc, J.-L. (2008). Needs, interests, and limitations for the promotion of health and exercise by a web site for sighted and blind elderly people: A qualitative exploratory study. Educational Gerontology, 34(6), 449–461. Hakobyan, L., Lumsden, J., & O’Sullivan, D. (2014). Participatory research with older adults with AMD: Co-designing a SMART diet diary app. In Proceedings of the 28th International BCS human computer interaction conference on HCI (BCS-HCI ‘14) (pp. 32–41). Hakobyan, H., Lumsden, J., O’Sullivan, D., & Bartlett, H. (2012). Understanding the IT-related attitudes and needs of persons with age-related macular degeneration: A case study. In Proceedings of the 26th annual BCS interaction specialist group conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘12) (pp. 239–244). Hakobyan, L., Lumsden, J., O’Sullivan, D., & Bartlett, H. (2013). Designing a mobile diet diary application with and for older adults with AMD: A case study. In Proceedings of the 27th International BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS-HCI ‘13) (Art. 17). Hallewell Haslwanter, J. D., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2013). The development of a sensor-based system for older people: A case study. In Proceedings of the 27th International BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS-HCI ‘13) (Art. 11). Hancock, H. E., Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (2005). Comprehending product warning information: Age-related effects and the roles of memory, inferencing and knowledge. Human Factors, 47(2), 219–234. Hanson, V. L., & Crayne, S. (2005). Personalization of Web browsing: Adaptations to meet the needs of older adults. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 46–58. Harada, S., Sato, D., Takagi, H., & Asakawa, C. (2013). Characteristics of elderly user behaviour on mobile multi-touch devices. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part IV (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 323–341).

Digital Technology for Older People   169 Hardt, J. H., & Hollis-Sawyer, L. (2007). Older adults seeking healthcare information on the Internet. Educational Gerontology, 33(7), 561–572. Harley, D., Howland, K., Harris, E., & Redlich, C. (2014). Online communities for older users: What can we learn from local community interactions to create social sites that work for older people. In Proceedings of the 28th International BCS human computer interaction conference on HCI (BCS-HCI ‘14) (pp. 32–41). Hart, T. A., Chaparro, B. S., & Halcomb, C. G. (2008). Evaluating websites for older adults: Adherence to “senior-friendly” guidelines and end-user performance. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(3), 191–199. Hawthorn, D. (2007). Interface design and engagement with older people. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 333–341. Heerink, M., Krose, B., Wielinga, B., & Evers, V. (2009). Measuring the influence of social abilities on acceptance of an interface robot and a screen agent by elderly users. In Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers (BCSHCI ‘09) (pp. 430–439). Hendriks, N., Truyen, F., & Duval, E. (2013). Designing with dementia: Guidelines for participatory design together with persons with dementia. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J.  Wesson, & M.  Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part I (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 649–666). Hernández-Encuentra, E., Pousadaa, M., & Gómez-Zúñigaa, B. (2009). ICT and older people: Beyond usability. Educational Gerontology, 35(3), 225–245. Hirotomi, T., Hosomi, Y., & Yano, H. (2008). Brake control assist on a four-castered walker for old people. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 1269–1276). Hogeboom, D. L., McDermotta, R. J., Perrina, K. M., Osmana, H., & Bell-Ellison, B. A. (2010). Internet use and social networking among middle aged and older adults. Educational Gerontology, 36(2), 93–111. Holliday, N., Ward, G., Fielden, S., & Williams, S. (2015). Exploration of information needs and development of resources to inform and support those at risk of falling. Technology and Disability, 27(1–2), 31–40. Hollinworth, N., & Hwang, F. (2009). Learning how older adults undertake computer tasks. In Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘09) (pp. 245–246). Holllinworth, N., & Hwang, F. (2011). Investigating familiar interactions to help older adults learn computer applications more easily. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 473–478). Holzinger, A., Sammer, P., & Hofmann-Wellenhof, R. (2006). Mobile computing in medicine: Designing mobile questionnaires for elderly and partially sighted people. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 732–739). Holzinger,  A., Schaupp, K., & Eder-Halbedl,  W. (2008). An investigation on acceptance of ubiquitous devices for the elderly in a geriatric hospital environment: Using the example of person tracking. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 22–29). Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Kleinberger, T., Seffah, A., & Javahery, H. (2008). Investigating usability metrics for the design and development of applications for the elderly. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 98–105).

170   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Hoshi, K., Ohberg, F., & Nyberg, A. (2011). Designing blended reality space: Conceptual foundations and applications. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 217–226). Huber, L. & Watson, C. (2014). Technology: Education and training needs of older adults. Educational Gerontology, 40(1), 16–25. Huldtgren, A., Mertl, F., Vormann, A., & Geiger, C. (2015). Probing the potential of multimedia artefacts to support communication of people with dementia In J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9296, (pp. 71–79). Hurtienne, J., Horn, A. M., Langdon, P. M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2013). Facets of prior experience and the effectiveness of inclusive design. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(3), 297–308. Hwang, F., Hollingworth, N., & Williams, N. (2013). Effects of target expansion on section performance in older computer users. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 5(1), Art. 1. Hwang, M.-Y., Hong, J.-C., Hao, Y.-W., & Jong, J. T. (2011). Elders’ usability, dependability, and flow experiences on embodied interactive video games. Educational Gerontology, 37(8), 715–731. Iacono, I., & Marti, P. (2014). Engaging older people with participatory design. In V. Roto, J. Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson, & E. Hvannberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 859–864). Infeld, D. L., & Adams, W. C. (2013). Using the Internet for gerontology education: Assessing and improving Wikipedia. Educational Gerontology, 39(10), 707–716. Inoue, K., Sakuma, N., Okada, M., Sasaki, C., Nakamura, M., & Wada, K. (2014). Effective application of PALRO: A humanoid type robot for people with dementia. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 451–454). Iwarsson, S., & Wilson, G. (2006). Environmental barriers, functional limitations, and housing satisfaction among older people in Sweden: A longitudinal perspective on housing accessibility. Technology and Disability, 18(2), 57–66. Jang, Y., Yoon, H., Marti, C. N., & Kim, M. T. (2015). Aging IQ intervention with older Korean Americans: A comparison of internet-based and in-class education. Educational Gerontology, 41(9), 642–652. Jastrzembski, T., Charness, N., Holley, P., & Feddon, J. (2005). Input devices for web browsing: Age and hand effects. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 39–45. Jochems, N., Vetter, S., & Schlick, C. (2013). A comparative study of information input devices for aging computer users. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(9), 902–919. Johansson, K., Lundberg, S., & Borell, L. (2011). “The Cognitive Kitchen”–Key principles and suggestions for design that includes older adults with cognitive impairments as kitchen users. Technology and Disability, 23(1), 29–40. Jung, Y., Peng, W., Moran, M., Jin, S.-A., McLaughlin, M., Cody, M., Jordan-Marsh, M., Albright, J., & Silverstein, M. (2010). Low-income minority seniors’ enrollment in a cybercafé: Psychological barriers to crossing the digital divide. Educational Gerontology, 36(3), 193–212. Kahana, B., Kahan, E., Lovegree, L., & Seckin, G. (2006). Compensatory use of computers by disabled older adults. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 766–769).

Digital Technology for Older People   171 Kaklanis, N., Moschonas, P., Moustakas, K., & Tsovaras, D. (2013). Virtual user models for the elderly and disabled for automatic simulated accessibility and ergonomy evaluation of designs. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(4), 403–425. Kaklanis, N., Moustakas, K., & Tzovaras, D. (2008). A methodology for generating virtual user models of elderly and disabled for the accessibility assessment of new products. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 295–302). Kalman, Y.  M., Geraghty, K., Thompson, C.  K., & Gergle, D. (2012). Detecting linguistic HCI markers in an online aphasia support group. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 65–70). Kamiliaris, A., Kondepudi, S., & Danial, N. (2015). Understanding the activities and areas of concern of elderly population: The case of Singapore. Technology and Disability, 27(4), 141–153. Kamollimsakul, S., Petrie, H., & Power, C. (2014). Web accessibility for older readers: Effects of font type and font size on skim reading webpages in Thai. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 332–339). Kepski, M., & Kwolek, B. (2012). Fall detection on embedded platform using Kinect and wireless accelerometer. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 407–414). Kim, H. J., Jarochawski, B., & Ryu, D. H. (2006). A proposal for a home-based health monitoring system for the elderly or disabled. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 473–479). Kim, Y. B. (2006). A ubiquitous social community portal service for social networking with convenient accessibility. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 263–270). Kim, Y. S. (2008). Reviewing and critiquing computer learning and usage among older adults. Educational Gerontology, 34(8) 709–735. Kobayashi, M., Hiyam, A., Miura, T., Asakawa, C., Hirose, M., & Ifukube, T. (2011). Elderly user evaluation of mobile touchscreen interactions. In P.  Campos, N.  Graham, J.  Jorge, N. Nunes, P. Palanque, and M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6947, (pp. 83–99). Kobayashi, M., Ishihara, T., Kosugi, A., Takagi, H., & Asakawa, A. (2013). Question-answer cards for an inclusive micro-tasking framework for the elderly. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 590–607). Komori, T., Takagi, T., Kurozumi, K., Shoda, K., & Murakawa, K. (2010). A device to evaluate broadcast background sound balance using loudness for elderly listeners. In Proceedings of 12th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 560–567). Koopman-Boydena, P. G., & Reid, S. L. (2009). Internet/E-mail usage and well-being among 65–84 year olds in New Zealand: Policy implications. Educational Gerontology, 35(11), 990–1007. Kort, H. S. M., & van Hoof, J. (2014). Design of a website for home modifications for older persons with dementia. Technology and Disability, 26(1), 1–10. Kurniawan, S. (2008). Older people and mobile phones: A multi-method investigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(12), 889–901.

172   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Laberge, J. C., & Scialfa, C. T. (2005). Predictors of web navigation performance in a life span sample of adults. Human Factors, 47(2), 289–302. Laganà, L. (2008). Enhancing the attitudes and self-efficacy of older adults toward computers and the internet: Results of a pilot study. Educational Gerontology, 34(9), 831–849. Larsson, E., Larsson-Lund, M., & Nilsson, I. (2013). Internet based activities (IBAs): Seniors’ experiences of the conditions required for the performance of and the influence of these conditions on their own participation in society. Educational Gerontology, 39(3), 155–167. Lee, B., Lee, M., Sook, M. S., You, H., Park, H., Jung, K., Lee, B. H., Na D. L., & Kim, G. H. (2015). The effects of age, gender, and hand on force control capabilities of healthy adults. Human Factors, 57(8), 1348–1358. Lee, C.  C., Czaja, S.  J., & Sharit, J. (2008). Training older workers for technology-based employment. Educational Gerontology, 35(1), 15–31. Lehtinen, V., Nasanen, J., & Sarvas, R. (2009). “A little silly and empty-headed”: Older adults’ understandings of social networking sites. In Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘09) (pp. 45–54). Leinonen, E., Syrjanen, A.-L., & Isomursu, M. (2014). Designing assistive and cooperative HCI for older adults’ movement. In V. Roto, J. Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. Väänänen-VainioMattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson & E. Hvannberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 877–882). Leitner, G., Fercher, A. J., Felfernig, A., & Hitz, M. (2012). Reducing the entry threshold of AAL Systems: Preliminary results from Casa Vecchia. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 709–715). Leonard, V. K., Jacko, J. A., & Pizzimenti, J. J. (2005). An exploratory investigation of handheld computer interaction for older adults with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the 7th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘05) (pp. 12–19). Leonard, V. K., Jacko, J. A., & Pizzimenti, J. J. (2006). An investigation of handheld device use by older adults with age-related macular degeneration. Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(4), 313–332. Lepicard, G., & Vigouroux, N. (2010). Touch screen user interfaces for older subjects: Effect of the targets number and the two hands use. In Proceedings of 12th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 592–599). Lepicard, G., & Vigouroux, N. (2012). Comparison between single-touch and multi-touch interaction for older people. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 658–665). Leung, R., Findlater, L., McGrenere, J., Graf, P., & Yang, J. (2010). Multi-layered interfaces to improve older adults’ initial learnability of mobile applications. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 3(1), Art. 1. Leung, R., McGrenere, J., & Graf, P. (2011). Age-related differences in the initial usability of mobile device icons. Behaviour and Information Technology, 30(5), 629–642. Leung, R., Tang, C., Haddad, S., McGrenere, J., Graf, P., & Ingriany, V. (2012). How older adults learn to use mobile devices: Survey and field investigations, ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 4(3), Art. 11. Lexis, M., Everink, I., van der Heide, L., Spreeuwenber, M., Willems, C., & de Witte, L. (2013). Activity monitoring technology to support homecare delivery to frail and psychogeriatric elderly persons living at home alone. Technology and Disability, 25(3), 189–197.

Digital Technology for Older People   173 Li, H., Rau, P.-L. P., Fujimura, K., Gao, Q., & Wang, L. (2012). Designing effective web forms for older web users. Educational Gerontology, 38(4), 271–281. Liao, M.-J., Wu, Y., & Sheu, C.-F. (2014). Effects of perceptual complexity on older and younger adults’ target acquisition performance. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(6), 591–605. Liao, Q. V. & Fu, W.-T. (2014). Age differences in credibility judgements of online health information. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 21(1), Art. 2. Lindley, S.  E. (2012). Before I forget: From personal memory to family history HumanComputer Interaction, 27(1–2), 13–36. Lindley, S. E., Harper, R., & Sellen, A. (2008). Designing for elders: Exploring the complexity of relationships in later life. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI group annual conference (BCS-HCI ‘08) (pp. 77–86). Lindley, S. & Wallace, J. (2015). Placing in age: Transitioning to a new home in later life. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(4), Art. 20. Little, L., Briggs, P., & Coventry, L. (2011). Who knows about me? An analysis of age-related disclosure preferences. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 84–87). Liu, C.-L. (2014). A study of detecting and combating cybersickness with fuzzy control for the elderly within 3D virtual stores. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(12), 796–804. Lockhart, T. E., Smith, J. L., & Woldstad, J. C. (2005). Effects of aging on the biomechanics of slips and falls. Human Factors, 47(4), 708–729. Lozano, H., Hernáez, I., Picón, A., Camarena, J., & Navas, E. (2010). Audio classification techniques in home environments for elderly/dependent people. In Proceedings of 12th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 320–323). McBride, S. E., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2011). Understanding the effect of workload on automation use for younger and older adults. Human Factors, 53(6), 672–686. McCann, R. M., & Keaton, S. A. (2013). A cross cultural investigation of age stereotypes and communication perceptions of older and younger workers in the USA and Thailand. Educational Gerontology, 39(5), 326–341. McCarthy, S., Sayers, H., & McKevitt, P. (2007). Investigating the usability of PDAs with ageing users. In Proceedings of the 21st British HCI group annual conference (BCS-HCI ‘07) (pp. 67–70). McLaughlin, A. C., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2009). Using direct and indirect input devices: Attention demands and age-related differences. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 16(1), Art. 2. Macek, J., & Kleindienst, J. (2011). Exercise support system for elderly: Multi-sensor physiolog­ ical state detection and usability testing. In P.  Campos, N.  Graham, J.  Jorge, N.  Nunes, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6947, (pp. 81–88). Maciuszek, D., Aberg, J., & Shahmehri, N. (2005). What help do older people need?: Constructing a functional design space of electronic assistive technology applications. In Proceedings of the 7th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘05) (pp. 4–11). Magnusson, L. & Hanson, E. (2012). Partnership working: The key to the AT-technology transfer process of the ACTION service (Assisting Carers using Telematics Interventions to meet Older people’s Needs) in Sweden. Technology and Disability, 24(3), 219–232.

174   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Malinowsky, C., Kottorp, A., & Nygård, L. (2013). Everyday technologies’ levels of difficulty when used by older adults with and without cognitive impairment–Comparison of selfperceived versus observed difficulty estimates. Technology and Disability, 25(3), 167–176. Malinowsky, C., Kottorp, A., Patomella, A.-H., Rosenberg, L., & Nygård, L. (2015). Changes in the technological landscape over time: Relevance and difficulty levels of everyday technologies as perceived by older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Technology and Disability, 27(3), 91–101. Mann, W. C., Belchior, P., Tomita, M. R., & Kemp, B. J. (2005). Computer use by middle-aged and older adults with disabilities. Technology and Disability, 17(1), 1–9. Mann, W. C., Locher, S., Justiss, M. D., Wu, S., & Tomita, M. (2005). A comparison of fallers and non-fallers in the frail elderly. Technology and Disability, 17(1), 25–32. Marquis-Faulkes, F., McKenna, S. J., Newell, A. F., & Gregor, P. (2005). Gathering the requirements for a fall monitor using drama and video with older people. Technology and Disability, 17(4), 227–236. Marston, H.  R. (2013). Design recommendations for digital game design within an ageing society. Educational Gerontology, 39(2), 103–118. Marston, H.  R. (2013). Digital gaming perspectives of older adults: Content vs interaction. Educational Gerontology, 39(3), 194–208. Marston, H.  R., Greenlay, S., & van Hoof, J. (2013). Understanding the Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Kinect consoles in long-term care facilities. Technology and Disability, 27(2), 77–85. Martin, S., Nugent, C., Wallace, J., Kernohan, G., McCreight, B., & Mulvenna, M. (2007). Using context awareness within the “Smart home” environment to support social care for adults with dementia. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 143–152. Matthews, J.  T., Beach, S.  R., Downs, J., de Bruin, W.  B., Mecca, L.  P., & Schulz, S. (2010). Preferences and concerns for quality of life technology among older adults and persons with disabilities: National survey results. Technology and Disability, 22(1–2), 5–15. Mayer, C., Morandell, M., Gira, M., Hackbarth, K., Petzold, M., & Fagel, S. (2012). AALuis, a user interface layer that brings device independence to users of AAL systems. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 650–657). Mehdi, S. A., & Berns, K. (2014). Behavior-based search of human by an autonomous indoor mobile robot in simulation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13(1), 45–58. Meza-Kubo, V., Morán, A. L., & Rodríguez, M. D. (2014). Bridging the gap between illiterate older adults and cognitive stimulation technologies through pervasive computing. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13(1), 33–44. Michailidou, E., Parmaxi, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2015). Culture effects in online social support for older people: Perceptions and experience. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(2), 281–293. Miotto, A., Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Carmichael, R., & Ferrrari, E. (2013). Cognitive training via interactive television: Drivers, barriers and potential users. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(1), 37–54. Miura, T., Yabu, K.-I., Hiyama, A., Inamura, N., Hirose, M., & Ifukube, T. (2015). Smartphonebased gait measurement application for exercise and its effects on the lifestyle of senior citizens. In J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9296, (pp. 80–98).

Digital Technology for Older People   175 Moffatt, K., & McGrenere, J. (2007). Slipping and drifting: Using older users to uncover penbased target acquisition difficulties. In Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘07) (pp. 11–18). Moffatt, K., & McGrenere, J. (2009). Exploring methods to improve pen-based menu selection for younger and older adults. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 2(1), Art. 3. Moffatt, K., Yuen, S., & McGrenere, J. (2008). Hover or tap?: Supporting pen-based menu navigation for older adults. In Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘08) (pp. 51–58). Mohadis, H. M., Ali, N. M., & Smeaton, A. F. (2016). Designing a persuasive physical activity application for older workers: Understanding end-user perceptions. Behaviour and Information Technology, 35(12), 1102–1114. Molin, G., Pettersson, C., Jonsson, O., & Keijer, U. (2007). Living at home with acquired cognitive impairment: Can assistive technology help? Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 91–101. Moloney, K.  P., Jacko, J.  A., Vidakovic, B., Sainfort, F., Leonard, V.  K., & Shi, B. (2006). Leveraging data complexity: Pupillary behaviour of older adults with visual impairment during HCI. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13(3), 376–402. Morrell, R. W. (2005). http://www.nihseniorhealth. gov: The process of construction and revision in the development of a model web site for use by older adults, Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 24–38. Morrow, D. G., & Rogers, W. A. (2008). Environmental support: An integrative framework. Human Factors, 50(4), 589–613. Mubin, O., Shahid, S., & Al Mahmud, A. (2008). Walk 2 Win: Towards designing a mobile game for elderly’s social engagement. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI group annual conference (BCS-HCI ‘08) (pp. 11–14). Murata, A., and Iwase, H. (2005). Usability of touch-panel interfaces for older adults. Human Factors, 47(4), 767–776. Muskens, L., van Lent, R., Vijfvinkel, A., van Cann, P., & Shahid, S. (2014). Never too old to use a tablet: Designing tablet applications for the cognitive and physically impaired elderly. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 391–398). Nansen, B., Vetere, F., Robertson, T., Downs, J., Brereton, M., & Durick, J. (2014). Reciprocal habituation: A study of older people and the Kinect. ACM Transactions on ComputerHuman Interaction, 21(3), Art. 18. Nawaz, A., Skjaeret, N., Ystmark, K., Helbostad, J.  L., Vereijken, B., & Svanaes, D. (2014). Assessing seniors’ user experience (UX) of exergames for balance training. In V.  Roto, J. Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson & E. Hvannberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 578–587). Németh, G., Olaszy, G., Bartalis, M., Kiss, G., Zainkó, C., Mihajlik, P., & Haraszti, C. (2008). Automated drug information system for aged and visually impaired persons. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 238–241). Newell, A. F., Dickinson, A., Smith, M. J., & Gregor, P. (2006). Designing a portal for older users: A case study of an industrial/academic collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13(3), 347–375.

176   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Ng, C.-H. (2007). Motivation among older adults in learning computing technologies: A grounded model. Educational Gerontology, 34(1), 1–14. Nicholson, J., Coventry, L., & Briggs, P. (2013). Faces and pictures: Understanding age differences in two types of graphical authentications. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(10), 958–966. Nicolau, H., & Jorge, J. (2012). Elderly text-entry performance on touchscreens. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 127–134). Nijhof, N., van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C., de Jong, G. E. N., Ankoné, J. W., & Seydel, E. R. (2012). How assistive technology can support dementia care: A study about the effects of the IST Vivago watch on patients’ sleeping behavior and the care delivery process in a nursing home. Technology and Disability, 24(2), 103–115. Nijhof, N., van Hoof, J., van Rijn, H., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C. (2013). The behavioural outcomes of a technology-supported leisure activity in people with dementia. Technology and Disability, 25(4), 263–273. Nunes, F., Kerwin, M., & Silva, P. A. (2012). Design recommendations for TV user interfaces for older adults: Findings from the eCAALYX Project. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 41–48). Nygård, L. (2009). The stove timer as a device for older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia: Different professionals’ reasoning and actions. Technology and Disability, 21(3), 53–66. Oberzaucher, J., Jagos, H., Zodl, C., Hlauschek, W., & Zagler, W. (2010). Using a wearable insole gait analyzing system for automated mobility assessment for older people. In Proceedings of 12th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘10) (pp. 600–603). O’Brien, M., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2012). Understanding age and technology experience differences in use of prior knowledge for everyday technology interactions. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 4(2), Art. 9. Ofei-Dodoo, S., Medvene, L. J., Nilsen, K. M., Smith, R. A., & DiLollo, A. (2015). Exploring the potential of computers to enrich home and community-based services clients’ social networks. Educational Gerontology, 41(3), 216–225. Ogawa, M., Inagaki, H., & Gondo, Y. (2006). Usage of IT and electronic devices, and its structure, for community-dwelling elderly. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 752–758). Omori, M., Miyao, M., Kanamoriand, H., & Atsumi, B. (2008). Visual cognitive performance of elderly people: Effects on reading time of age, character size and visual distance. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(4), 313–318. Orpwood, R., Gibbs, C., Adlam, T., Faulkner, R., & Meegahawatte, D. (2005). The design of smart homes for people with dementia–user-interface aspects. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(2), 156–164. Osman, Z., Poulson, D., & Nicolle, C. (2005). Introducing computers and the Internet to older users: Findings from the Care OnLine project. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 16–23. Östlund, B. (2008). The revival of research circles: Meeting the needs of modern aging and the third age. Educational Gerontology, 34(4), 255–266. Otjacques, B., Krier, M., Feltz, F., Ferring, D., & Martin Hoffman, M. (2009). Helping older people to manage their social activities at the retirement home. In Proceedings of the

Digital Technology for Older People   177 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘09) (pp. 375–380). Panek, P., & Zagler, W. L. (2008). A living lab for ambient assisted living in the Municipality of Schwechat. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 777–784). Panitsides, E. A. (2013). Interview with Ariadne. Educational Gerontology, 39(12), 944–945. Paredes, H., Cassola, F., Morgado, L., de Carvalho, F., Ala, S., Cardoso, F., Benjamim, B., & Martins, P. (2014). Exploring the usage of 3D virtual worlds and Kinect interaction in exergames with elderly. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 297–300). Parekh, M., & Baber, C. (2010). Tool use as gesture: New challenges for maintenance and rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference (BCS HCI ‘10) (pp. 241–249). Pasoule, E., & Koutsabasis, P. (2014). Redesigning web sites for older adults: A case study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(6), 561–573. Patomella, A.-H., Kottorp, A., Malinowsky, C., & Nygård, L. (2011). Factors that impact the level of difficulty of everyday technology in a sample of older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Technology and Disability, 23(4), 243–250. Pedlow, R., Kasnitz, D., Shuttleworth, R. (2010). Barriers to the adoption of cell phones for older people with impairments in the USA: Results from an expert review and field study. Technology and Disability, 22(3), 147–158. Petrie, H., Darzentas, J. S., & Power, C. (2014). Self-service terminals for older and disabled users: Attitudes of key stakeholders. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 340–347). Pigini, L., Facal, D., Blasi, L., & Andrich, R. (2012). Service robots in elderly care at home: Users’ needs and perceptions as a basis for concept development. Technology & Disability, 24(4), 303–311. Pigini, L., Facal, D., Garcia, A., Burmester, M., & Andrich, R. (2012). The proof of concept of a shadow robotic system for independent living at home. In Proceedings of 13th ­international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 634–641). Piper, A.-M., Weibel, N., & D. Hollan, H. D. (2014). Designing audio-enhanced paper photos for older adult emotional wellbeing in communication therapy. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72 (8–9), 629–639. Pitts, K., Pudney, K., Zachos, K., Maiden, N., Krogstie, B., Jones, S., . . . Turner, A. (2015). Using mobile devices and apps to support reflective learning about older people with dementia. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(6), 613–631. Plaisant, C., Clamage, A., Hutchinson, H. B., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (2006). Shared family calendars: Promoting symmetry and accessibility. ACM Transactions on ComputerHuman Interaction, 13(3), 313–346. Pradhan, A.  K., Hammel, K.  R., DeRamus, R., Pollatsek, A., Noyce, D.  A., & Fisher, D.  L. (2005). Using eye movements to evaluate effects of driver age on risk perception in a driving simulator. Human Factors, 47(4), 840–852. Price, M. M., Pak, R., Muller, H., & Stronge, A. (2013). Older adults’ perceptions of usefulness of personal health records. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(2), 191–204. Priest, L., Nayak, L., & Stuart-Hamilton, I. (2007). Website task performance by older adults. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(3), 189–195.

178   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Prieto, G., & Leahy, D. (2012). Online social networks and older people. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 666–672). Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Pick, D. F. (2005). Aging and response selection in spatial choice tasks. Human Factors, 47(2), 250–269. Qadri, S. S., Wang, J., Ruiz J. G., & Roos, B. A. (2009). Personal digital assistant as point-of-care tools in long-term care facilities: A pilot study. Educational Gerontology, 35(4), 296–307. Rasquin, S. M. C., Willems, C., de Vlieger, S., Geers, R. P. J., & Soede, M. (2007). The use of technical devices to support outdoor mobility of dementia patients. Technology and Disability, 19(2–3), 113–120. Rassmus-Gröhn, K., & Magnusson, C. (2014). Finding the way home-supporting wayfinding for older users with memory problems. In V. Roto, J. Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. VäänänenVainio-Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson & E. Hvannberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 247–255). Rau, P.-L. P., & Hsu, J.-W. (2005). Interaction devices and web design for novice older users. Educational Gerontology, 31(1), 19–40. Ren, X., & Zhou, X. (2011). An investigation of the usability of the stylus pen for various age groups on personal digital assistants. Behaviour and Information Technology, 30(6), 709–726. Renaud, K. (2005). A visuo-biometric authentication mechanism for older users. In Proceedings of the 19th British HCI group annual conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘05) (pp. 167–182). Renaud, K., Blignaut, R., & Venter, I. (2013). Designing mobile phone interfaces for age diversity in South Africa: “One world” versus diverse “islands.” In P.  Kotzé, G.  Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 1–17). Renaud, K., & Ramsay, J. (2007). Now what was that password again? A more flexible way of identifying and authenticating our seniors. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 309–322. Renold, C., Meronk, C., & Kelly, C. (2005). Technology in community-based organizations that serve older People: High tech meets high touch. Educational Gerontology, 31(3), 235–245. Rice, M., & Carmichael, A. (2013). Factors facilitating or impeding older adults’ creative contributions in the collaborative design of a novel DTV-based application. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(1), 5–19. Rice, M., Newell, A., & Morgan, N. (2007). Forum theatre as a requirements gathering methodology in the design of a home telecommunication system for older adults. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 323–331. Riikonen, M., Paavilainen, E., & Salo, H. (2013). Factors supporting the use of technology in daily life of home-living people with dementia. Technology and Disability, 25(4), 233–243. Robertson, T., Durick, J., Brereton, M., Vaisutis, K. Vetere, F., Nanse, B., & Howard, H. (2013). Emerging technologies and the contextual and contingent experiences of ageing well. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Humancomputer interaction, Part III (INTERACT 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8117, (pp. 582–589). Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., McLauglin, A. C., & Pak, R. (2005). Touch a screen or turn a knob: Choosing the best device for the job. Human Factors, 47(2), 271–288.

Digital Technology for Older People   179 Romoser, M.  R.  E. (2013). The long-term effects of active training strategies on improving older drivers’ scanning in intersections: A two-year follow-up to Romoser and Fisher (2009). Human Factors, 55(2), 278–284. Roring, R. W., Hines, F. G., & Charness, N. (2006). Age-related identification of emotions at different image sizes. Human Factors, 48(4), 675–681. Roring, R. W., Hines, F. G., & Charness, N. (2007). Age differences in identifying words in synthetic speech. Human Factors, 49(1), 25–31. Rosenthal, R.  L. (2008). Older computer-literate women: Their motivations, obstacles, and paths to success. Educational Gerontology, 34(7), 610–626. Rudzicz, F., Wang, R., Begum, M., & Mihailidis, A. (2015). Speech interaction with personal assistive robots supporting aging at home for individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 7(2), Art. 6. Russell, H. (2008). Later life: A time to learn. Educational Gerontology, 34(3), 206–244. Saenz-de-Urturi, Z., Garcia Zapirain, B., & Mendez Zorrilla, A. (2015). Elderly user experience to improve a Kinect-based game playability. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(11), 1040–1051. Salovaara, A., Lehmuskallio, A., Hedman, L., Valkonen, P., & Näsänen, J. (2010). Information technologies and transitions in the lives of 55–65-year-olds: The case of colliding life interests. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 68(11), 803–821. Sanders, M. J., O’Sullivan, B., DeBurra, K., & Fedner, A. (2013). Computer training for seniors: An academic-community partnership. Educational Gerontology, 39(3), 179–193. Savitch, N., & Zaphiris, P. (2006). Accessible websites for people with dementia-a preliminary investigation into information architecture. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 144–151). Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2008). Exploring the role of time and errors in real-life for older people and ICT. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 46–53). Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2010). Telling the story of older people e-mailing: An ethnographical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(1–2), 105–120. Sayago, S., Forbes, P., & Blat, J. (2012). Older people’s social sharing practices in YouTube through an ethnographical lens. In Proceedings of the 26th annual BCS interaction specialist group conference on people and computers (BCS-HCI ‘12) (pp. 185–194). Sayago, S., Forbes, P., & Blat, J. (2013). Older people becoming successful ICT learners over time: Challenges and strategies through an ethnographical lens. Educational Gerontology, 39(7), 527–544. Sayago, S., Guijarro, J.-M., & Blat, J. (2012). Selective attention in web forms: An exploratory case study with older people. Behaviour and Information Technology, 31(2), 171–184. Schall, M. C. Jr., Rusch, M. L., Lee, J. D., Aksan, N., & Rizzo, M. (2013). Augmented reality cues and elderly driver hazard perception. Human Factors, 55(3), 643–658. Schikhof, Y., Mulder, I., & Choenni, S. (2010). Who will watch (over) me? Humane monitoring in dementia care International. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(5), 410–422. Schmettow, M., & Havinga, J. (2013). Are users more diverse than designs? Testing and extending a 25 years old claim. In Proceedings of the 27th international BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS-HCI ‘13) (Art. 40). Schneider, N., Schreiber, J., Wilkes, J., Grandt, M., & Schlick, C. M. (2008). Foundations of an age-differentiated adaptation of the human-computer interface. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(4), 319–324.

180   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Schröder, S., & Ziefle, M. (2008). Effects of icon concreteness and complexity on semantic transparency: Younger vs. older users. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 90–97). Sciegaj, M. & Behr, R. A. (2010). Lessons for the United States from countries adapting to the consequences of aging populations. Technology and Disability, 22(1–2), 83–88. Scopelliti, M., Giuliani, M. V., & Fornara, F. (2005). Robots in a domestic setting: A psychological approach. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(2), 146–155. Seals, C. D., Clanton, K., Agarwal, R., Doswell, F., & Thomas, C. M. (2008). Lifelong learning: Becoming computer savvy at a later age. Educational Gerontology, 34(12), 1055–1069. Sharit, J., Hernandez, M. A., Czaja, S. J., & Pirolli, P. (2008). Investigating the roles of knowledge and cognitive abilities in older adult information seeking on the web. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 15(1), Art. 3. Sharit, J., Hernandez, M. A., Nair, S. N., Kuhn, T., & Czaja, S. J. (2011). Health problem solving by older persons using a complex government web site: Analysis and implications for web design. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 3(3), Art. 11. Shaw, S., & Roberson, L. (2013). Social connectedness of deaf retirees. Educational Gerontology, 39(10), 750–760. Shepherd, C. E., & Aagard, S. (2011). Journal writing with Web 2. 0 tools: A vision for older adults. Educational Gerontology, 37(7), 606–620. Siek, K. A., Rogers, Y., & Connelly, K. H. (2005). Fat finger worries: How older and younger users physically interact with PDAs. In M. F. Costabile and F. Paternò (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2005), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 3585, (pp. 267–280). Simpson, T., Camfield, D., Pipingas, A., Macpherson, H., & Stough, C. (2012). Improved processing speed: Online computer-based cognitive training in older adults. Educational Gerontology, 38(7), 445–458. Simsik, D., Galajdova, A., Siman, D., Bujnak, J., Andrasova, M., & Novak, M. (2012). MonAMI Platform in elderly household environment: Architecture, installation, implementation, trials and results. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 419–422). Siriaraya, P., Ang, C. S., & Bobrowicz, A. (2014). Exploring the potential of virtual worlds in engaging older people and support healthy aging. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(4), 283–294. Sjölinder, M., Höök, K., Nilsson, L.-G., & Andersson, G. (2005). Age differences and the acquisition of spatial knowledge in a three-dimensional environment: Evaluating the use of an overview map as a navigation aid. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(6), 537–564. Slegers, K., van Boxtel, M. P. J., & Jolles, J. (2007). The effects of computer training and internet usage on the use of everyday technology by older adults: A randomized controlled study. Educational Gerontology, 33(2), 91–110. Smith, A. L., & Chaparro, B. S. (2015). Smartphone text input method performance, usability, and preference with younger and older adults. Human Factors, 57(6), 1015–1028. Smith, D. J. (2005). Senior users of the internet: Lessons from the cybernun study. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(1), 59–66. Sokoler, T., & Svensson, M. S. (2007). Embracing ambiguity in the design of non-stigmatizing digital technology for social interaction among senior citizens. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 297–307.

Digital Technology for Older People   181 Soubelet, A. (2012). Computer use and the relation between age and cognitive functioning. Educational Gerontology, 38(9), 644–649. Spreicer, W., Ehrenstrasser, L., & Tellioglu, H. (2012). kommTUi: Designing communication for elderly. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 705–708). Stark-Wroblewski, K., Edelbaum, J. K., & Ryan, J. J. (2007). Senior citizens who use e-mail. Educational Gerontology, 33(4), 293–307. Stenitzer, M., Putzhuber, M., Nemecek, S., & Büchler, F. (2008). Accessible online shops for the older generation and people with disabilities. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 462–465). Stephens, E. C., Carswell, C. M., & Schumacher, M. M. (2006). Evidence for an elders’ advantage in the naïve product usability judgments of older and younger adults. Human Factors, 48(3), 422–433. Stoltz-Loike, M., Morrell, R. W., & Loike, J. D. (2005). Usability testing of BusinessThinking™ e-Learning CD-ROMs with older adults. Educational Gerontology, 31(10), 765–786. Stössel, C., & Blessing, L. (2010). Mobile device interaction gestures for older users. In E. Hvannberg, M. K. Lárusdóttir, A. Blandford, & J. Gulliksen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘10) (pp. 793–796). Stronge, A. J., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2006). Web-based information search and retrieval: Effects of strategy use and age on search success. Human Factors, 48(3), 434–446. Struve, D., & Wandke, H. (2009). Video modeling for training older adults to use new technologies. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 2(1), Art. 4. Such, M. J., Barberà, R., Poveda, R., Belda-Lois, J.-M., Gómez, A., López, A., Cort, J. M., & Sánchez, M. (2006). The use of emotional design techniques in user oriented design of interfaces within a smart house environment: Case study. Technology and Disability, 18(4), 201–206. Sveistrup, H., Lockett, D., Edwards, N., & Aminzadeh, F. (2006). Evaluation of bath grab bar placement for older adults. Technology and Disability, 18(2), 45–55. Swallow, D., Petrie, H., Power, C. and D. N. Edwards, A. D. N. (2015). Using photo diaries to elicit user requirements from older adults: A case study on mobility barriers. In J. Abascal, S.  Barbosa, M.  Fetter, T.  Gross, P.  Palanque, & M.  Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Humancomputer interaction, Part I (INTERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9296, (pp. 147–164). Szymkowiak, A., Morrison, K,., Gregor, P., Inglis, E. A., Shah, P., Evans, J. J., & Wilson, B. A. (2006). A memory aid with remote communication: Preliminary findings. Technology and Disability, 17(4), 217–225. Tee, K., Bernheim Brush, A. J., & Inkpen, K. M. (2009). Exploring communication and sharing between extended families. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(2), 128–138. The, P.-L., Lim, W. M., Ahmed, P. K., Chan, A. H. S., Loo, J. M. Y., Cheong, S.-N., & Yap, W.-J. (2017). Does power posing affect gerontechnology adoption among older adults? Behaviour and Information Technology, 36(1), 33–42. Thomas, K. E. (2013). Investigation of age-differentiated spatial semantic elaboration strategies for communicating route instructions. Universal Access in the Information Society, 12(2), 175–190. Thomas, L., & Briggs, P. (2014). An older adult perspective on digital legacy. In V.  Roto, J. Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson & E. Hvannberg

182   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 237–246). Torun, M., van Kasteren, T., Incel, O. D., & Ersoy, C. (2012). Complexity versus page hierarchy of a GUI for elderly homecare applications. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 689–696). Trewin, S., Richards, J. T., Hanson, V. L., Sloan, D., John, B. E., Swart, C., & Thomas, J.  C. (2012). Understanding the role of age and fluid intelligence in information search. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 119–126). Tsai, H.-Y. S., Shillair, R. Cotten, S. R., Winstead, V., & Yost, E. (2015). Getting grandma online: Are tablets the answer for increasing digital inclusion for older adults in the U.S.? Educational Gerontology, 41(10), 695–709. Tsuji, A., Yabuno, N., Kuwahara, N., & Morimoto, K. (2014). The design and evaluation of the body water management system to support the independent living of the older adult. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 433–436). Turner, P., Turner, S., & van de Walle, G. (2007). How older people account for their experiences with interactive technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 26(4), 287–296. Uzor, S., Baillie, L., Skelton, D., & Fairlie, F. (2011). Identifying barriers to effective user interaction with rehabilitation tools in the home. In P. Campos, N. Graham, J. Jorge, N. Nunes, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction (INTERACT 2011). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6947 (pp. 36–43). Vacher, M., Caffiau, S., Portet, F., Meillon, B., Roux, C., Elias, E., . . . Chahuara, P. (2015). Evaluation of a context-aware voice interface for ambient assisted living: Qualitative user study vs. quantitative system evaluation. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 7(2), Art. 5. van den Heuvel, E., Jowitt, F., & McIntyre, A. (2012). Awareness, requirements and barriers to use of assistive technology designed to enable independence of people suffering from Dementia (ATD). Technology and Disability, 24(2), 139–148. van der Geest, T., van der Meij, H., & van Puffelen, C. (2014). Self-assessed and actual Internet skills of people with visual impairments. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13(2), 161–174. van der Heide, L. A., Willems, C. G., Spreeuwenberg, M. D., Rietman, J., & de Witte, L. P. (2012). Implementation of CareTV in care for the elderly: The effects on feelings of loneliness and safety and future challenges. Technology and Disability, 24(4), 283–291. van Volkom, M., Stapley, J. C., & Malter, J. (2013). Use and perception of technology: Sex and  generational differences in a community sample. Educational Gerontology, 39(10), 729–740. Vetere, F., Davis, H., Gibbs, M., & Howard, S. (2009). The Magic Box and Collage: Responding to the challenge of distributed intergenerational play. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 67(2), 165–178. Vines, J., Blythe, M., Dunphy, P., & Monk, A. (2011). Eighty something: Banking for the older old. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 64–73). Viswanathan, P., Little, J. L., Mackworth, A. K., & Mihailidis, A. (2011). Navigation and obstacle avoidance help (NOAH) for older adults with cognitive impairment: A pilot study. In Proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘11) (pp. 43–50).

Digital Technology for Older People   183 Volkmann, T., Sengpiel, M., & Jochems, N. (2016). Historytelling: A website for the elderly a human-centred design approach. In S. Björk, E. Eriksson, M. Fjeld, S. Bødker, W. Barendregt, & M. Obaid, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘16) (Art. 100). Vrkljan, B. H. (2011). Collaborative learning among older married couples: An exploratory study. Educational Gerontology, 37(2), 117–137. Vutborg, R., Kjeldskov, J., Pedell, S., & Vetere, F. (2010). Family storytelling for grandparents and grandchildren living apart. In E.  Hvannberg, M.  K.  Lárusdóttir, A.  Blandford & J. Gulliksen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘10) (pp. 531–540). Waara, N., & Risser, R. (2013). Exploring the influence of online traveller information services on the use of public transport by older people and people with functional limitations: A mixed methods approach. Technology and Disability, 25(1), 15–25. Walker, B. L., & Harrington, S. S. (2008). Computer-based instruction and the Web for delivering injury prevention training. Educational Gerontology, 34(8), 691–708. Wang, L., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Older adults’ acceptance of information technology. Educational Gerontology, 37(12), 1089–1099. Wang, L., Sato, H., Rau, P.-L. P., Fujimura, K., Gao, Q., & Asano, Y. (2008). Chinese text spacing on mobile phones for senior citizens. Educational Gerontology, 35(1), 77–90. Webster, G., Fels, D.  I., Gowans, G., & Hanson, V.  L. (2011). Portraits of individuals with dementia: Views of care managers. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 331–340). Webster, G., & Hanson, V. L. (2014). Technology for supporting care staff in residential homes. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 5(3), Art. 8. Werner, J. M., Carlson, M., Jordan-Marsh, M., & Clark, F. (2011). Predictors of computer use in community dwelling, ethnically diverse older adults. Human Factors, 53(5), 431–447. Wherton, J. P., & Monk, A. F. (2008). Technological opportunities for supporting people with dementia who are living at home. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(8), 571–586. Wilkinson, C., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, J. (2010). Observing learning and conceptual development through novel product interaction. In Proceedings of the 24th BCS interaction specialist group conference (BCS HCI ‘10) (pp. 328–336). Wilson, J., Curzon, P., & Duncker, E. (2015). Exploring older women’s confidence during route planning. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(7), 725–740. Wilson, M., Doyle, J., & McTaggart, G. (2015). Designing stress management interventions to older adults to improve wellbeing. In Proceedings of the 2015 British Human Computer Interaction Conference (British HCI 2015) (pp. 307–308). Wittenberg-Lyles, E., Parker Oliver, D. P., Demiris, G., & Shaunfield, S. (2012). Benefits and challenges of the passport broadcast intervention in long-term care. Educational Gerontology, 38(10), 691–698. Wittland, J., Brauner, P., & Ziefle, M. (2015). Serious games for cognitive training in ambient assisted living environments-a technology acceptance perspective. In J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Proceedings Human-computer interaction, Part I (INTERACT 2015). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9296, (pp. 453–471). Wockl, B., Wimmer, B., Yildizoglu, U., Leitner, M., & Tscheligi, M. (2011). “Accept” or “Decline”: Alternative options for video telephony tools for inter-generational family communication. In Proceedings of the 25th international BCS human computer interaction conference (BCS HCI ‘11) (pp. 253–258).

184   Helen Petrie and Jenny S. Darzentas Wockl, B., Yildizoglu, U., Buber, I., Diaz, B. A., Kruijff, E., & Tscheligi, M. (2012). Basic senior personas: A representation design tool covering the spectrum of European older adults. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility (ASSETS ‘12) (pp. 25–32). Wolters, M., Georgila, K., Moore, J. D., & MacPherson, S. E. (2009). Being old doesn’t mean acting old: How older users interact with spoken dialog systems. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 2(1), Art. 2. Wood, E., Lanuza, C., Baciu, I., MacKenzie, M., & Nosko, A. (2010). Instructional styles, attitudes and experiences of seniors in computer workshops. Educational Gerontology, 36(10–11), 834–857. Wood, J. M., Tyrrell, R. A., & Carberry, T. P. (2005). Limitations in drivers’ ability to recognize pedestrians at night. Human Factors, 47, 644–653. Wulf, L., Garschall, N., Himmersbach, H., & Tscheligi, M. (2014). Hands free-care free: Elderly people taking advantage of speech-only interaction. In V.  Roto, J.  Häkkilä, Lárusdóttir, K. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, O. Juhlin, T. Olsson & E. Hvannberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘14) (pp. 203–206). Wulf, L., Garschall,  M., Klein,  M., & Tscheligi,  M. (2014). The influence of age and device orientation on the performance of touch gestures. In Proceedings of 14th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘14) (pp. 583–590). Xie, B. (2007). Information technology education for older adults as a continuing peer-learning process: A Chinese case study. Educational Gerontology, 33(5), 429–450. Xie, B., Druin, A., Fails, J., Massey, S., Golub, E., Franckel, S., & Schneider, K. (2012). Connecting generations: Developing co-design methods for older adults and children. Behaviour and Information Technology, 31(4), 413–423. Xie, B., Watkins, I., Golbecka, J., & Huanga, M. (2012). Understanding and changing older adults’ perceptions and learning of social media. Educational Gerontology, 38(4), 282–296. Xu, Q., Ng, J. S. L., Tan, O. Y., & Huang, Z. (2015). Needs and attitudes of Singaporeans towards home service robots: A multi-generational perspective. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(4), 477–486. Yancura, L. A. (2013). How to make reminiscence movies: A project-based gerontology course. Educational Gerontology, 39(11), 828–839. Yanguas, J. J., Buiza, C., Etxeberria, I., Galdona, N., Gonzalez, M. F., & Urdaneta, E. (2006). A randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of cognitive intervention on elderly people and on patients with Alzheimer’s disease. In Proceedings of 10th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘06) (pp. 759–765). Zakraoui, J., & Zagler, W. (2012). A method for generating CSS to improve web accessibility for old users. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 329–336). Zaphiris, P., & Sarwar, R. (2006). Trends, similarities, and differences in the usage of teen and senior public online newsgroups. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13(3), 403–422. Zhang, B., Lau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Design and evaluation of smart home user interface: Effects of age, tasks and intelligence level. Behaviour and Information Technology, 28(3), 239–249. Zhang, C., Tian, Y., & Capezuti, E. (2012). Privacy preserving automatic fall detection for elderly using RGBD Cameras. In Proceedings of 13th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘12) (pp. 625–633).

Digital Technology for Older People   185 Zheng, R., Spears, J., Luptak, M., & Wilby, F. (2015). Understanding older adults’ perceptions of Internet use: An exploratory factor analysis. Educational Gerontology, 41(7), 504–518. Zhou, J., Rau, P.-L.  P., & Salvendy, G. (2014). Age-related difference in the use of mobile phones. Universal Access in the Information Society, 13(4), 401–413. Zhou, J., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2014). Older adults’ use of smart phones: An investigation of the factors influencing the acceptance of new functions. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(6), 552–560. Ziefle, M., & Bay, S. (2005). How older adults meet complexity: Aging effects on the usability of different mobile phones. Behaviour and Information Technology, 24(5), 375–389. Ziefle, M., & Bay, S. (2006). How to overcome disorientation in mobile phone menus: A comparison of two different types of navigation aids. Human-Computer Interaction, 21, 393–433. Ziefle, M., Pappachan, P., Jakobs, E. M., & Wallentowitz, H. (2008). Visual and auditory interfaces of advanced driver assistant systems for older drivers. In Proceedings of 11th international conference on computers helping people with special needs (ICCHP ‘08) (pp. 62–69). Ziefle, M., Schroeder, U., Strenk, J., & Michel, T. (2007). How younger and older adults master the usage of hyperlinks in small screen devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2006) (pp. 307–316).

chapter 7

A Digita l N exus Sustainable HCI and Domestic Resource Consumption Nicola Green, Rob Comber, and Sharron Kuznesof

Introduction: Digital Systems and Natural Resources At the beginning of the twenty-first century, human beings are facing a range of global and globalizing shifts in social organization that bring technologies, societies, and cultures into complex tension with each other. Nowhere is this more so than in the shifts wrought by the development of digital technologies towards extensive social change. In the second decade of the 21st century, we have also seen the emergence of what is now commonly referred to as “ubiquitous computing,” or the “Internet of Things,” where alongside various forms of automation, “smart” technologies have emerged to be deployed at different scales, whether that is at the level of the urban land/city-scape, the workplace, or the dwelling (as several chapters in this Handbook emphasize). While the technological imaginaries of the late 1990s had already identified the possibilities associated with, for example, “smart homes” (Harper, 2003), developments since have seen urban environments becoming ever more deeply imbricated with the material infrastructures of the digital, and the data-mediated social and cultural relations those infrastructures support. Here then, urban domestic dwelling spaces and places have received increasing attention as crucial units of analysis for the understanding of potential technologically mediated futures and the ways they might shape our ways of being in a dig­ital age. At the same time, we have simultaneously seen challenges that pose fundamental questions about the continued prosperity (or security, or in some cases even survival) of humankind and our technological, economic, political, social, and cultural futures. Not least of these challenges are those posed by both climate change, and a related and

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   187 ongoing large-scale depletion or waste of increasingly scarce natural resources. These challenges are global (indeed also planetary) in nature, and are expressed over multiple scales of human social life—from the practices and relations of the everyday, to the or­gan­i­za­tion of communities, cities and regions, to large-scale technical, economic, and political systems at national and international levels. It would be something of an understatement to remark that these are not inconsiderable environmental challenges for global humanity to be facing.

Where Digital Development Meets Environmental Crisis Given these two widespread and significant sets of rapid social change, this chapter considers the ways that humanity’s digital and environmental futures are becoming intertwined, and how each domain is implicated in shaping the economic, cultural, and politically mediated futures of the other: that is, a complex digital nexus. Whilst the natural resources that human beings exploit are innumerable, the most fundamental of these are those that are crucial for the sustenance of human life itself: The availability of, and access to, Water, Energy, and Food (WEF). The ways that human beings exploit (or use, or consume, or transform) these crucial WEF resources are, of course, variable, and are considerably differentiated across globally interconnected societies, depending on a range of variables such as: Historical systems of economic development, the deployment of technical systems at different scales, the politics of colonization and globalization, and the social and cultural values and norms that define the relationships between “natures” and “cultures.” At the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, further factors are increasingly coming into play. Two of the most important of these are population growth and urbanization. On the one hand, pressures are increasing on the planetary WEF resource base attributable to the simple calculation of global population growth (Maheshwari et.al., 2014). The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) currently estimates the global population at around 7.6 billion, with a projection to 2030 of 8.6 billion, including “roughly 83 million being added to the world’s population every year” (UNDESA, 2017a). Of those 7.6 billion around the world, 665 million have no access to clean drinking water, 795 million are undernourished or malnourished, 1.4 billion have no access to electricity, and 2.4 billion have no access to basic sanitation services (UNDESA, 2017b). While the implications of such growth for the environment have been apparent for quite some time, studies in recent years have highlighted population growth as an increasingly pressing challenge in relation to current global economic and political organizations of resource capture, distribution and use. On the other hand, populations are not only growing, they are also simultaneously and progressively urbanizing. The United Nations (2018) estimates that 55% of the world’s population currently live in urban areas, and project that this figure will reach 68% by 2050. This means that cities, and the organization of them, are becoming an ever-more critical locus of resource deployment and consumption—and are therefore vital sites of

188   Nicola Green ET AL. evaluation for those processes (Colucci et al., 2017). The dwelling places of contemporary cities—and their progressive digitization—have therefore simultaneously become an important focus for the investigation of contemporary resource consumption, and have become crucial spaces to explore in-depth in any consideration of the digitally supported sustainability of resource use. The focus on dwelling places therefore simultaneously draws attention to the role households play in processes of consumption more broadly (Burgess et al., 2003).

A Nexus of Relationships Alongside the critical role of the expansion of growing urban concentrations in relation to population growth, attention has at the same time further been drawn to the relationships between the core WEF resources themselves in a nexus of interdependencies (Abdul Salam et al., 2017; Bhaduri et al., 2015). This nexus thinking has been largely framed by the notion of a WEF nexus (or multiple nexii) of resources—the ways in which any shifts or perturbations in the availability, process, distribution or consumption of one WEF resource system will have a “tipping point” into “ripple effects” on the sociotechnical systems organizing the exploitation, deployment and consumption of the other resources (Beddington, 2009; McGrane et al., 2018; Smajgl et al., 2016), with widespread social implications. The focus of this chapter is therefore to review environmental social science and human-computer interaction (HCI) research on the ways in which digital systems can potentially intervene in urban domestic spaces to investigate, analyses and understand household WEF resource consumption, and design digital infrastructures to mitigate against unsustainable consumption.

Chapter Overview Towards this more general goal, the chapter outlines social research-based responses to the environmental challenges presented by population growth, urbanization and climate change, and their effects on the consumption of related WEF resources. We begin our review of research in The Development of Sustainable HCI by introducing the concept and (inter)disciplines of “Sustainable HCI” (Human-Computer Interaction). Here we highlight the interplay of social research and digital design disciplines, and the goals articulated by strands of Sustainable HCI research towards resource minimization in sustainable digital design, and persuasion towards sustainability in consumption via digital systems. The chapter then goes on to consider the various strands of theory that have informed the conceptual development of Sustainable HCI over time, how those various theoretical frameworks have been employed in empirical investigations of WEF resource use, and their implications for digital systems in general and sustainable HCI in particular.

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   189 Accordingly, the section Investigating Physical Resource Use addresses those studies that have attempted to represent the human activities that consume WEF resources across different social domains, and the systems, organizations, and interactions involved— from large-scale systems of resource distribution and consumption, to a range of microlandscapes of resource use (including studies employing digital technologies to such ends). In the following section, Investigating Rational Choice and Behaviour Change, we then review those studies that have used theories of behaviour and cognition to analyses what people do with physical resources in the process of consumption, and under what conditions. A particular concern here is to examine those research designs that are concerned with the possibilities for behavioral influence and social change towards more sustainable resource relationships. We then turn to a review of those projects that have attempted to operationalize concepts such as Attitudes, Values and Lifestyles in the pursuit of understanding the social aspects of resource consumption that can then be used to guide the design, development and implementation of digital systems towards various dimensions of sustainability. In the final section, Investigating Practices and Networks, we go on to consider how theories of practices and networks have been deployed at different scales to both understand the dynamics of resource use, and to identify potential levers for “doing things differently” with and through digital systems. Table 7.1 summarizes the approaches, key concepts, methodologies, and emphases in studies associated with each section.

The Development of Sustainable HCI One of the main contemporary developments in the investigation of the intersections of digital systems and resource use is the development of approaches in “Sustainable HCI.” Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is itself a broadly interdisciplinary field, focusing as it does on the interaction of humans with computing objects and environments, and encompassing (inter)disciplinary perspectives from computer sciences and engineering, alongside interdisciplinary social sciences, and design disciplines. In “Sustainable HCI” (sometimes “Environmental HCI”) (Hee-Jeong Choi & Blevis, 2010; DiSalvo et al., 2010), understanding humans’ interaction with digital technologies—their objects and infrastructures—and the development of novel digital technologies, has been brought together with a concern to address current and future environmental challenges. HCI approaches to human-digital relations are focussed at the “interface” between computing systems and their human “users,” and involve both understanding the relationship between them (given the contexts of their interactions), and planning design interventions for the development of alternative or improved digital systems. Based on critical design studies, Blevis (2007, p. 503) argues that an important dimension of Sustainable HCI is the efforts by technology designers to build sustainability into both material and data-based computing products—including in their “invention, disposal, renewal and reuse.” Mankoff et al. (2007) characterize this position as advocating

Table 7.1  Summary of Approaches, Key Concepts, Methodologies, and Studies in Each Section Chapter sections

Approaches

Key concepts

Methodologies

Studies

Introduction

Climate change Population growth Urbanization

Defining a resource nexus Tipping points and ripple effects

 

Household-focussed

Sustainable HCI

Human–computer interaction

Sustainability in and through design Pervasiveness and persuasion Sustainable interaction design Revisioning consumption Citizen sensing

Measurement Intervention

Digital feedback systems Displays Applications Interventions

Physical resource use

Infrastructure measurement

Empirical studies of physical resources

Provider-supplied aggregate system statistics Scaled real-time and phase-time measurement of WEF infrastructures and appliances Surveys Interviews

Digital measurement systems Interventions

Rational choice and behaviour change

Behavioral psychology Cognitive and social psychology

Individual action Cognition Agency

(including online) Surveys Structured and semi-structured interviews Observation

(including online) Individually focussed Single-resource focussed Aggregate digital measurement of resource use Aggregate survey responses Individual qualitative responses

Attitudes, values, and lifestyles

Cognitive and social psychology Environmental sociology Cultural sociology Phenomenology

Norms Values Attitudes Knowledge Structure-agency

Surveys Structured and semi-structured interviews Focus groups Observation Visual methods

Individual and group-focussed Aggregate survey measurement of norms, values, attitudes Individually narrated lifestyles and consumption patterns

Practices and networks

Environmental, political, and cultural sociology Socio-technical networks Actor-network theory

Habits and routines Material infrastructures Knowledge-meaning-action competencies Human and non-human (digital) agencies

(including online) Observation Ethnography Semi-structured interviews Visual, virtual, and sensory methods Participatory methods

Practice focussed (doing) across social scales Nexus of systems, things, thinking, doing, and meaning Negotiation of social complexity

Revisiting sustainable HCI

Extensively interdisciplinary approaches Computing-based Design-based Social science-based

Digital information transformation Influence

(including online) Participatory methods Design-based methods Interventions Ethnography Semi-structured interviews Visual, virtual, and sensory methods

(including online) Digital feedback systems Displays Applications Social media Interventions Workshops Games Negotiation of digitalenvironmental-social complexity across scales

192   Nicola Green ET AL. “sustainability in design” (reducing the resource intensity of computing systems), to which they add an orientation towards interaction in “sustainability through design”— designing digital media technologies to influence broad socio-cultural trends towards sustainability. According to DiSalvo et al., these two broad-based characterizations of the field of Sustainable HCI have since produced a proliferation of HCI sub-specialties in both pervasive (in design) and persuasive (through design) computing systems oriented towards sustainability. Woodruff and Mankoff (2009) summarizes the combination of these approaches as the “core challenges” of Sustainable HCI, “including monitoring the state of the physical world; managing the direct and indirect impacts of large-scale human enterprises such as agriculture, transport, and manufacturing; and informing individuals’ personal choices in consumption and behavior” (DiSalvo et al., 2010, p. 1976). Drawing on Goodman’s (2009) characterization of Sustainable HCI into three broad discursive and empirical clusters of environment-digital understandings—including “sustainable interaction design,” “revisioning consumption,” and “citizen sensing”—DiSalvo et al. (2010) further extend an evaluation of the relevant research literature to identify multiple sub-specialties in Sustainable HCI that both relate to, and challenge, each other—and in doing so they provide an excellent critical map of this extensive field. In the following sections then, the chapter reviews the empirical research in HCI and environmental social sciences that has variously addressed questions relating to human interaction with both digital technologies and resources in the consumption spaces of urban domestic dwellings. From mapping physical systems and infrastructures via dig­ital means, to considering the factors that affect human interaction with and transformation or consumption of both natural resources and digital systems in the home, the chapter aims to summarize the contemporary state of play in relevant research, and to indicate directions for development in sustainable digital design.

Investigating Physical Resource Use There is no doubt that environmental systems are broadly grounded in long-term proc­esses of industrialization (now extended to digitization), and systems of market capitalism. These technical developments and economic shifts inevitably altered human relationships with their environments—in the case of resources, the technically and economically mediated means through which people access, use, exploit or consume the resources of the natural world. On the one hand this promotes a logic of technocratic rationality, placing faith in technology to guarantee the wide-ranging and efficient exploitation of resources. At the same time, emerging digital technologies offer the potential to “map,” to a fine-grained level, the systems through which resources are distributed, circulated, and consumed, and therefore contribute to understandings of (and potential interventions in) un/sustainable socio-cultural practices.

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   193 In the investigation of WEF relationships, natural science and engineering disciplines tend to focus on the quantitative measurement of extant and available physical resources (and the modelling and visualization of available macro-scale national and international data pertaining to such via digital systems). Such data may then be used by social research that focuses on the human exploitation, organization, distribution and gov­ern­ ance of such resources via economic and technical (especially urban) infrastructures that make the harvest, supply, delivery and circulation of resources possible (Kalbar et al., 2016, 2018; McGrane et al., 2018). Relevant empirical examples may be derived from a number of sources,1 such as utility companies’ annual supply and distribution reporting, analyzed with respect to official population demographics (such as those from the Office for National Statistics) derived via digitally generated data. In the case of water, for example, Ofwat (the independent UK Water Services Regulation Authority) requires water utility companies to measure (via aggregate—both analogue and digital—water flow distribution meters) and report the cubic metric distribution of water to households and non-households (business and industry), as well as accounting for waste (leakages) and operational usage (Ofwat, 2018). Similar national-level statistics, often generated via the deployment of digital metering systems, are available via various government departments and agencies, such as (in the UK) the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (DBEIS; for example, see their Energy Use in the UK, 2018a; Digest of UK Energy Statistics, 2018b) reporting on energy use—households comprise 28% of total UK energy consumption (DBEIS, 2018a)—or various aggregate-level food statistics from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Environment Agency, and the Food Standards Agency (FSA). Digital systems, of course, support the collection, processing, and analysis of such data. But whereas the foregoing research attempts to map physical resource consumption at the level of entire populations, digital developments situated in HCI often instead turn to the innovation of digital systems to map such relationships at a more finegrained scale. Drawing on approaches where the focus is “sustainability in design,” a prominent approach is the design of urban household sensor-based information systems that are capable of collecting and managing data on local natural resource use. In the domestic sphere, the ecosystems comprise the spaces of the built environments that are inhabited, and the distribution and circulation of natural resources within (and beyond) them. The intent in such digital systems, then, is the quantitative measurement of resource use or consumption within dwellings in order to be able to understand how, where, and when resource consumption is taking place. Such measurements can be both aggregated (for example, measuring total energy use within the dwelling via “smart” [digitally based] metering), and/or disaggregated (such as sensor systems to measure energy or water use down to the appliance level, or for different daily or seasonal periods, or even in comparison to comparable neighborhoods or areas). The measurement of domestic energy consumption (typically including domestic electricity and gas use) has been one of the most extensively researched areas of ­digital technology design, deployment, and evaluation within the domestic sphere.

194   Nicola Green ET AL. Examples in product and critical design could include advances in the design of ­sensor-based measurement systems to accurately measure consumption, such as Wood and Newborough’s (2003) development of indicators for (disaggregated) appliance consumption of energy. They could also include the development of interactive visualizations to represent such consumption (Costanza et al.,2012). Other salient examples might include designs for water measurement, such as Srinivasan et al.’s (2011) motion-sensor-based disaggregated water flow measurement system, or Arroyo et al.’s (2005) development of the “Waterbot,” measuring water flow, use, and waste at the interface of the sink. Waterbot not only measured water flow, but also developed visualization and display technologies (located at the sink) intended to feedback information on resource consumption to its human inter-actors (see also Kuznetsov & Paulos, 2010). Pierce, Odom and Blevis (2008) provide a useful critical overview of interaction design for eco-visualization in general, and Casado-Mansilla et al. (2016, p. 1695) extend such a discussion into “eco-aware systems within everyday things” to provide user feedback toward awareness and understanding. Such feedback systems are largely informational, and as such they assume a rational and decision-making human subject for their interpretation, and the ability to act on that information and the interpretation of it. However, such digital systems (and the design of them) are also sometimes significantly oriented towards persuasion and “behaviour change”: As such, the design, deployment and use of persuasive digital systems is much-debated in the Sustainable HCI literatures. In the following section we therefore consider those studies that have deployed theories of cognition and behaviour to not only analyze what people do with the physical WEF resources available to them in their domestic environments (and beyond), but also whether innovative digital systems might be designed and developed to persuade consumers of the need for (or desirability of) change, or influence behaviour towards more sustainable practices of resource use within the domestic sphere.

Investigating Rational Choice and Behavior Change The physical resources and distribution systems outlined earlier that are “mapped” at the macro-scale tend to be grounded in a technocratic rationality derived from the proc­ess of industrialization. Simultaneously, however, environmental relations are also embedded in global systems of market capitalism, and the assumptions that underpin them—such as the ever-expanding growth of markets (for thorough analysis and critique, see Callon,  1998; Granovetter,  1985; Polanyi,  1944/1957). Such macro-level economic analyses have, however, received extensive criticism for their generally reductionist (and sometimes determinist) tendencies. Given the limitations of such approaches for understanding, for example, everyday lived experiences and interactions, or collective

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   195 or organizational processes, others have turned their focus to other scales of human life—such as individual human beings and their behaviours in social context.2 There are a number of accounts of nature-people relationships that have derived their approaches from the discipline of social psychology in general, and environmental social psychology more specifically. The focus of these approaches is to understand and explain the ways that individuals encounter and experience WEF resources in their everyday lives, and, most importantly, what they do with them. Here the focus shifts to the position of the individuals as sovereign agents within such structures as economic decision makers, exercising rational choice and acting in self-interest with respect to both the production and consumption of goods and services within markets (Barr et al., 2011b). With respect to the uses of WEF resources then, individuals are positioned predominantly as consumers, and the aggregate outcomes of individuals’ rational judgements in consumption are assumed to maximize the efficiencies of resource supply and demand, and guarantee rational resource distribution. Alongside the more micro-scale investigations of digital systems mapping resource use in domestic spaces then, there are a range of projects that attempt to simultaneously outline individual (or household) environmentally focussed behaviour, especially where consumption is a matter of the intersections between economic decision making or behaviour, and those activities concerned with resource use (Advani et al.,  2013; Chitnis et al., 2013, 2014; Druckman et al., 2011; Ofwat, 2011; Oikonomou et al., 2009). If the concept of rational action positions the individual as a pre-eminent economic social actor, further approaches in environmental psychology extend the conceptualization of human action from the exclusively economic, to other social realms. The focus here is again on what individuals do, rather than who they are or what they experience. Other projects therefore focus towards more extensive behavioral dimensions of resource use itself. In these types of quantitative studies, digital and online research tools become particularly important, demonstrating the increasing importance of Internetbased digital systems for the investigation of household water-energy consumption. For example, the studies by the Energy Saving Trust (2013) characterizing the self-reported water (and energy) behaviours of 86 thousand households across the UK, are based on their online water-energy calculator (see also Energy Saving Trust 2014; Kenway et al., 2011). Similar larger-scale surveys in water analyze self-reported behaviours amongst smaller and regional population samples—for example, see Pullinger et al. (2013), for an analysis of behavioral water data derived from 997 questionnaire respondents using computer-assisted personal interviews. In energy, Palmer and Terry’s (2014) Powering the nation is based on the Household Electricity Survey, consisting of self-reported and retrospective behaviours of a sample of 250 UK households (another example of methodology using computer-assisted personal interviews), alongside extensive digital energy consumption monitoring down to appliance level. There are now also a significant number of larger-scale surveys of food behaviour. The UK Food and You survey, for example, provides a broad-based snapshot of the United Kingdom’s food provisioning, preserving, cooking, eating, and waste behaviors in a self-reported representative questionnaire survey of 3,453 respondents

196   Nicola Green ET AL. (Food Standards Agency, 2014a, 2014b). Similarly, the Waste and Resources Action Program (WRAP) provides aggregate statistics on food waste, including that at the household level (WRAP, 2017). It is within this broadly environmental social science research milieu that Sustainable HCI is located, and where the broad question of potential digital interventions towards sustainable behaviour might take place. According to the APA (2018) “behaviours” are defined as “an organism’s activities in response to external or internal stimuli, including objectively observable activities, introspectively observable activities, . . . and nonconscious processes.” In the case of WEF resource use, attention is therefore paid to those behaviours directly related to environmental (causes and) effects. According to Stern (2000, p. 408), this “environmentally significant behaviour” is that which can  . . . reasonably be defined by its impact: the extent to which it changes the availability of materials or energy from the environment or alters the structure and dynamics of ecosystems or the biosphere itself . . . Some behavior, such as clearing forest or disposing of household waste, directly or proximally causes environmental change . . . Other behavior is environmentally significant indirectly, by shaping the context in which choices are made that directly cause environmental change . . . For example, behaviors that affect international development policies, commodity prices on world markets, and national environmental and tax policies can have greater environmental impact indirectly than behaviors that directly change the environment.

Stern goes on to note that the environmental impacts listed have historically been byproducts of activities aimed at the fulfilment of “human desires” (and the creation of technologies and organizations to achieve them) rather than the straightforward sustenance of human life itself (Stern, 2000, p. 408: emphasis added). By conceptualizing environmentally significant behaviours as the product of human “desires” rather than of “needs,” the approach therefore opens discursive space to invoke the possibility for change in human behaviour with respect to the environment via social interventions, including via digital interventions. The interventions proposed therefore tend towards persuasion of one kind or another. If rational individuals can be convinced that maximizing their self-interests can be aligned with a collective interest in maximizing resource use without damaging the sources of those resources (which will also therefore maximize future self-interests), then changes to individual behaviour will “naturally” result as a consequence of rational cognitive processes.3 Indeed, it is the design, development and evaluation of digital feedback systems toward persuasion—whether aggregated or disaggregated—that are most extensively found in the Sustainable HCI literature. That is, they include not only the measurement of resource use to understand its dynamics, but also to represent that use and convey that information to users in order to persuade them towards resource conservation— “sustainability through design” in “eco-feedback” systems (Froehlich et al., 2010). Studies explicitly focussed on the creation of interventions for behaviour change tend to be directed towards the interactional design of their feedback components in terms of

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   197 communication, clarity, and goals, and the evaluation of the effectivity of such systems with respect to both human interactions with digital technologies, and/or concomitant impacts in the form of observable changes in users’ behaviours towards sustainability (Fischer, 2008; Vassileva et al., 2013). As is the case with studies of resource consumption in the social sciences more generally, however, examples of intervention and persuasion here are often focussed on a single resource—most commonly with respect to either energy (Bang et al.,  2007; Bonino et al., 2012; Froehlich, 2009; Gamberini et al., 2012; Oliveira et al., 2016; Riche et al., 2010; see Hazas et al., 2011 for a useful review), or water (Erikson et al., 2012; Froehlich et al., 2012; Kappel & Grechenig, 2009; Liu et al., 2015). Novel approaches to domestic practices concerned with digital interaction design in food provisioning, preservation, preparation and food waste have only more recently emerged in the Sustainable HCI research base. Notable examples include understanding food consumption lifecycles using wearable cameras (Ng et al., 2015), or “the pervasive fridge,” a fridge-based digital system mitigating against food waste (Rouillard,  2012) (see also Farr-Wharton et al., 2014a, 2014b on the use of “fridge-cams” for similar purposes). Murtagh et al. (2014) remark that a range of studies have tended to confirm the view that resource usage feedback technologies—for example, In-Home Displays (IHDs)— can make some (at least marginal) difference in resource demand reduction. They point out, however, that there is considerable heterogeneity amongst individuals and households, and their own project on energy use indicated that whilst located feedback appears to be of immediate utility in persuasion towards changes in behaviour, its effectiveness diminishes over time and is largely secondary to attempts at conservation or persuasion “situated in wider social and physical contexts” (Murtagh et al., 2014, p. 1). Others tend to concur (Burchell et al, 2016; Boucher et al., 2012; Foster et al., 2010; Tirado Herrero et al.,  2018), with some claiming that intentional HCI interventions towards persuading individuals are at least relatively limited in their effectiveness, and at most such interventions themselves “narrow our visions of sustainability” (Brynjarsdottir et al., 2012, p. 947). DiSalvo et al. (2010a), in their critical review of sustainable HCI, acknowledge that while there is diversity in design among the digital systems developed to persuade—from ambient awareness systems that seek to provide information for knowledge and understanding, to systems that seek to change both thinking and action—their premises are often problematic. On the one hand, they can render aspects of environments and the consumption of resources visible. On the other hand, they might attempt, with various degrees of intent, to influence users to behave in ways deemed “more sustainable.” As DiSalvo et al. (2010a, p. 22) point out, this involves specific value judgements about what constitutes “sustainable behaviour,” and as such are also politically inflected (even ideologically aligned) positions: Most persuasive technologies imply that users engage in problematic behaviors and should be directed toward more desirable ones. In many scenarios, persuasion begins to border on coercion, sometimes even evoking Skinnerian behaviour modification . . . Questions of “the user” quickly become issues of expertise and

198   Nicola Green ET AL. he­gem­ony. If we agree that fundamental change is needed and it might be change that users don’t want, who gets to decide what change should happen and how? Whose needs are met, and whose values matter?  (DiSalvo et al., 2010a, p. 23).

Such approaches have therefore attracted critique on the basis that they are both reductionist (to the level of the individual and their actions), and deterministic (to largely isolated causes and effects; (Barr et al., 2011a). In response, other psychologically oriented approaches have therefore added some level of nuance, acknowledging that more than a single factor might be involved in any behaviour change: Various and multiple individual motivations, as well as collective altruistic motivations, might simultaneously qualify as “self-interest.” Moreover, seemingly contradictory choices between competing individual and collective motivations might also qualify as “rational”—as some have argued, “choice matters” (Murtagh et al., 2015; Uzzell et al., 2006). The focus on behaviour change is certainly not limited to the HCI exploration of resource-conservation behaviours, and there is a wide range of social science studies more broadly that also take individuals and/or their behaviours as the starting point for investigating resource consumption. These include studies, both within HCI and beyond, that have attempted to capture wider aspects of environmental practice such as attitudes, values, and lifestyles.

Investigating Attitudes, Values, and Lifestyles By way of contrast to approaches that focus largely on “behaviour” and its change, more sociologically oriented approaches focus on units of analysis between the socialpsychological and sociological via concepts such as attitudes with respect to norms, and further acknowledge the additional intervening roles of values or situation with respect to the intention-behaviour relationship (Barr, 2003; Barr, 2006). Further research has also invoked more extensive categories that could act as intervening factors in the formation of values as they relate to environmental behaviours: including, for example, (both individual and collective) identities (Evans, 2011b; Gatersleben et al., 2014), and cross-cultural politics (Katz-Gerro et al., 2017). One important and extensively debated concept in recent years has related to the formulation and deployment of a meta-category labelled lifestyles in an attempt to link the psychologically and individualistically oriented concerns described by behavioral and cognitive processes with wider socio-cultural concerns that account for values, but which also recognize the interplay between individuals and the extensive and diverse social and cultural collectivities (at various scales) of which they are a part. Some researchers have, for example, advocated attempts to formulate a broadly conceived typology of “lifestyle groups” based on, for example, “environmental values and concern,”

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   199 “socio-demographic variables,” and “psychological factors” (Barr & Gilg,  2006; Gilg et al., 2005). Many of these have also been explicitly oriented towards describing a home or household as engaged in lifestyles, rather than focusing at the level of the individual or behaviour per se (Barr & Gilg, 2006; for reviews across frameworks see Barr, 2016; Evans & Abrahamse, 2009). As Evans and Abrahamse (2009) point out however, the historic influence of policy shifts and their orientation towards persuasion has also meant that the discourse of “sustainable lifestyles” has become ever-more ubiquitous, but also therefore ever-more politically inflected. Instead, in nearly every case where “sustainable lifestyles” are invoked, the analysis reverts almost immediately to a consideration of “sustainable consumption” as definitive of lifestyles (Barr et al., 2011a; Connolly & Prothero, 2008: Evans,  2011a; Hobson,  2002; Shove & Warde,  2002; Spaargaren,  2003; Spaargaren & Oosterveer, 2010; Spaargaren & Van Vliet, 2000). Hobson (2002), for example, explores the relationship between the pro-environmental meanings of consumption and values relating to social justice, arguing that rationalized formulations of “sustainable consumption” carry little cultural meaning, and are therefore unable to address collective social concerns. Seyfang (2006) addresses similar themes with respect to the intersection of “sustainable consumption” and the concept of “ecological citizenship.”4 One response to some of this complexity has been the more extensive development of mixed methods approaches to understand resource consumption in the domestic sphere. Pullinger et al. (2013), for example, extend behavioral questionnaires to a subsample of qualitative interviews to further explore the combination of factors that might contribute to environmentally aware action and interaction concerning water use. Still others have turned entirely to a range of qualitative methods (such as interviews, focus groups, or diaries, amongst other methods) to explore dimensions of behaviour that concern knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values and lifestyles (including aspirations and assumptions). Some explore these issues with respect to a range of environmental issues of concern to individuals and households (e.g., Barr, 2006; Barr & Gilg, 2006), whereas others turn their attention to resource consumption—and specific resources—in particular (Owen et al., 2009; Wutich, 2009). In this broad context, the responses of research in Sustainable HCI have also included the methodological as well as the analytic, with the development of mixed methods projects that attempt to capture some of these multiple dimensions of human actions and interactions with computing and the digital, as they pertain to domestic resource consumption. Given that the focus of HCI has historically been concerned with the interaction between digital systems and their users, the challenges for Sustainable HCI here include ways to capture the multidimensionality of material action and interaction alongside dimensions of practice that remain “unobservable.” Some HCI studies have therefore turned to alternative frameworks to explore the relationship between home inhabitants and embedded resources via digital technologies more extensively. Schwartz et al. (2013), for example, extend behavioral or cognitive approaches to consider explicitly phenomenological and ethnomethodological aspects of interaction with energy—rendering it visible, perceptible, and therefore

200   Nicola Green ET AL. “accountable” via “ordering structures”—thereby capturing both the observable, and the implicit. This shift in focus allows them to examine observable situated practices at the microcosmic scale—the connections between thinking, being, and doing. This widening of topics within the sustainabilities literature has allowed both social science practitioners, and HCI designers, to focus their research approaches on combinations of methods that are specifically based on theories of those practices. Furthermore, in all of these debates, the concept of agency becomes particularly important—and agency of different types, from humans to (digital) non-humans, and from the individual to collectivities such as digital systems. Some, for example, have evolved “ideal-typical” typologies to characterize “environmental agency” (Spaargaren & Oostvesteer, 2010). According to this argument, even at the everyday level of the household, forms of environmental agency are at the same time also necessarily mediated by the technologies, objects, and infrastructures of consumption practices (or­gan­ized by “distant others”), in different modes of appropriation and provision—including digital systems (see also van Vliet et al., 2005). They argue that attention to both (distributed) human practices and non-human (especially digital) interventions are crucial. To these ends, a substantial body of environmental social sciences literatures has turned to theories of human practices in order to fully explore how human-environment relations are embedded in multiple networks of action, interaction, knowledge, meaning, or­gan­i­za­tion, and power at different scales of social life.

Investigating Practices and Networks Theories of practices have therefore become ever-more-extensively substantial and influential in Sustainable HCI over the past two decades. Adopted from approaches in environmental social sciences more broadly, these frameworks have been largely developed from Bourdieu’s theories of “habitus,” “capital,” and “field” and Giddens’ theories of “agency,” “system,” and “structure.”5 Practice theories take earlier notions of “behaviour” as central—in the sense that it is doing that is a key unit of analysis—but conceptualize those “doings” in more complex ways than cause-effect models would have us believe. As Spaargaren (2011, p. 815) argues with respect to Bourdieu and Giddens, [w]hat is recognized as being of lasting value in their work is the understanding of  social life as a series of recursive practices reproduced by knowledgeable and capable agents who are drawing upon sets of virtual rules and resources which are connected to situated social practices. Agents are involved in the reproduction of series of practices within designated fields of social life by drawing upon the specific sets of rules and resources constitutive for those practices. Because of the emphasis on practices as “shared behavioural routines,” the individual is no longer in the center of the analysis. Practices, instead of individuals, become the units of analysis that matter most. Practices “produce” and co-constitute individuals and their values, knowledge and capabilities, and not the other way around.

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   201 Crucially, practice theories attempt to bridge the structure-agency dualism, connecting the micro- and macro-sociological contexts—agency as performed, powers as enacted, and interests as actively pursued (Spaargaren, 2011). One of the important points here is therefore that “practices” can be conceived at different scales of production and reproduction—everyday habits are reproduced through practices (the “social or­gan­i­za­tion of normality”; Shove, 2003), but so are markets—consumption routines are reproduced through practices, but so are structures of governance. It is not far from this observation to extend to a focus on context—to observe that practices are always “situated” in networks of relationship between people and their material and socio-cultural contexts (Hui & Walker, 2018). In the domain of resource-human relations then, “the most vigorous application of practice theoretical repertoires . . . may be found in the interstices between technologies, utilities, resource consumption and the problematic of sustainability” (Halkier, Katz-Gerro, & Martens, 2011, p. 5). A number of contemporary researchers have incorporated such positions and integrated them into practice research on contemporary environmental politics: From engaging in practice-theoretical development more generally (Shove,  2003; Shove, Pantzar, & Watson, 2012), to elaborating the congruence of practices and “sustainable consumption” in everyday life and the domestic sphere (Shove & Spurling,  2013; Southerton, 2013), and with particular regard to “ecological citizenship” (such as research on the role of practice theory in understanding shared ecological governance; Spaargaren, 2011). It is worth noting that contemporary formulations of practice theories in relation to  consumption and sustainability have progressively incorporated and emphasized materiality as a key dimension of practices, whether that be the materiality of the embodied human (en)acting, or the contextual materialities of human-built objects, environments, structures and technologies (Appadurai, 1988; Dant, 1999; Miller, 1998). In these frameworks, material relations are always co-constructed, so the focus is on the materials necessary to reproduce ways of doing over time, the knowledge and competencies to deploy those materials, and the (shared) meanings associated with particular “ways of doing” in relation to norms, values, and identities. The result is a complex framework that opens up digital and HCI design spaces to explore the intricacies of agentic-yet-institutionally embedded socio-cultural knowledge-meaningaction assemblages. In the context of empirical social science research on domestic resource consumption, both experience and interaction are captured in the notions of “situated knowledge” and “situated action.” That is, any practices are a combination of contextually dependent and mutually informing organization of human activities, material infrastructures, and knowledges of them, the relations between which are played out in the routines, habits, and rhythms of everyday life. These approaches have become well-represented in empirical environmental social science literature on resource consumption. Of particular interest to research on practices has been a shift of the units of analysis in the design of empirical research. Whereas behavioral or attitudinal studies tend to focus on the individual, increasingly the environmental social science literature has focussed on

202   Nicola Green ET AL. alternative units of consumption such as the urban-based household, where activities, routines, and practices are both shared and negotiated amongst spatially and temporally extended networks of actors, infrastructures, organizations and agencies. Thus the home is both a micro-topography, and a simultaneously multiply layered and connected spaces (Barac & McFadyen, 2007; Hitchings, 2004; Horta et al., 2014). Some projects are concerned with attempting to empirically map household consumption as a set of practices in-depth, rather than attempting to outline the breadth of common practices across more general populations. Early research here focussed on the (particularly routinized and habitual) activities, knowledges, and materialities framing consumption, using observational, interview, and ethnographic methods of various sorts (Shove, 2003; Shove & Warde, 2002; Shove et al., 2012; Southerton 2013; Spaargaren & Van Vliet,  2000). Research has extended more general household studies to include a particular focus on specific single resources, such as those oriented towards energy (Butler et al.,  2016; Genus & Jensen,  2019; Moroşanu,  2016; Shove & Walker,  2014; Strengers,  2012), water (Vannini & Taggert,  2016), or food (Crivits & Paredis,  2013; Paddock, 2017; Sahakian & Wilhite, 2014; Warde, 2013, 2014). Increasingly, practice research is also turning to the “nexus of practices” (Hui et al., 2017) that form consumption in relation to a nexus of resources—such as that between water and energy (Strengers,  2011; Strengers & Maller  2017; Strengers et al.,  2014). At times these studies drill down their analytic focus to particular nexus points such as  a  cluster of related practices—for example, showering (Shove  2003) or washing (Kuijer, 2017), doing laundry (Jack, 2013), or eating practices (Devaney & Davies, 2016)— and also often entail the innovative use of novel participatory, design-based, or interventionist methodological strategies. At other times, the analytic focus is on those nexus points that are materialized in the infrastructures of everyday life—such as the nexus of food and energy in the case of the domestic freezer (Hand & Shove, 2007; Southerton & Shove, 2000), or energy and water in the (potentially digital) washing machine (Bourgeois et al., 2014). This latter focus on everyday materialities is where the relationship between the focus on practices and the focus on (digital) technological networks is most significant— whether that is cast in terms of the “infrastructures of consumption” (van Vliet et al., 2005), or the “socio-technical networks” of humans and non-humans in Actor-Network Theory (ANT) research, for example in water (Sofoulis, 2005; Sofoulis & Williams, 2008) or energy (Strengers, 2012). In this regard then, practice theories are particularly well-situated to explore multidimensional phenomena such as a WEF nexus (Hui, Shove, & Schatzki, 2017) across overlapping social contexts and multiple scales. Therefore, while not without its critics (Cairns & Krzywoszynska, 2016), and despite its potential limitations and partialities (Taherzadeh, Bithell, & Richards, 2018), the notion of a WEF nexus of resource interdependencies could potentially provide a recursive lens alongside practice theories to understand domestic resource use. The focus on materiality—associated significant technologies and infrastructures—simultaneously provides a lens through which to view potential emerging interdependencies between digital systems, local practices, and

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   203 resource infrastructures. Such arguments are particularly congruent with a consideration of socio-technical systems and “actor-networks.” Actor-network approaches share practice theory’s concern with paying attention to the materialities within which embodied human beings are embedded—the things/ objects and technologies through which humans act and interact in the world. In HCI most broadly, this therefore involves understanding human-social relationships as co-constitutive of human-computer/object relationships in the context of digitally mediated social processes. In the case of Sustainable HCI, where the focus is simultaneously environmental, the consideration of digital networks-and/as-things is coupled with a consideration of physical-resources-as-things, and humans interact with both. In ANT, identifying the actors in any relation is a primary endeavor—importantly, as already noted, actors can be both human and non-human. Humans are only one set of entities (alongside objects and technologies) that act and interact in relation to humans and to each other, meaning that in ANT, “things” such as digital technology systems, and physical resource distribution and consumption systems, have equivalent agency as the humans they shape and are shaped by. Such agentic actors are thereafter themselves embedded in networks—the normative organizational systems (or assemblages) that associate actor-entities with each other across relational domains (Akrich, 1992; Latour, 2000; Suchman, 2006; Taylor, 2015). The socio-technical systems described by ANT are in many ways recursive with theories of practice, with the  additional emphasis on the agencies of non-humans as well as humans—and both are currently widely employed in both the environmental social sciences and HCI literatures.

Revisiting Sustainable HCI in a WEF Context It is within the assemblages of human practices and non-human agencies described by practice and actor-network theories that the relationship between empirical research in environmental social science and HCI is at its strongest. This is not least because digital technologies increasingly comprise one of the most important infrastructures that underpin our everyday material and social lives in the context of both the household and the urban landscape. On the one hand, there are those environmental social science studies of household resource consumption that have been embedded in innovative methods and interdisciplinary collaborations with engineering and computer science colleagues—such as Pink’s (and collaborators’) studies of household energy use combining ethnographic exploration of practices with the use of digital sensors to quantitatively measure consumption (Pink, 2011; Pink & Leder Makley, 2012; Pink et al., 2013; see also Coughlan et al., 2013). On the other hand, practitioners and designers situated firmly in HCI as an inter-discipline have increasingly used an extremely broad mixture

204   Nicola Green ET AL. of (often digitally based) methods to understand practice-based consumption within the home (and at times intervene in it – see Mitchell et al., 2015). Smart meters, and digital technologies such as (still and video) cameras and/or sensor arrays, have all been variously deployed to both measure and understand resource-related domestic practices. Larrabee Sønderlund et al. (2014), for example, explore and review the different types of smart metering of water and their associated user feedback systems, whilst with respect to food, Ganglbauer (2013) introduced—in addition to interviews and home tours—a “FridgeCam” within households to record the situated practices of food waste (see also Ganglbauer et al., 2013). The FridgeCam consisted of a mobile phone camera attached to the refrigerator door capturing images automatically when activated by refrigerator door-opening. The captured images were then further uploaded to a Facebook site to be shared amongst interested parties, which encouraged the social media discussion of “appropriate” or “inappropriate” practices leading to food waste and/or its mitigation (to supplement the narrative data from participants in interviews and tours). Through these (digitally based) “technology probe” methods, Ganglbauer et al.’s study therefore sought to utilize practice theory to “design strategies to support dispersed as well as integrated food practices” (2013, p. 1)—that is, to explore how digital technologies might be deployed to understand, intervene in, and feed back to users on the assemblages of practices associated with their preservation, preparation, consumption and disposal of food to mitigate against waste. Ganglbauer et al.’s research therefore echoed Comber and Thieme’s (2012) earlier study that developed a similar technology intervention in the form of a “BinCam” (a mobile phone capturing images when triggered by the bin [garbage] lid, capturing still images), while additionally also instituting an online community amongst their study participants to discuss the practices concerned (Thieme et al., 2012). It is only more recently that Sustainable HCI research has come to focus explicitly on WEF relationships—the ways that resources and their associated practices and networks of actors in the domestic sphere are interrelated and mutually dependent—rather than focusing simply or intensively on single resources. For example, with respect to food and energy research in HCI, Clear et al. (2013) introduced a “cooker cam” to explore practices of cooking within shared student accommodation—focusing on both energy and food. The aim of this study was to uncover the observable mundane, ubiquitous, and habitual practices of food preparation at the site of the cooker (stove/range) within student-shared households, amongst a demographic where design interventions might have a significant impact in transitional life stages. The “cooker cam” consisted of a motion-triggered wildlife trail camera mounted above the cooker (dubbed the “hobcam”), capturing still images every 30 seconds when motion-activated. This was supplemented with data from real-time energy smart meter readings for each cooking session recorded, and further supplemented with interview narratives on the experiential proc­ess and meaning of cooking. Such multiple methods uncovered several potential directions for innovative design interventions, including various smart/digital modifications to cooking appliances, the possibilities of encouraging communal organization of food responsibility and sociality via the design of mobile and social media applications or

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   205 add-ons, or developing digital tools to render the carbon intensity of particular foods and their preparation more accessible and transparent to users, encouraging less energy-intensive diets (see also Clear et al., 2016; Hupfeld & Rodden, 2012). In the case of water and energy, Chetty et al. (2008) focused on “in the moment” household resource consumption to map the relative “visibility” of resources and their infrastructures to participants in the course of their consumption practices. The aim of the study was to develop digital display and control system tools, both for reflection and engagement, and to support and underpin the management of domestic resource consumption based on current management practices, technology use, and interaction with outside stakeholders. Using home tours, semi-structured interviews and (digital image-based) visual methods, the findings of the study underlined the importance of householders’ understandings of domestic utility systems, or more likely, their invisibility in the practice of everyday life. The design interventions considered on the basis of the research findings therefore focussed towards ways of making the production of water and energy more visible and available to consumers via domestic digital toolkits (at the same time as providing comparative and “benchmarking” consumption information at different urban, regional and national scales). The intervention thus accounted for both diversity and inequality in the design of those digital systems, and supported more collective as well as individual agency in “green” behaviour change via those same tools. In a similar vein to Chetty et al., Strengers (2011) draws explicitly on both practice theories and concepts in socio-technical networks to explore the potential role of digital feedback systems in encouraging sustainable water and energy consumption. Her review of different approaches and empirical strategies draw on research derived via methodologies variously including ethnographic interviews and home tours as well as the deployment of digital technologies. The digital systems explored include In-Home Displays (IHDs) and smart meters of a range of different types, from visualization tools to render real-time consumption visible, to the intersection of digital information systems with what are considered “negotiable” or “non-negotiable” domestic practices. Strengers (2011, p. 319) concludes from her comparative review of different digital systems that digital feedback mechanisms have the potential to legitimize particular practices and to overlook those considered non-negotiable . . . IHDs [In-Home Displays] can play a role in making socio-technical systems of energy and water provision more relevant to householders’ everyday lives, and in questioning and debating non-negotiable practices. This will necessitate repositioning and blurring the roles and responsibilities of resource providers and consumers.

As Strengers’ study indicates, both HCI and social science studies focussed on practices through the deployment and use of digital technologies remain commonly oriented towards the development of (digital) tools for persuasion towards “behaviour change”— the Sustainable HCI position of “sustainability through design” (Butler et al.,  2016; Paddock,  2017; Thieme et al.,  2012). It is this model of “persuasion” or “behaviour

206   Nicola Green ET AL. change”—alongside debates over the conceptualization of “agency,” the material organization of “consumption” processes or “sustainability” itself—that remain at the heart of contemporary theory and empirical research design in Sustainable HCI. As such, Sustainable HCI is playing a crucial and expanding role in the politics of ways of being digital.

Conclusion: Resource Sustainability, Resilience, and Security There is no doubt that living in a digital age is transforming the ways that human beings relate to their environments, particularly with respect to the exploitation, use, transformation, and consumption of natural resources. This is especially the case if we are to understand the centrally important role of the household in resource consumption. The key to the evolution of empirical practice in contemporary Sustainable HCI research is the recognition of complexity across multiple social scales, whether that is in the complexity of resource interdependencies (found in WEF Nexus thinking), or in the  complexity of the human consumption of them via digitally based resource ­measurement, feedback, and management systems at the household level (in Practice and Network thinking). Throughout the chapter, we have sought to review the approaches relevant to the development of Sustainable HCI, and evaluate the ways that they inform current empirical studies in the field focussed towards domestic resource consumption. The preceding sections reviewed the frameworks that have underpinned contemporary social science research on the relationships between humans and their digital and natural environments. Such frameworks have variously focussed on: structural-level variables such as political economy and facets of globalization; social psychological approaches encompassing individual behaviours, attitudes, values, norms and lifestyles; and mid-level theories focussed on practices that attempt to connect relational processes across different scales of social organization. As part of this latter discussion, we have also reviewed the focus on digital materiality that is common to both theories of practices and to frameworks derived from STS such as Actor-Network Theory. Throughout this discussion, several further salient conceptualizations of social proc­esses have come into play—including those relating to “consumption” and “sustainability,” as well as those concerning “structure,” “agency.” and “social change.” These latter conceptualizations have become particularly important as environmental crises intensify, and potential digital solutions to expansive resource consumption are sought via Sustainable HCI. It becomes apparent throughout recent Sustainable HCI theory and research that in order to understand the complexity involved in these landscapes of  embedded digital networks—multiple and overlapping configurations of humans and non-humans, of structures and systems, within assembled networks of actions and

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   207 interactions—we need to pay attention simultaneously to the material as well as the ­discursive forms of knowledge and power that situate practices in socio-technical systems, and which enable some digital ways of being to the exclusion of others. Such understandings underpin any attempts within Sustainable HCI to inform, transform, and influence human-resource relationships. Certainly digital technologies as they are empirically deployed in HCI studies might help us to further understand the digital-physical-social webs of relationship within households. How the results of that research are communicated in the public sphere is also of import, given the scale of current environmental challenges. An overly emphatic focus on “behaviour change” via digital systems might, however, also have unintended consequences, running the risk of unequally marginalising some already vulnerable populations: In contrast to aspirational claims for a “smart utopia” of greener, less energy intensive, and more comfortable homes currently present in market and policy discourses, we argue that SHTs [Smart Home Technologies] may reinforce unsustainable energy consumption patterns in the residential sector, are not easily accessible by vulnerable consumers, and do little to help the “energy poor” secure adequate and affordable access to energy at home.  (Tirado Herrero et al., 2018, p. 65)

While Sustainable HCI is therefore able—to some extent—to intervene positively toward behaviour change, some argue that any influence derived from such interventions is not straightforward, nor is it unproblematic (Burchell, Rettie, & Roberts, 2016). Demographic, socio-economic, and life-cycle factors all have an impact on values, lifestyles, and consumption. Similarly, routine, habit, affect, and the meaning of home can also vary significantly amongst and between populations. Therefore any potential interventions are therefore likely to have extensively variable and uneven effects (Watson,  2017). There is therefore also the question as to whether Sustainable HCI research currently only reaches populations already positively oriented towards the environmental issues under scrutiny (Vassileva et al., 2013). If HCI recognizes that digital technologies are imbricated in “the domestic”—and domestic resource practices—in the complex assemblages outlined earlier, it is unsurprising that the question of digital persuasion towards sustainabilities remains contested in the HCI literature and beyond. Innovative approaches drawing on practice theory and ANT have expanded the units and scales of analysis in Sustainable HCI to encompass a variety of different forms of possible influence, such as the recognition of mutual or collective responsibilities for sustainable consumption across different organization and civic scales. For example, supermarkets/food providers and households could each be digitally linked in local communities to hold collective responsibility for sustainable food provision. It is for such reasons that there has been a movement within Sustainable HCI debates to explicitly focus on digital “politics” (broadly defined) towards sustainability. In a timely contribution, Dourish (2010, p. 8) adds a final and crucial consideration to any

208   Nicola Green ET AL. characterization of environmentally oriented HCI as a broad field of endeavor—“the politics of design and the design of politics.” According to Dourish (2010, p. 8), Sustainable HCI must become more explicitly and self-consciously “political”; that is, he is making an attempt to dismantle design as an anti-politics machine. Political, social, cultural, economic, and historical contexts have critical roles to play, not only because they shape our experience with information technologies, but also, and even more, because information technologies in contemporary life are sites at which these contexts are themselves developing.

Such approaches hold the potential to help us further understand how digital technologies and the projects of Sustainable HCI might mediate the relationships between physical resources, things, systems, people, their knowledge, skills, and activities. This understanding might move us closer to resource security and resilience, and sustainable ways of being in a digital age.

Notes 1. The exemplar empirical research presented throughout the chapter citing national statistics are derived from UK sources. Corresponding international statistics, especially those produced by governmental bodies (or e.g., private utilities companies), can be relatively easily located via the relevant corresponding national or international bodies, or via straightforward Internet searches. 2. Environmental social sciences and philosophy addressing the macro-level have focussed on both human-nature social relationships, as well as the salient cultural categories through which those relationships are made meaningful and are understood. The foundational theoretical literatures in environmental social sciences are extremely extensive, and have undergone considerable revision over the course of at least fifty years—not least in light of feminist and post-colonial theories, and theories of globalisation. As such, only an extremely brief indication of broad conceptual areas can be offered here, although those interested in reading towards further contemporary theoretical developments might consult compendia readers such as Gabrielson et al. (2016). 3. A number of different models of persuasion towards “behaviour change” have been proposed over time—and have also been deconstructed. For a critical review of AIDA (Awareness-Information-Decision-Action) models, for example, see Barr (2006). For a critique of 4E (Enable-Engage-Encourage-Exemplify) models, see Jackson (2006) and Spaargaren (2011). Such models have also been adopted in different contexts—for example, in public (often policy-generated) awareness campaigns towards “ecological citizenship,” through to technology-driven techniques of persuasion (see chapter sections on Sustainable HCI design and development). A key endeavor in these approaches is also identifying “barriers to change.” 4. Over the past decade, the literature on “sustainable consumption” has grown rapidly, and has entailed extensive debates not only on the conceptualization of sustainable consumption itself, but also the relation it bears to “consumerism” (Evans & Jackson, 2008) and “citizenship” (Seyfang, 2016). For a review of these literatures see Jackson (2008).

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   209 5. Halkier, Katz-Gerro, and Martens (2011) provide a comprehensive review of the practice theory literature via Bourdieu and Giddens, tracing their philosophical antecedents to (amongst others) Durkheim, Heidegger, Husserl, Levi-Strauss, Marx, Mauss, MerleauPonty, Weber, and Wittgenstein.

References Abdul Salam, P., Shrestha, S., Prasad Pandey, P., & Kumar Anal, A. (2017). Water-energy-food nexus: Principles and practices. Hoboken, NJ: American Geophysical Union, Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119243175. Advani, A., Johnson, P., Leicester, A., & Stoye, G. (2013). Household energy use in the UK: A distributional analysis. IFS Report R85, Institute for Fiscal Studies. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. American Psychological Association (APA). (2018). APA Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association, https://dictionary.apa.org/behavior. Appadurai, A. (Ed.) (1988). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arroyo, E., Bonanni, L., & Selker, T. (2005). Waterbot: Exploring feedback and persuasive techniques at the sink. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 631–639). Portland, OR: ACM. doi:10.1145/1054972.1055059. Bang, M., Gustafsson, A., & Katzeff, C. (2007). Promoting new patterns in household energy consumption with pervasive learning games. In Proceedings of the international conference on persuasive technology, Persuasive 2007, LNCS 4744 (pp. 55–63). Barac, M., & McFadyen, L. (2007). Connected space. Home Cultures, 4(2), 109–115. Barr, S. (2003). Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in environmental action. Geoforum, 35, 231–249. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.08.009. Barr, S. (2006). Environmental action in the home: Investigating the “value-action” gap. Geography, 91(1), 43–54. Barr, S. (2016). Environment and society: Sustainability, policy and the citizen. London: Routledge. Barr, S., & Gilg, A. (2006). Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and around the home. Geoforum, 37, 906–920. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.05.002. Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011a). “Helping People Make Better Choices”: Exploring the behaviour change agenda. Applied Geography, 31, 712–720. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.12.003. Barr, S., Gilg, A., & Shaw, G. (2011b). Citizens, consumers and sustainability: (Re) Framing environmental practice in an age of climate change. Global Environment Change, 21, 1224–1233. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.07.009 Beddington, J. (2009). Food, energy, water and the climate: A perfect storm of global events. In Lecture to Sustainable development UK conference. https://assets.letemps.ch/sites/ default/files/media/2014/03/19/2.1.3041002903.pdf Bhaduri, A., Ringler, C., Dombrowski, I., Mohtar, R., & Scheumann, W. (2015). Sustainability in the water-energy-food nexus. Water International, 40(5–6), 723–732. Blevis, E. (2007). Sustainable interaction design: Invention, disposal, renewal & reuse. In Proceedings of SIGGCHI 2007 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing Systems (pp. 503–512). ACM.

210   Nicola Green ET AL. Bonino, D., Corno, F., & De Russis, L. (2012). Home Energy Consumption Feedback: A User Survey. Energy and Buildings, 47, 383–393. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.12.017. Boucher, A., Cameron, D., & Jarvis, N. (2012). Power to the people: Dynamic energy measurement through communal cooperation. In Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference (pp. 612–620). June 11–15, Newcastle, UK. Bourgeois, J., van der Linden, J., Kourtuem, G., Price, B. A., & Rimmer, C. (2014). Conversations with my washing machine: An in-the-wild study of demand shifting with self-generated energy. Proceeding of ubiquitous computing conference, UBICOMP. September 11–13, Seattle, Washington. doi:10.1145/2632048.2632106. Burchell, K., Rettie, R., & Roberts, T. (2016). Householder engagement with energy consumption feedback: The role of community action and communications. Energy Policy, 88, 178–186. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.10.019. Burgess, J., Bedford, T., Hobson, K., Davies, G., & Harrison, C. M. (2003). (Un)sustainable consumption. In F.  Berkhout, M.  Leach, & I.  Scoones (Eds.), Negotiating environmental change: New perspectives from social science (chapter 10). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Butler, C., Parkhill, K., & Pidgeon, N. (2016). Energy consumption and everyday life: Choice, values and agency through a practice theoretical lens. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3), 887–907. doi:10.1177/1469540514553691. Brynjarsdottir, H., Håkansson, M., Pierce, J., Baumer, E., DiSalvo, C., & Sengers, P. (2012). Sustainably unpersuaded: How persuasion narrows our vision of sustainability. In Proceedings of the SIGGCHI 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 947–956). ACM. Cairns, R., & Krzywoszynska, A. (2016). Anatomy of a buzzword: The emergence of “the water-energy-food nexus” in UK natural resource debates. Environmental Science and Policy, 64, 164–170. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.007. Callon, M. (Ed.) (1998). The laws of the markets. Oxford: Blackwell. Casado-Mansilla, D., López-de-Armentia, J., Ventura, D., Garaizar, P., & López-de-Ipiña, D. (2016). Embedding intelligent eco-aware systems within everyday things to increase people’s energy awareness. In Soft Computing, 20(5), 1695–1711. Chetty, M., Tran, D., & Grinter, R. (2008). Getting to green: Understanding resource consumption in the home. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on ubiquitous computing, UbiComp (pp. 242–251). September 21–24. doi:10.1145/1409635.1409668. Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S. K., & Jackson, T. (2013). Turning lights into flights: Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households. Energy Policy, 55, 234–250. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.008. Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S. K., & Jackson, T. (2014). Who rebounds most? Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic groups. Ecological Economics, 106, 12–32. doi:10.1016/j.ecoecon.2014.07.003. Clear, A., Hazas, M., Morley, J., Friday, A., & Bates, O. (2013). Domestic food and sustainable design: A study of university student cooking and its impacts. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on human factors in computing systems. Paris, France, April 27-May 2, 2013. doi: 10.1145/2470654.2481339. Clear, A. K., O’Neill, K., Friday, A. & Hazas, M. (2016). Bearing an open “Pandora’s box”: HCI for reconciling everyday food and sustainability. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 23(5), Article 28, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2970817. Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2008). Green consumption: Life politics, risk and contradictions. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(1), 117–146. doi: 10.1177/1469540507086422.

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   211 Crivits, M., & Paredis, E. (2013). Designing an explanatory practice framework: Local Food systems as a case. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 306–336. doi:10.1177/1469540513484321. Colucci, A., Magoni, M., & Menoni, S. (Eds.) (2017). Peri-urban areas and food-energy-water nexus: Sustainability and resilience strategies in the age of climate change. Switzerland: Springer. Comber, R., & Thieme, A. (2012). Designing beyond habit: Opening space for improved recycling and food waste behaviours through processes of persuasion, social influence and aversive affect. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(6), 1197–1210. doi:10.1007/s00779-012-0587-1. Constanza, E., Ramchurn, S.  D., & Jennings, N. (2012). Understanding domestic energy consumption through interactive visualization: A field study. Proceedings of ubiquitous computing conference, UbiComp (pp. 216–225). September 5–8, Pittsburgh, PA. Coughlan, T., Leder Mackley, K., Brown, M., Martindale, S., Schlögl, S., Mallaband, B., . . . Hine, N. (2013). Current issues and future directions in methods for studying technology in the home. PsychNology Journal, 11(2), 159–184. Retrieved 15/02/2019, from www.psychnology.org. Dant, T. (1999). Material culture in the social world. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [DBEIS]. (2018a). Energy consumption in the UK. July 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/729317/Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK__ECUK__2018.pdf. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [DBEIS]. (2018b). Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics [DUKES]: 2018 Main Report. July 2018. https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729425/ DUKES_2018.pdf. Devaney, L., & Davies, A. (2016). Disrupting household food consumption through experimental HomeLabs: Outcomes, connections, contexts. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(3), 823–844. doi:10.1177/1469540516631153. DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P., & Brynjarsdóttir, H. (2010). Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1975–1984). ACM. DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P., & Brynjarsdóttir, H. (2010a). Navigating the terrain of sustainable HCI. interactions, July-August 2010, 22–25. doi: 10.1145/1806491.1806497. Dourish, P. (2010). HCI and environmental sustainability: the politics of design and the design of politics. In DIS 10: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 1–10). doi: 10/1145/1858171.1858173. Druckman, A., Chitnis, C., Sorrell, S., & Jackson, T. (2011). Missing carbon reductions? Exploring rebound and backfire effects in UK households. Energy Policy, 39, 3572–3581. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.058. Energy Saving Trust. (2013). At home with water. Energy Saving Trust, Department for Energy and Climate Change, Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. http://www. energysavingtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/AtHomewithWater%287%29.pdf. Energy Saving Trust. (2014). At home with water 2. Technical Report. Energy Saving Trust. http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/AHHW2%20final.pdf. Erickson, T., Podlaseck, M., Sahu, S., Dai, J. D., Chao, T., & Naphade, M. (2012). The Dubuque water portal: Evaluation of the uptake, use and impact of residential water consumption feedback. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 675–684). ACM. Evans, D. (2011a). Consuming conventions: Sustainable consumption, ecological citizenship and the worlds of worth. Journal of Rural Studies, 27, 109–115. doi:10.1016/j.rurstud.2011.02.002.

212   Nicola Green ET AL. Evans, D. (2011b). Thrifty, green or frugal: Reflections on sustainable consumption in a changing economic climate. Geoforum, 42, 550–557. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.03.008. Evans, D., & Abrahamse, W. (2009). Beyond rhetoric: The possibilities of and for “sustainable lifestyles.” Environmental Politics, 18(4), 486–502. doi:10.1080/09644010903007369. Farr-Wharton, G., Hee-Jeong Choi, J., & Foth, M. (2014a). Food talks back: Exploring the role of mobile applications in reducing domestic food wastage. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian computer-human interaction conference on designing futures: The future of design (pp. 352–361). ACM. doi:10.1145/2686612.2686665. Farr-Wharton, G., Hee-Jeong Choi, J., & Foth, M. (2014b). Technicolouring the fridge: Reducing food waste through uses of colour-coding and cameras. In Proceedings of the 13th  international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia (pp. 48–57). ACM. doi:10.1145/2677972.2677990. Fischer, C. (2008). Feedback on household electricity consumption: A tool for saving energy? Energy Efficiency, 1(1), 79–104. doi:10.1007/s12053-008-9009-7. Foster, D., Lawson, S., Blythe, M., & Cairns, P. (2010). Wattsup? Motivating reductions in domestic energy consumption using social networks. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Extending boundaries (pp. 178–187). ACM. doi:10.1145/1868914.1868938. Froehlich, J. (2009). Promoting energy efficient behaviors in the home through feedback: The role of human computer interaction. In Proceedings of HCIC workshop (pp. 1–11). http://www.cs.umd.edu/~jonf/publications/Froehlich_PromotingEnergyEfficientBehaviros InTheHomeThroughFeedback-TheRoleOfHumanComputerInteraction_HCIC2009.pdf. Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., & Landay, J. (2010). The design of eco-feedback technology. In  Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1999–2008). ACM. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~jonf/publications/Froehlich_TheDesignOf EcoFeedbackTechnology_CHI2010.pdf. Froehlich, J., Findlater, L., Ostergren, M., Ramanathan, S., Peterson, J., Wragg, I., Larson, E., Fu, F., Bai, M., & Patel, S. (2012). The design and evaluation of prototype ecofeedback displays for fixture-level water usage data. In Proceedings of SIGCHI 2010 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2367–2376). April 10–15, Atlanta, GA. ACM. Gabrielson, T., Hall, C., Meyer, J. M., & Schlosberg, D. (Eds.) (2016). The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gamberini, L., Spagnolli, A., Corradi, N., Jacucci, G., Tusa, G., Mikkola, T., Zamboni, L., & Hoggan, E. (2012). Tailoring feedback to users’ actions in a persuasive game for household electricity conservation. In Proceedings of the international conference on persuasive technology (pp. 100–111). Centre for eHealth & Wellbeing Research, Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands. Ganglbauer, E. (2013). Towards food waste interventions: An exploratory approach. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. Adjunct publication (pp. 337–342). ACM. Ganglbauer, E., Fitzpatrick, G., & Comber, R. (2013). Negotiating food waste: Using a practice lens to inform design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(2), Art. 11. doi:10.1145/2463579.2463582. Gatersleben, B., Murtagh, N., & Abrahamse, W. (2014). Values, identity and pro-environmental behaviour. Contemporary Social Science, 9(4), 374–392. doi:10.1080/21582041.2012.682086. Genus, A., & Jensen, C. (2019). Beyond “behaviour”: The institutionalisation of practice and the case of energy-efficient lighting in Denmark. Journal of Consumer Culture, 19(3), 1–19. doi:10.1177/1469540517717781.

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   213 Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481–504. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.016. Goodman, E. (2009). Three environmental discourses in human-computer interaction. In CHI 2009 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2535–2544). Boston, MA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1520340.1520358. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. Halkier, B., Katz-Gerro, T., & Martens, L. (2011). Applying practice theory to the study of consumption: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 3–13. doi:10.1177/1469540510391765. Hand, M., & Shove, E. (2007). Condensing practices: Ways of living with a freezer. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(1), 79–104. doi:10.1177/1469540507073509. Harper, R. (ed.) (2003). Inside the smart home. London: Springer. Hazas, M., Friday, A., & Scott, J. (2011). Look back before leaping forward: of domestic energy inquiry. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 10, 13–19. Hee-Jeong Choi, J., & Blevis, E. (2010). HCI & sustainable food culture: A design framework for engagement. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Extending boundaries (pp. 112–117). ACM. Hitchings, R. (2004). At home with someone nonhuman. Home Cultures, 1(2), 169–186. Hobson, K. (2002). Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: Does the rationalisation of lifestyles make sense? Environmental Politics, 11(2), 95–119. doi:10.1080/714000601. Horta, A., Wilhite, H., Schmidt, L., & Bartiaux, F. (2014). Socio-technical and cultural approaches to energy consumption. Nature and Culture, 9(2), 115–121. doi: 10.3167/nc.2014.090201. Hui, A., Shove, E., & Schatzki, T. (2017). The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations, practitioners. London: Routledge. Hui, A., & Walker, G. (2018). Concepts and methodologies for a new relational geography of energy demand: Social practices, doing-places and setting. Energy Research and Social Science, 36, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.032. Hupfeld, A., & Rodden, T. (2012). Laying the table for HCI: Uncovering ecologies of domestic food consumption. In Proceedings of the SIG conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 119–128). May 05–10, 2012, Austin, Texas: ACM. doi:10.1145/2207676.2207694. Jack, T. (2013). Nobody was dirty: Intervening in inconspicuous consumption of laundry routines. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 406–421. doi:10.1177/1469540513485272. Jackson, T. (2008). Challenges for sustainable consumption policy. In T.  Jackson. (Ed.), The  Earthscan reader in sustainable consumption (pp. 109–129). London: Earthscan. doi:10.1111/j.1530–9290.2008.00023.x. Kalbar, P. P., Birkved, M., Hauschile, M., Kabin, S., & Elsborg Nygaard, S. (2018). Environmental impact of urban consumption patterns: Drivers and focus points. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 137, 260–269. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.019. Kalbar, P.  P., Birkved, M., Kabins, S., Nygaard, S.  E. (2016). Personal-metabolism (PM) coupled with life cycle assessment (LCA) model: Danish case study. Environment International, 91, 168–179. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.02.032. Kappel, K., & Grechenig, T. (2009). Show-me: Water consumption at a glance to promote water conservation in the shower. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on ­persuasive technology (Art. 26). April 26–29, Claremont, California. ACM. doi:10.1145/ 1541948.1541984. Katz-Gerro, T., Greenspan, I., Handy, F., & Hoon-Young, L. (2017). The relationship between value types and environmental behaviour in four countries: Universalism, benevolence,

214   Nicola Green ET AL. conformity and biospheric values revisited. Environmental Values, 26(2), 223–249. doi:10.31 97/096327117X14847335385599. Kenway, S. J., Lant, P. A., Priestley, A., & Daniels, P. (2011). The connection between water and energy in cities: A review. Water Science and Technology. 63, 1983–1990. doi:10.2166/ wst.2011.070. Kuijer, L. (2017). Splashing: The iterative development of a novel type of personal washing. In D. Keyson., O. Guerra-Santin, & D. Lockton (Eds.), Living labs: Design and assessment of sustainable living (pp. 63–74). Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33,527-8. Kuznetsov, S., & Paulos, E. (2010). UpStream: Motivating water conservation with low-cost water flow sensing and persuasive displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1851–1860). April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia. ACM. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753604. Larrabee Sønderlund, A., Smith, J. R., Hutton, C., & Kapelan, Z. (2014). Using smart meters for household water consumption feedback: Knowns and unknowns. Procedia Engineering. 89, 990–997. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.11.216. Latour, B. (2000). When things strike back: A possible contribution of “science studies” to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 107–123. Liu, A., Giurco, D., & Mukheibir, P. (2015). Motivating metrics for household water-use feedback. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 103, 29–46. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.05.008. Maheshwari, B., Purohit, R., Malano, H., Singh, V. P., & Amerasinghe, P. (Eds.) (2014). The security of water, food, energy and liveability of cities: Challenges and opportunities for periurban futures. Dordrecht: Springer. Mankoff, J. C., Blevis, E., Borning, A., Friedman, B., Fussell, S. R., Hasbrouck, J., Woodruff, A., & Sengers, P. (2007). Environmental sustainability and interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGGCHI EA (pp. 2121–2124). April 28-May 03 2007, San Jose, CA. ACM. doi:10.1145/ 1240866.1240963. McGrane, S.  J., Acuto, M., Artioli, F., Chen, P., Comber, R., Cottee, J., Farr-Wharton, G., Green, N., Helfgott, A., Larcom, S., McCann, J., O’Reilly, P., Salmoral, G., Scott, M., Todman, L.  C., van Gevelt, T., & Yan, X. (2018). Scaling the nexus: Towards integrated frameworks for analysing water, energy and food. The Geographical Journal, 185(4) 1–13. doi: 10.1111.geoj.12256. Miller, D. (1998). Why some things matter. In D. Miller (Ed.), Material cultures: Why some things matter (pp. 3–21). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Mitchell, V., Leder Mackley, K., Pink, S., Escobar-Tello, C., Wilson, G. T., & Bhamra, T. (2015). Situating digital interventions: Mixed methods for HCI research in the home. Interacting with Computers, 27(1), 3–12. doi:10.1093/iwc/iwu034 Moroşanu, R. (2016). An ethnography of household energy demand: Everyday temporalities of  digital media usage. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, Springer Nature. doi:10.1057/ 978-1-137-59,341-2. Murtagh, N., Gatersleben, B., & Uzzell, D. (2014). Difference in energy behaviour and conservation between and within households with electricity monitors. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e92019, 1–12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092019. Murtagh, N., Gatersleben, B., Cowen, L., & Uzzell, D. (2015). Does perception of automation undermine pro-environmental behaviour? Findings from three everyday settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 139–148. Ng, K. H., Shipp, V., Mortier, R., Benford, S., Flintham, M., & Rodden, T. (2015). Understanding food consumption lifecycles using wearable cameras. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 19(7), 1183–1195. doi:10.1007/s00779-015-0871-y.

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   215 Ofwat. (2011). The use of revealed customer behaviour in future price limits: Final report. Cascade Consultancy, Economics for the Environment Consultancy Ltd. https://www. ofwat.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/rpt_com_201105eftec_casc_reveal.pdf. Ofwat. (2018). The long term potential for deep reduction in household water demand. Artesia Consulting. https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/The-long-term-potentialfor-deep-reductions-in-household-water-demand-report-by-Artesia-Consulting.pdf. Oikonomou, V., Becchis, F., Steg, L., & Russolillo, D. (2009). Energy saving and energy efficiency: Concepts for policy making. Energy Policy, 37, 4787–4796. Oliveira, L., Mitchell, V., & May, A. (2016). Reducing temporal tensions as a strategy to promote sustainable behaviours. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 303–315. doi: 10.1016/j. chb.2016.04.004. Owen, L., Bramley, H., & Tocock, J. (2009). Public understanding of sustainable water use in the home. Final Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Synovate, DEFRA: London. Paddock, J. (2017). Household consumption and environmental change: Rethinking the policy problem through narratives of food practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 17(1), 122–139. doi:10.1177/1469540515586869. Palmer, J., & Terry, N. (2014). Powering the nation 2: Electricity use in homes and how to reduce it. Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325741/Powering_the_Nation_2_260614. pdf. Pierce, J., Odom, W., & Blevis, E. (2008). Energy aware dwelling: A critical survey of interaction design for eco-visualizations. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian conference on computer-human interaction: Designing for habitus and habitat (pp. 1–8). December 08–12, Cairns, Australia. ACM. doi:10.1145/1517744.1517746. Pink, S. (2011). Ethnography of the invisible: Energy in the multi-sensory home. Enthnologia Europeae: Journal of European Ethnology, 41(1), 117–128. Pink, S., & Leder Mackley, K. (2012). Video and a sense of the invisible: Approaching domestic energy consumption through the sensory home. Sociological Research Online, 17(1, 3). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/1/3.html. doi: 10.5153/sro.2583. Pink, S., Mackley, K., Mitchell, V., Hanratty, M., Escobar-Tello, C., Bhamra, T., & Moroşanu, R. (2013). Applying the lens of sensory ethnography to sustainable HCI. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(4), 1–18. Polanyi, K. (1944/1957). The great transformation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Pullinger, M., Browne, A., Anderson, B., & Medd, W. (2013). Patterns of water: The water related practices of households in southern England, and their influence on water consumption and demand management. Final report of the ARCC-Water/SPRG Patterns of Water projects March 2013. http://www.sprg.ac.uk/uploads/patterns-of-water-final-report.pdf. Riche, Y., Dodge, J., & Metoyer, R. A. (2010). Studying always-on electricity feedback in the home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: Home eco behavior (pp. 1995–1998). April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA. ACM. Rouillard, J. (2012). The pervasive fridge. A smart computer system against uneaten food loss. In ICONS 2012, The seventh international conference on systems (pp. 135–140). Saint-Gilles–Reunion. Sahakian, M., & Wilhite, H. (2014). Making practice theory practicable: Towards more sustainable forms of consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(1), 25–44. doi:10.1177/ 1469540513505607.

216   Nicola Green ET AL. Schwartz, T., Stevens, G., Ramirez, L., & Wulf, V. (2013). Uncovering practices of marking energy consumption accountable: A phenomenological inquiry. ACM Transactions in Computer-Human Interaction, 20(2), Art. 12, 1–12. doi:10.1145/2463579.2463583. Seyfang, G. (2006). Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(4), 383–395. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.01.003. Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social organization of normality. Oxford: Berg. Shove, E., Patzner, M. & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. London: Sage. Shove, E., & Spurling, N. (Eds.). (2013). Sustainable practices: Social theory and climate change. London: Routledge. Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2014). What is energy for?: social practice and energy demand. Theory, Culture and Society, 31(5), 41-58. doi:10.1177/0263276414536746. Shove, E., & Warde, A. (2002). Inconspicuous consumption: The sociology of consumption, lifestyles and the environment. In R.  Dunlap, F.  Buttel, P.  Dickens, & A.  Gijswijt (Eds.), Sociological theory and the environment: Classical foundations, contemporary insights (pp. 230–241). Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield. Smajgl, A., Ward, J., & Pluschke, L. (2016). The water-food-energy Nexus—Realising a new paradigm. Journal of Hydrology, 533, 533–540. doi:10.1016/j.hydrol.2015.12.033. Sofoulis, Z. (2005). Big water, everyday water: A socio-technical perspective. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 19(4), 445–463. doi: 10.1080/10304310500322685. Sofoulis, Z., & Williams, C. (2008). From pushing atoms to growing networks: Cultural innovation and co-evolution in urban water conservation. Social Alternatives, 27(3), 50–57. Southerton, D. (2013). Habits, routines and temporalities of consumption: From individual behaviours to the reproduction of everyday practices. Time and Society, 22(3), 335–355. doi: 10.1177/0961463X12464228. Southerton, D., & Shove, E. (2000). Defrosting the freezer: From novelty to convenience: A  narrative of normalization. Journal of Material Culture, 5(3), 301–319. doi: 10.1177/ 135918350000500303. Spaargaren, G. (2003). Sustainable consumption: A theoretical and environmental policy ­perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 687–701. doi:10.1080/08941920309192. Spaargaren, G. (2011). Theories of practices: Agency, technology and culture. Exploring the relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption in the new world-order. Global Environmental Change, 21, 813–822. Spaargaren, G., & Oosterveer, P. (2010). Citizen-consumers as agents of change in globalizing modernity: The case of sustainable consumption. Sustainability, 2(7), 1887–1908. doi:10.3390/ su2071887. Spaargaren, G., & Van Vliet, B. (2000). Lifestyles, consumption and the environment: The ecological modernization of domestic consumption. Environmental Politics, 9(1), 50–76. doi:10.1080/09644010008414512 Srinivasan, V., Stankovic, J., & Whitehouse, K. (2011). Watersense: Water flow disaggregation using motion sensors. In Proceedings of the third ACM workshop on embedded sensing systems for energy-efficiency in buildings (pp. 19–24). ACM. Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. doi:10.1111/0022–4537.00175. Strengers, Y. (2011). Negotiating everyday life: The role of energy and water consumption feedback. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(3), 319–338. doi:10.1177/1469540511417994.

A Digital Nexus: Sustainable HCI and Resource Consumption   217 Strengers, Y. (2012). Peak electricity demand and social practice theories: Reframing the role  of change agents in the energy sector. Energy Policy, 44, 226–234. doi:10.1016/j. enpol.2012.01.046. Strengers, Y., & Maller, C. (2017). Adapting to “extreme” weather: Mobile practice memories of keeping warm and cool as a climate change adaptation strategy. Environment and Planning A, 49(6), 1432–1450. doi:10.1177/0308518X17694029. Strengers, Y., Nicholls, L., & Maller, C. (2014). Curious energy consumers: Humans and non-humans in assemblages of household practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3), 761–780. doi:10.1177/1469540514536194. Suchman, L. (2006). Human–machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taherzadeh, O., Bithell, M., & Richards, K. (2018). When defining boundaries for nexus analysis, let the data speak. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 137, 314–315. doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2018.06.012. Taylor, A. (2015). After interaction. interactions (pp. 49–53). September-October. ACM. Thieme, A., Comber, R., Miebach, J., Weeden, J., Kraemer, N., Lawson, S., & Olivier, P. (2012). We’ve bin watching you: Designing for reflection and social persuasion to promote sustainable lifestyles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2337–2346). May 05–10, 2012, Austin, Texas. ACM. doi:10.1145/2207676.2208394. Tirado Herrero, S., Nicholls, L., & Strengers, Y. (2018). Smart home technologies in everyday life: Do they address key energy challenges in households? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 65–70. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.001. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2017a). World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision. Population Division, United Nations. https://www.un.org/ development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-the-2017-revision.html. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2017b). Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2018). 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html. Uzzell, D., Muckle, R., Jackson, T., Ogden, J., Barnett, J., Gatersleben, B., Hegarty, P., Papathanasopoulou, E. (2006). Choice matters: Alternative approaches to encourage sustainable consumption and production. Project Report. Report to the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Environmental Psychology Research Group, University of Surrey, London: UK. http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/729053/. Van Vliet, B., Chappells, H., & Shove, E. (2005). Infrastructures of consumption: Environmental innovation in the utility industries. Oxford: Earthscan. Vannini, P., & Taggart, J. (2016). Onerous consumption: The alternative hedonism of off-grid domestic water use. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(1), 80–100. doi:10.1177/1469540513509642. Vassileva, I., Dahlquist, E., Wallin, F., & Campillo, J. (2013). Energy consumption feedback devices’ impact evaluation on domestic energy use. Applied Energy, 106, 314–320. doi:10.1016/ j.apevergy.2013.01.059. Warde, A. (2013). Sustainable practices: Social theory and climate change. London: Routledge. Warde, A. (2014). After taste: Culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(3), 279–303. doi: 10.1177/1469540514547828.

218   Nicola Green ET AL. Watson, S. (2017). Consuming water smartly: The significance of socio-cultural differences to water-saving initiatives. Local Environment, 22(10), 1237–1251. doi:10.1080/13549839.2017.133 4143. Wood, G., & Newborough, M. (2003). Dynamic energy-consumption indicators for domestic appliances: Environment, behaviour and design. Energy and Buildings, 35(8), 821–841. Woodruff, A. & Mankoff, J. (2009). Environmental Sustainability. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 8(1), 18-21. WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme). (2017). Household food waste in the UK, 2015. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Household_food_waste_in_the_UK_2015_ Report.pdf. Wutich, A. (2009). Estimating household water use: A comparison of diary, prompted recall and free recall methods. Field Methods, 21(1), 49–68. doi:10.1177/1525822X08325673.

section 3

C OM M U N IC AT ION AND R E L AT IONSH I PS

chapter 8

ESRC R ev iew Communication and Relationships Simeon J. Yates, Rich Ling, Laura Robinson, Catherine Brooks, Adam Joinson, Monica Whitty, and Elinor Carmi

Introduction This chapter explores the outcomes of the literature review and expert Delphi review ­process for the Communication and Relationships domain. As with the other review chapters, the goal is not to work through a large number of examples from the literature. Instead, building on the methods described in chapter 2, we will first set out the results of the digital humanities-based analyses of the literature, highlighting the major topics, themes, and concepts within the literature, providing a few general examples. These are not intended to be the “most important” examples from the literature but rather simply indicative of the types of work. This is then followed by the presentation of the content analysis that sought to identify the key theories and methods in use within the literature. Next, we outline the results from the Delphi review of experts. This concludes with the key questions, topics, and challenges we identified, comparing these to the results from the literature work. The last section presents the recommendations for areas of future study. As a reminder, the initial scoping question for this area of work was: “How are our relationships being shaped and sustained in and between various domains, including family and work?”

Initial Comments The original ESRC Domain question was criticized in the Delphi process for being too broad and ambiguous. Importantly, it was asked whether it constitutes a viable stand-alone question, since communicating and building relationships necessarily forms a pivotal

222   Simeon J. Yates et al. Table 8.1  Scoping Questions Question category

Example questions

Digital literacies

What literacies are required for effective communication using digital technologies? Should these literacies be taught, or can we assume that they develop organically? To what extent does an individual’s digital legacy and digital capability affect their interactions with others in work and leisure?

Norms and values

What normative pressures do people experience related to relationships shaped and sustained by digital technologies? What is the new normal for relationships now they are shaped and sustained by digital technologies across multiple domains?

Platform affordances

What are the Platform affordances of digital technology that construct or constrain relationships? How do particular platforms affect various kinds of relationships: social, sexual, familial, collegial, activism, fandom, etc.?

Quality of relationships and communication

How does communication via digital technologies facilitate the quantity and quality of our relationships? How are our relationships being shaped, sustained, and diminished by digital technologies, in and between the domains of work and family?

Relationship management

How are family, friend, and work relationships shaped by, and reshaping, the trajectories that new digital technologies are taking. How are our friendships being shaped, sustained, and diminished by digital technologies?

strand of nearly all activity in relation to “ways of being” in a digital society. Therefore, looking for one very specific starting point was not seen as straightforward, especially given the multiple ways in which relationships are expressed. Consequently, both social behavior and results from research can vary as the context of interests, conditions, and constraints ebb and flow with changing digital technology. As a result, the analysis put the initial ESRC scoping question to one side and utilized those derived from the Delphi first round, shown in Table 8.1. Of all the domains examined, the question of how media and technologies have affected relationships and communication is one of the oldest, going back to Classical Greek debates over the value of orality and literacy. In the context of digital media, much early research in the 1980s and 1990s sought to understand how interaction without face-to-face presence would function. This work has its roots in prior research comparing social presence in various pre-digital media (e.g., Short et al., 1976; Rutter 1987). These ideas were taken up in relation to digital media in the 1980s around ideas of “cuelessness” and formed the foundation of works such as Kiesler, Siegel and McGuire’s (1984) examination of the effects of “reduced social cues.” Much of this work had a strongly social-psychological focus around group behavior. The cumulation and to

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   223 a large extent rejection of this line of work can be found in the SIDE model of online group behavior (see: Postmes et al., 1998; Spears et al., 2002) that is also discussed in chapter 14. This is also the basis of more recent work on deception and “anonymity” in online interaction. Some clear parallels can be drawn between the “flaming” behavior identified by Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire and more recent work on contemporary antisocial behavior online (e.g., trolling). Other work examined the content of interaction such as the examination of socio-emotional content in computer conferencing by Rice and Love (1987), and how computer-mediated communication could foster organizational innovation (Rice, 1987, extending the Short et al., 1976 work on social presence) which early on contributed to the rejection that computer-mediated communication necessarily is cueless and therefore generates de-regulated mediated content, such as flaming and depersonalization. Separately, socio-linguistic work examined the textual and linguistic differences between speech, writing, and online interaction (e.g., Herring, 1996; Yates, 1996).

Literature Analysis The literature analysis was designed to create two analytic outcomes. First, the goal was to identify key topics within the existing literature. This would allow for a comparison with areas of future importance identified by the Delphi review. Second, we applied content analysis of the literature to explore the predominance of specific theories, methods, and approaches within the domain.1

Topics As noted in chapter 2, the literature data were subjected to two analyses. The first round of collected literature was analyzed to create concept pairs and trios, while the combined first and second rounds of literature were analyzed to identify key topic clusters. The results of these two approaches were then compared. The 10 most common concept pairs identified by the Round 1 literature analysis are listed in Table 8.2. These represent the concepts covering 2% or more of the identified cases. Table 8.3 lists concept pairings. All the literature collected from both rounds was then analyzed using Wordstat. Wordstat identified 21 concepts, which are presented in Table 8.4. These map closely to the concept pairings identified in the above analysis. As with the other domains, we can see a shift in focus within the literature between 2000 and 2016 (shown in Figures 8.1 and 8.2). The broad comparison of change over time in the frequency of concept pairs associated with the subject “communication” based on the smaller curated literature shows considerable differences between the periods 2000–2004 and 2012–2016. Early on, the most frequent pairs involve relationships,

Table 8.2  Analysis Concepts Ranked Concepts

Percent

Friend Media Pair Group Adolescent Phone Communication Relationship Time Medium Level Teen Life Parent

9.9 8.2 8.0 4.3 4.3 4.0 3.9 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9

Table 8.3  Concept Pairings—Main and Secondary Concepts Concepts

Percent

Concepts

Percent

Concepts

Percent

Adolescent Adult Life Realism Uncertainty

4.3 2.0 1.5 0.3 0.5

social-media Communication Group Information Interaction Medium Member Pair Relationship Student Tie Work

8.2 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.0

Friend Friendship Instant Judgment Newcomer Pair Photo Post Tie

9.9 2.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.3 1.4 1.3 2.1

Group Identification In-Group Out-Group Poster Sip Socialization

4.3 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7

pair Percentage Rate Relation Sociability Status Total Week Whole Writing

8.0 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.9

Parent Phone

1.9 1.9

Communication Controllability Correspondent Monograph Propinquity Sip        

3.9 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.4        

Level Move Pair Var

2.1 0.7 0.9 0.6

Phone Plan Punishment Someone Subgroup Teens

4.0 1.1 0.4 0.9 0.5 1.0

Life Pew Writing

2.0 1.4 0.6

Relationship Root Work

2.5 0.6 1.9

Medium Multitasking Richness Storytelling

2.3 0.3 1.5 0.5

Teen Twitter Voice      

2.1 1.2 1.0      

Table 8.4  Wordstat Analysis of Topics Topics

Keywords

Eigen-value

Freq

Cases

% Cases

Social network platforms

SOCIAL; COMMUN; THI; AR; INTERACT; PEOPL; SPACE; INFORM; NETWORK; THEI; SYSTEM

1.61

108,173

569

97.1

Facebook

FACEBOOK; ELLISON; SITE; NETWORK; FRIEND; SN; SNSS; BOYD; CAPIT; SOCIAL

1.91

44,414

559

95.9

Measurement

MEASUR; VARIABL; WA; SAMPL; ITEM; SURVEI; DATA

1.64

28,226

552

94.7

Twitter

TWEET; TWITTER; HASHTAG; RETWEET; USER; REPLI; API; PLATFORM; ACCOUNT; CHAPTER

11.88

28,460

537

92.1

Higher education

STUDENT; COLLEG; TEACHER; EDUC; SCHOOL; LEARN

1.73

13,949

521

89.4

CMC vs. FTF

CMC; FTF; CUE; WALTHER; PARTNER; INTERACT

2.26

13,697

511

87.7

Storytelling

CCM; STORYTEL; CREATIV; AUSTRALIAN; AUSTRALIA; ART; DIGIT; PROJECT

2.39

14,149

507

87.0

Nations and countries NATION; EUROPEAN; COUNTRI; EUROP; POLIT; GLOBAL

1.70

13,864

506

86.8

Gender and language

WOMEN; MEN; MALE; FEMAL; GENDER; LINGUIST; FEMINIST; LANGUAG; SEX; SPEECH

2.69

16,931

503

86.3

SNA

PAIR; CERIS; TIE; MULTIPLEX; FREQUENC; FACULTI; TI; FRIENDSHIP; EXCHANG; EMPLOYE

2.96

9430

498

85.4

Corporations

COMPANI; MARKET; BUSI; CORPOR; CONSUM; SERVIC; ADVERTIS

2.01

11,752

490

84.1

Critical theory

MARX; LABOUR; FUCH; DIALECT; LUK¡C; IDEOLOGI; ECONOMI; CAPIT; CRITIC; CLASS

3.37

11,067

464

79.6

Privacy

ION; PRIVACI; ER; AL; PROTECT

1.49

7717

452

77.5

Health care

CARE; PATIENT; TELECONSULT; HEALTH; HOME

1.57

5937

421

72.2

Blogging

BLOG; BLOGGER; READER; COMMENT

1.81

5106

403

69.1

Media consumption

FILM; CINEMA; NARR; IMAG GAME; PLAYER; VIDEO; AVATAR

1.46

5557

340

58.3

Adolescents and sexuality

ADOLESC; SEXUAL; EXPOSUR; SEIM; SEX

3.71

8015

326

55.9

Social club

CLUB; FAN; SPORT; TEAM

1.45

1305

194

33.3

Children and families

BOI; GIRL

1.40

2285

167

28.6

Old media

TELEVIS; AUDIENC; WATCH; TV; BROADCAST; VIEWER; MEDIA PHONE; CELL; TEEN; MOBIL

1.94

22,518

523

89.7

1.88

8567

421

72.2

Mobile phone

226   Simeon J. Yates et al.

information

exchange/pai frequency/me exchange/rel

frequency/l

exchange/inf

multiplexit

medium/tie

communication/ relati

communication/ link/tie

communicati

medium/work relationship/work

link/work

communication/ medium

relationship/ti

internet/use

communication communication link/pair

community/n

medium/ meet

pair/tie pair/relationship

communication/t

medium/pair information/p medium/relatio

frequency/t

link/medium

pair/work

medium/use tie/work

frequency/r

communication/pa link/relati

information/

friendship/t information/

exchange/me friendship/

frequency/p

communicati group/ member

medium/type informatio communicat friendship

fequency/

Figure 8.1  Communication 2000–2004: Most frequent concept pairs. Note: Bubble chart showing frequency of the top 50 concept pairs, based on concept modeling (described in Chapter 2) within the Domain for 2000–2004. The diameter of each circle reflects the frequency of the concept pair.

pair/tie/link, communication, medium, and work. Less frequently included were terms such as information, use, Internet, and exchange. Thus the focus was on relationships or network ties involving the process of communication, the medium of communication, and the context of the relationship (work and information). By 2012–2016, there was much less emphasis on general relationships and specific links, and more on the specific medium of Facebook and related terms such as user, network, and friend. This obviously reflects, in terms of more recent research, the commercial and social dominance of the new platforms (especially Facebook) in western societies. It may also point to the fact that data from these platforms is easily harvested along with the fact that many studies appear to be of adolescents and colleague students—the concepts of “teen” and “college student” are also notable in the analysis. Within this there is a distinct shift to social network analysis informed approaches, and this domain is one where this approach is highlighted in the analysis. Contexts shifted from work to college, the family, students,

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   227

facebook/med facebook/inf

communicatio

twitter/user internet/use

boy/girl

facebook/teen care/patient

facebook/user

audience/siz

network/user facebook/use access/intern

effect/medi

individual/n

capital/netwo

communication/medium

network/tie

perceiver/target

medium/user

profile/teen friend/teen

facebook/site

college/stud

facebook/friend

medium/theory friend/paren

child/parent

communication/t facebook/stud friend/netw

capital/face

television/vi

friend/user

facebook/network parent/teen

information/s medium/state care/telecons

teen/user audience/user

network/siz

medium/teen

medium/twitt facebook/ti

mediatizatio

facebook/rel

bahavior/pe

datum/valen

teen/twitte

Figure 8.2  Communication 2012–2016: Most frequent concept pairs. Note: Bubble chart showing frequency of the top 50 concept pairs, based on concept modeling (described in Chapter 2) within the Domain for 2012–2016. The diameter of each circle reflects the frequency of the concept pair, with the most frequent pair beginning in the center.

teens, and patient care. The mediated social network became central. Overall there appears to be a shift from studies that may have sought to generalize about digital media—computer-mediated communication—to ones with a strong “platform focus.” The challenges of a “platform” focus are discussed in chapter 25. In examining the papers and publications collected for this domain we found that the identified themes and topics consistently cross cut and overlap. A paper on Facebook would also likely raise issues about young adults, or a social network analysis would address issues of community. Underlying much of the literature are comparisons with face-to-face, and occasionally other media (writing, TV, mass media). Such comparative goes back to very early studies of digital media (computer-mediated communication) use discussed above. We do not intend to review this work here though we would note that such analyses are important in comparatively grounding studies in relation to existing

228   Simeon J. Yates et al. media practices. We would also note that many recent studies, and the examples examined below, are more likely to explore the use of a specific digital media as part of a citizen’s or user’s “suite” of communicative and media practices. We have therefore pulled out three themes as starting points for the presentation of example literature in this domain where the cross-cutting overlaps can be seen: • Social media platforms • Young people and adolescents • Social network analysis Social media “platform” studies. Taking Twitter and Facebook as examples of new platforms that have become the context of study, we find a range of different foci in the research literature. Many of these cross-cut the other themes identified in this domain but also reflect broader social and media discussion. Much of the media coverage of Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms has raised concerns about the level and extent of data and information sharing by young people. Such concerns are also reflected in research. For example, Madden et. al (2013) examined the way teens share information on social media. In fact, according to Madden et al.’s findings, few teens embrace a fully public approach to social media. Instead, they take an array of steps to restrict and prune their profiles, and their patterns of reputation management on social media vary greatly according to their gender and network size. As with many studies of new platforms, there is a need to understand the basic features and demographics of their use. At the time of writing Madden et al. noted an increase in the use of Twitter by teens from 16% in 2011 to 24% in 2013. They also noted that the median number of friends in Facebook was 300 and the number of Twitter followers was 79. Their research found that teenagers were sharing more information about themselves on such sites than they had in the past on other platforms and media. The research looked at five different types of personal information sharing (examples of personal photos, or details of school, city, email, and phone information) comparing 2006 and 2012. All five types significantly increased. Nonetheless, many (60%) teenage Facebook users keep their profiles private and a majority expressed high levels of confidence in managing settings. At the same time the research found that they have limited concerns about the use of their data by third parties. Overall the respondents were found to utilize a range of methods to manage their presentation of self and sharing of data online— including the deletion of other people from their networks. The focus group discussions undertaken by the researchers found that respondents had a waning enthusiasm for Facebook for a range of reasons. These included a dislike for the increased presence of  adults on the platform, pressures to be present, and issues around excessive and demanding levels of posting. Yet they kept using the platform because participation was an important part of overall teenage socializing (Madden et al., 2013). This trend has been seen to continue in more recent studies (e.g., Anderson & Jiang, 2018). This change

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   229 points out three key topics researchers should emphasize when exploring the impact of specific platforms: • Document the social contexts, demographics, interactional behaviors, and general uses over time. • Understand their use in the context of other digital and non-digital interactions and contexts. • Explore the broader underlying issues, in this case sharing of personal information and presentation of self (c.f. Goffman, 2002, 1959), that have broader social science importance but which may be articulated in specific ways in specific platforms. Similarly, Marwick and boyd (2014) examine how teenagers negotiate content in social media. They argue that the dynamics of sites such as Facebook have forced teens to alter their conceptions of privacy to account for the networked nature of social media. The researchers draw on examples from a large-scale ethnographic study consisting of 166 semi-structured interviews with teenagers and participant observation conducted across 17 US States to explore what they refer to as “networked privacy.” They argue that teens conceive of privacy as the ability to control a particular situation that happens in a particular place, stating that, To manage an environment where information is easily reproduced and broadcast, we find that many teenagers conceptualize privacy as an ability to control their situation, including their environment, how they are perceived, and the information that they share.  (p. 1056)

To achieve privacy, teens therefore use various strategies to gain control over the way their information is distributed. Online privacy therefore becomes context-specific and changes over time. Marwick and boyd note that, How people achieve privacy depends not solely on their ability to navigate technology, but requires them to fully understand the context in which they are operating, influence others’ behaviors, shape who can interpret what information, and possess the knowledge and skills necessary to directly affect how information flows and is interpreted within that context.  (pp. 1062–1063)

In addition, they argue that teens developed tactics to regulate who can access the information they share online, for example, encoding the content itself in order to limit the audience (rather than using the social media affordances of privacy settings). Thus, . . . achieving privacy requires that people have an understanding of and influence in shaping the context in which information is being interpreted. This can be done by co-constructing the architecture of the systems, or it can be done by embedding meaning and context into the content itself.  (p. 1063)

230   Simeon J. Yates et al. Overlapping with the social network analysis theme, literature exploring specific social media often focuses on the nature of relationships in these networks (what it means to link as a contact, friend or follower, etc.) For example, Mesch et al. (2012) examine the effect of individual, relational (e.g., tie homophily, relationship type, tie duration, and tie closeness), and cultural variables on communication via instant messaging (IM). The study focuses on the frequency of interaction among users from Israel and Canada. The researchers collected data from 785 participants between 2005 until 2006. Participants in Israel completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire in Hebrew, and participants in Canada completed an online survey in English. Their findings show that in both countries, IM was used primarily to keep in touch with close friends. Hours of daily IM use was positively associated with frequency of communication via IM in both countries. Relationship type predicted the frequency of communication via IM; for example, people were messaging their romantic partner more frequently than with a close friend. Mesch et al. argued that relationship variables are key to understanding IM behavior (rather than ones relating to technology features). As they note, The most salient result of this study is the explanatory power of relational variables in the understanding of the use and content of IM. The current study provides strong support for the argument that online communication is used primarily, but not exclusively, to maintain existing ties rather than to develop new ties.  (p. 750)

They also identified potential social and cultural variations, finding that, Gender similarity was not associated with IM topic multiplexity in Canada, but had a negative association in Israel. This finding suggests that in Canada same-sex and opposite-sex pairs discuss diverse topics to the same extent, whereas in Israel same-sex pairs are less likely than opposite-sex pairs to discuss a diverse set of topics.  (p. 750)

They also found that IM had a specific role—mainly coordinating social activity—in relationships and interactions, irrespective of the length or that relationship: . . . it seems that regardless of relationship duration, IM is used more for instrumental purposes (i.e., coordinating activities and scheduling meetings) than ­predictive purposes (i.e., companionship and social support). This distinction in use may explain the non-significant effect of relationship duration on frequency of communication.  (p. 751)

Overall, though, Mesch et al. found considerable similarities between the two groups of users in Israel and Canada, stating that, The results show that young people in both countries have strikingly similar patterns of usage. Participants in both countries indicated that their primary communication partners to be close friends, and family members. Contacts who met online were rare

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   231 in both countries, suggesting that IM is used to maintain existing relationships rather than to generate new online ties.  (p. 753)

This result reminds us that much digital media use is embedded in the everyday lived lives of people and not in some separate “cyberspace” world. This does not mean that there are not online contexts that function primarily or solely online, but rather to point out that digital media are now well embedded into the management of everyday social interaction. Work on relationships in digital media and digital platforms also often cuts into issues of community (see chapter 14). For example, Gruzd et al. (2011) examine the concept of community on Twitter using Benedict Anderson’s idea of “imagined communities” (1983). In addition to relying on Anderson’s work, they also apply two other notions of online communities: Jones’s (1997) notion of “virtual settlement” and McMillan and Chavis’s (1986) compilation of what constitutes a “sense of community.” In order to examine this, the study used one of the researcher’s own Twitter accounts and examined his network by using Twitter’s API to automatically retrieve a list of his followers and sources and to also determine who follows whom. So as to trace changes in the Twitter network of mutual followers, the researchers collected these data twice: in August 2009 and February 2010. The researchers utilized a mix of social network analysis and content analysis of the messages. They argued that, An ‘imagined’ community on Twitter is dual-faceted. It is at once both collective and personal. It is collective in the sense that all [users] belong to the worldwide set of [users] who understand Twitter’s norms, language, techniques, and governing structure.  (Gruzd et al., 2011, p. 1312)

They noted that Twitter communities formed around “high centers” that include “ . . . popular individuals, celebrities, or organizations such as media companies. Yet even less popular individuals on Twitter can play the role of local high centers of predominantly mutual networks” (p. 1313). Taking a sociological view of the results, Gruzd et al. argued that, Twitter turns out to be an implementation of the cross-cutting connectivity between social circles that 19th-century sociologist Émile Durkheim (1893/1993) argued was the key to modern solidarity.  (Gruzd et al., 2011, p. 1314)

In a similar approach, McEwen and Wellman (2013) examine how communities operate in different contexts in light of social media such at Twitter. They argue that groups in such media as Twitter are alternative places for people to connect with each other and that such online interactions are just as real and authentic offline contact: For the networked individual, ‘community’ is not geospecific but is defined as networks of personal communities that provide sociability, support, information, a sense of belonging, and social identity, managed on and offline using ICTs.  (p. 170)

232   Simeon J. Yates et al. As with many other studies, they find that Twitter groups are extensions of other social groups or communities—and that only a small proportion of Internet users met someone new online. Thus: These places are just alternate spaces for people of all ages to connect with their friends and peers; technology-enabled interaction fits seamlessly into their everyday lives and complements other practices.  (p. 170)

As a result, social media platforms are not the sole focus of specific relationships; rather, they mark one of many locations where relationship and community building work is done: When the networked individual manages relationships through a wide variety of media, such as email, landline telephone, instant messaging, Facebook, Twitter, mobile phone, and so on, we describe both the relationship and the media as being multiplexed.  (p. 173)

It is clear just from these example studies that social media platforms are key to understanding communication patterns and relationships in a digital age and this behavior and individual platforms are not separate from broader social interaction. The papers have also cross-cut other domains, especially Community and Identity (chapter 14). We also find that long-standing themes in social science—from presentation of self to community formation—form the underlying basis of the analysis. Young people and adolescents. The use of digital media and its impacts on young people is prevalent in the literature for this domain. The review did not specifically seek to explore the use of digital media by children—this is an area that has been extensively explored in recent years from research and policy perspectives (see Livingstone, 2002; Drotner & Livingstone, 2008; Livingstone & Sefton-Green, 2016). The literature discussed here therefore focuses on adolescents and young adults and much of this work explores how digital media are utilized in social interaction, relationships and socialization. For a comprehensive review of how college students manage multiple media for purposes such as relationships, see chapter 9. Such research questions and concerns have a long history in the study of media— digital or traditional, focusing on the use by and often the potential hazards that media may hold for young people. These issues have also often been the focus of media debates about adolescent behaviors—including many cases of media “moral panics” (Critcher, 2003). Such debates have also influenced the direction and focus of research questions. For example, prior work has explored the role of media in the socialization of adolescents, with Arnett (1995) noting that: . . . media are part of the process by which adolescents acquire—or resist acquiring—the behaviors and beliefs of the social world, the culture, in which they live.  (Arnett, 1995, p. 525)

Arnett (1995) provides a typology of adolescent media uses, including: entertainment, identity formation, high sensation, coping, and youth culture identification. Exploring

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   233 these five uses in relation to adolescent socialization, Arnett notes that media use and consumption differs from other socializing agents such as family, school, community, and the legal system. The key difference is that adolescents have greater control over their media choices than they do over their socialization from these other sources: The independence granted to adolescents in making media choices may contribute to their alienation, as they attempt to sort out the dissonance between the socialization messages in the media they use and the socialization messages promoted by adults in their families, schools, and communities.  (Arnett, 1995, p. 530)

Issues of socialization, media use, and family and community relationships are also all bound up in issues of identity and its expression. Within the context of digital media use this is often explored through the presentation of self online, or through form and content of interactions via digital platforms. Here again concerns over potential harms as well as benefits of digital media use can be found in both academic research and media coverage. As an example, Valkenburg and Peter (2008) investigate the effects of adolescents’ online identity on their offline social competence and self-conception, with an underlying concern that digital media use might increase social anxiety. They conducted an online survey in 2006 among 1,158 Dutch teens between 10 and 17 years old. They developed a set of measurement scales of off-line social competence that included four subscales: initiation, supportiveness, self-disclosure, and assertiveness. Their findings that even though adolescents experimented with their online identity more have more often communicated with people from different ages and backgrounds online, and “ . . . although adolescents’ self-concept showed considerable variance, there was no evidence that their level of self-concept unity is affected by engaging in online identity experiments” (Valkenburg & Peter, 2008, pp. 225–226). For some of these adolescents, this experience had positively contributed to their social competence: Although we did not find a positive relationship between social anxiety and online identity experiments, our result did reveal that lonely adolescents significantly more often used the Internet to experiment with their identity than nonlonely adolescents. Lonely adolescents apparently benefit from the relative anonymity of the Internet to learn how to relate to people and to practice their social skills.  (p. 226)

There is an element of “technological determinism” in some of this work, as many studies are formulated around the assumption or hypothesis that the use of digital media will have a direct influence on behaviors, experiences, and outcomes. Very often, though, the picture is quite complex and non-digital factors (in other words social and demographic factors) are found to be either necessary, and often sufficient, for all explanations. Subrahmanyam and Lin (2007) examined the relationship between adolescents’ online activity and their well-being, conducting a survey of 192 adolescents ranging from the age of 15 to 18. The survey explored their access to and use of the Internet, focusing on loneliness and social support. Overall they found that,

234   Simeon J. Yates et al. Contrary to our expectations, loneliness was not related to whether participants knew and were familiar with their online partners but was related to participants' gender and their perceived relationship with their online partners. (Subrahmanyam & Lin, 2007, p. 672)

Such results remind us that many key explanatory variables underpinning interaction and relationships via digital media are not “new”; they are based on a whole range of wellknown social, psychological, and cultural behaviors and factors. What may be new is the specific manner and form in which digital media are used to support interaction and relationships. For example, for a review of how computer-mediated communication are related to social support, especially during times of transition, see Mikal et al. (2013). Similarly, research has focused on how teenagers and adolescents have appropriated technologies and developed new forms of interaction in digital media. As an example, Greenfield and Subrahmanyam (2003) examined the way participants in an adolescents’ online chatroom adapt to the features of chat to create coherence and distinct registers. Once again, as noted above, the focus is on how digital interaction differs (or not) from face-to-face interaction. In order to examine the strategies that adolescents use to achieve coherence in online chats, Greenfield and Subrahmanyam conducted participant observation in teen chatrooms, and analyzed the transcripts of the interactions. The researchers find two main strategies: The strategies for achieving coherence in this environment address two important functions—identifying a conversational partner and determining a relevant response. We suggest that adapting to the demands of online chatrooms uses resources from both oral and written discourse to produce a new register for online chat. (Greenfield & Subrahmanyam, 2003, p. 714)

Many of the strategies used to achieve coherence were found to be similar to those in face-to-face conversation. These include such things as repetition and directly addressing intended conversational partners. There are also media- and channel-specific strategies tied to the technology or the specific norms of the group. There are also coherence behaviors similar to those in face-to-face interaction that are articulated via the constraints of the medium: In addition to specific cues, there are also general judgments of topical relevance, semantic relationship to a prior turn, and knowledge of who is participating in a particular thread at a particular time that must come into play, both for us and for the participants.  (p. 735)

The participants also used a range of textual and use visual cues and conventional codes, constructing a distinct register. Use of this register marked them out as “native speakers” of online chatrooms. The visual nature of the online computer medium helps participants to overcome the confusion of multiple overlapping conversations, changing participants, and

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   235 spatially and temporally separated conversation threads. Key strategies—such as nickname format, use of numerals, distinctive script, standard graphic format, and slot-filler framework—capitalize on the visual nature of the medium.  (p. 736)

Social network analysis. Throughout the history of the study of interactions via digital media the “networked” nature of the interaction—especially in the context of group interaction—has been a prominent feature. Many early studies of digital interaction focused on aspects of network structure, including power and influence, as well as the management of coherence in networked interaction (e.g., Paolillo,  2001), and how online network links were related to emotional content and reciprocity (Rice,  1982; Rice & Love, 1987). With the rise of “social networking sites” such as Facebook and Twitter (or their various precursors such as MySpace or even Usenet) the nature of social-networks has become a key topic for analysis. This has introduced the confusion of a “social network” as type of digital media with the longstanding idea of a “social network” as an object of analysis in social research. While also exploring their history and how academia had explored them to date, boyd and Ellison (2007) looked to define the key characteristics of social network sites (SNS). In this work boyd and Ellison argue that social “network sites” rather than “networking” is a more accurate term, as it describes people communicating within their networks rather than trying to be in these spaces solely for the sake of “networking.” They define SNS as “services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 211). As with other digital media, boyd and Ellison note how users appropriate the technology to their needs, sometimes subverting the intentions or expectations of the technologies designers. In particular they note the development of groups within SNS—networks within the network—defined by social, demographic, political, or cultural factors: While SNSs are often designed to be widely accessible, many attract homogeneous populations initially, so it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to segregate themselves by nationality, age, educational level, or other factors that typically segment society . . . , even if that was not the intention of the designers.  (p. 214)

Importantly, boyd and Ellison point out something that has now become a core feature of many studies of digital media—the use of SNS as a source of potentially “naturalistic” (that is non-experimental) data for social and digital research (such as profile and linkage data); though more recent work has pointed out the potential biases of such data sets (Blank, 2017; Blank & Lutz, 2017), and harmful implications for citizenship and governance (chapters 16 and 18). This question of methods is also present in much of the literature, as researchers look to explore and examine new digital tools used to analyses SNS or new digital data sources derived from SNS. Bruns and Stieglitz (2013) address aspects of this by

236   Simeon J. Yates et al. considering the use of standardized metrics to comparatively and systematically analyses Twitter interaction. They are looking to outline metrics which examine the total activity and visibility of individual participants; metrics which establish the temporal flow of conversation, and of specific forms of conversation; and metrics which combine these aspects to examine the relative contributions of specific, more or less active, user groups during each unit of time.  (Bruns & Stieglitz, 2013, p. 92)

They describe a catalogue of widely applicable, standardized metrics for analyzing Twitter-based communication, with particular focus on hashtagged exchanges in data “at large scale.” They note the value of user-focused metrics but also look to address the analysis of Twitter data over time, arguing, While user-based metrics are valuable for analyzing the overall shape of the user base of a specific hashtag, for highlighting especially active or visible contributors, and for examining whether hashtags are used mainly for posting original thoughts, for engagement within the community, or for sharing information, a second major group of metrics emerges from a breakdown of the total data-set not by user, but by time.  (p. 99)

Bruns and Stieglitz suggest three areas for metrics: metrics which describe the contributions made by specific users and groups of users; metrics which describe overall patterns of activity over time; and metrics that combine these aspects to examine the contributions by specific users and groups over time. Such metrics and analyses also draw upon well-established methods for social ­network analysis developed within sociology and information studies for the analysis of links between individuals, groups, organizations or artefacts (e.g., Wasserman & Faust, 1994). The application of such methods to explore the digital interactions or SNS interactions of users and citizens often focus on specific communities (e.g., Rice, 1982’s over-time study of computer conferencing groups), and therefore overlapping with the Community and Identity (chapter 14) and Citizenship and Politics (chapter 16) domains. For example, Vromen et al. (2015) examined how politically engaged young people integrate social media use into their organizations, political communication, and civic engagement. They conducted in-person focus groups with 12 civic groups of students from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. All the groups reported that they use social media to maintain the group, distribute related information, and organize different kinds of events. As with many other similar studies, they found an integration between digital media use, traditional media use, and physical and digital social networks: While Facebook discussion does not replace meetings and events for the group members at large, it has become essential for organizing any kind of offline group

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   237 meeting and ensuring event attendance. This is consolidated through social media functionality, such as the public display of members saying they are attending an event, and especially the diary functions Facebook events add to. (Vromen et al., 2015, p. 89)

The analysis found four main ways that social media created or shaped the respondents’ political communication: “broadcast, new information, everyday political talk and new political action” (Vromen et al., 2015, p. 90). Importantly, the researchers compared these behaviors across three countries to explore the impact of cultural context, finding that, the three dutiful-oriented party groups had more in common with one another in terms of their citizenship norms and practices than they did with the identity and issue-based groups within their own country.  (p. 95)

In the context of social network analysis, a key measure or research focus is that of social capital—however measured. Ellison et al. (2007) examined the relationship between use of Facebook and the formation and maintenance of social capital. They also explored the dimension of social capital that assesses one’s ability to stay connected with members of a previously inhabited community, which they called “maintained social capital.” The researchers conducted a survey with 800 undergraduate students from Michigan State University. The students reported spending between 10 and 30 minutes on average using Facebook each day and report having between 150 and 200 friends listed on their profile. Ellison et al. noted that Facebook had a role in the processes by which their student respondents formed and maintained ­various aspects of social capital social capital. They also examined their well-being (self-esteem and satisfaction from life). Students who reported low satisfaction and low self-esteem seemed to gain social capital if they used Facebook more intensely. As a result they concluded that Facebook use is important for developing bridging social capital: This form of social capital—which is closely linked to the notion of ‘weak ties’— seems well-suited to social software applications, as suggested by Donath and boyd (2004), because it enables users to maintain such ties cheaply and easily. (Ellison et al. 2007, p. 1162)

As has been noted above and in many places throughout this volume, the study also found that SNS use was integrated into everyday life. As a result, this digital media use formed part of, rather than was a separate activity from, ongoing relationships: Online interactions do not necessarily remove people from their offline world but may indeed be used to support relationships and keep people in contact, even when life changes move them away from each other.  (p. 1164)

238   Simeon J. Yates et al.

Theory, Method, and Approach As with the other ESRC review chapters, the following analysis builds on Borah (2017). Most of the analyzed papers (64%) were inductive, either describing findings or building theory (Table 8.5), while only 14% undertook theory testing. Reflecting this, 64% of the papers undertook primary data collection with 23% being discursive reviews of or reflective on existing research (Table 8.6). The main disciplines from which theory was used or for which theory was developed were: psychology (39%), sociology (32%), and communication and media (16%). Only actual use for the purposes of deign or analysis Table 8.5  Epistemological Approach   No clear epistemology Deductive (testing of existing theory) Inductive (conclusions driven by data)

Percent 22.1 13.9 64.0

Table 8.6  Empirical Approach   Discursive/descriptive (no new data or theory) Primary empirical (data collected and analyzed) Secondary empirical (analysis of existing data) Theoretical (synthesis of current or prior work)

Percent 22.9 63.8 5.1 7.7

Table 8.7  Research Method   Content analysis Ethnography Experiment Focus groups Interview(s) Literature review (general or narrative) Meta-analysis or systematic review Other Social network analysis Survey Textual (linguistic-discourse analysis) Theory building

Percent 5.4 6.9 9.5 5.4 23.7 20.3 0.5 18.0 4.1 36.0 4.1 6.2

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   239 Table 8.8  Study Population  

Percent

Case study(ies) General population Specific group No study group Grand Total

1.5 8.0 34.8 56.0 44.3

were coded. General reference to prior work and theory were not coded. There was considerable variety in the specific theories applied from these disciplines and no clear preference. No one theory appeared more than three times. The main research methods (Table 8.7) were surveys (36%), interviews (24%), and literature reviews (20%). Though many studies undertook to analyses respondents’ social networks (often via surveys), only a small number of papers (4%) conducted formal statistical social network analysis from scraped or surveyed SNS use. The majority of the empirical work focused on specific groups (e.g., Facebook users) with a limited number of general population studies (Table 8.8). Less than 2% of studies overtly stated that they were using a “big data” approach.

Delphi Review The following sections detail the results of the Delphi process for the Communication and Relationship domain, covering three main areas: suggested scoping or research questions, key topics to address within these questions, and key challenges to researching these questions (see the initial comments section at the start of the chapter). The Delphi review identified a set of scoping questions for the domain and these were coded into the five categories detailed in Table 8.9: digital literacies, norms and values, platform affordances, quality of relationships and communication, and relationship management. The ranking of these categories by the number of questions allocated to the ­category is provided in Table 8.10, and by their ranked importance from the confirmatory survey is given in Table 8.11. The two categories of scoping questions rated as the most important were digital literacies, and quality of relationships and communication. It is important to note that ranked importance is almost the inverse of the ­number of questions allocated to the category. As has been noted already in regard to the literature, many of areas identified in the scoping questions and challenges are cross-cutting of this and the other domains (see chapter 25), a key one of these being digital literacy.

240   Simeon J. Yates et al. Table 8.9  Delphi Review Scoping Questions Question category

Example questions

Digital literacies

What literacies are required for effective communication using digital technologies? Should these literacies be taught, or can we assume that they develop organically? To what extent do individuals’ digital legacy and digital capability affect their interactions with others in work and leisure?

Norms and values

What normative pressures do people experience related to relationships shaped and sustained by digital technologies? What is the new normal for relationships now that they are shaped and sustained by digital technologies across multiple domains?

Platform affordances

What are the platform affordances of digital technology that construct or constrain relationships? How do particular platforms affect various kinds of relationships: social, sexual, familial, collegial, activism, fandom, etc.?

Quality of relationships and communication

How does communication via digital technologies facilitate the quantity and quality of our relationships? How are our relationships being shaped, sustained, and diminished by digital technologies, in and between the domains of work and family?

Relationship management

How are family, friend, and work relationships shaped by, and reshaping, the trajectories that new digital technologies are taking? How are our friendships being shaped, sustained, and diminished by digital technologies?

Table 8.10  Scoping Questions Ranked by Number of Cases Relationship management Platform affordances Quality of relationships and communication Digital literacies Norms and values

Table 8.11  Scoping Questions Ranked by Importance   Digital literacies Quality of relationships and communication Norms and values Relationship management Platform affordances

Percent 85.7 71.4 64.3 50.0 28.6

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   241

Scoping Questions The consultation workshop identified a set of issues or additional scoping questions for each of the five categories, shown in Table 8.12. The workshop also noted that the following topics appeared to be missing from the results of the Delphi work: • Issues of cultural specificities • Cultural analysis • Mixed modal interaction

Topics The topics identified in the Delphi review were coded into 25 categories as detailed in Table 8.13. The categories occurring the most frequently include friendships and r­elationship formation, age, privacy and ethics, work and organizations, education, and  social and ­community support. The consultation workshop also highlighted the following issues: • Age (user age versus user experience) • Social media “bubbles” • Cross over to the Data and Representation Domain • Research methods Table 8.12  Consultation Workshop Scoping Categories and Example Questions Scoping question category

Example questions

Digital literacies

Who needs help with digital literacies? Are these taught or learned? Understanding our “digital communication assets”

Norms and values

What are the origins of normative pressures? How are communicative norms formed and transmitted? Which behaviors and activities are “normal”?

Platform affordances

What types of relationship are supported? What types are “new”? Changes to proximities/propinquity? Managing privacy? Platform is the message—or platform focus may be to technological determinist?

Quality of relationships and communication

Interaction versus functioning online? Why focus on old categories of work, home, family? Overlaps to well-being? Overlaps to relationship management?

Relationship management

Interaction versus functioning online? Why focus on old categories of work, home, family? Overlaps to well-being? Overlaps to quality of relationships?

242   Simeon J. Yates et al. Table 8.13  Key Topics Ranked by Percent of Cases Topics Friendships and relationship formation Age Privacy and ethics Work and organizations Education Social and community support (Social) Media “bubbles” Data and representation Exclusion Politics Social change Dependency Family

Percent 12 10 10 8 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 2 2

Topics Identity Integration Interpersonal Methods Other Place Platforms Psychology Quality and variety Sexuality Textuality Theory  

Percent 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2  

The ranked importance of these from the confirmatory survey are presented in Table 8.14. As with the scoping questions, there is also divergence between those topics that were most commonly cited in the Delphi workshop and those deemed most important in the final workshop. However, two of the three top topics were the same: friendships and relationship formation, and privacy and ethics, indicating these are central and important topics for consideration. The workshop participants also identified the following potential gaps in the Delphi topics list: • Culture • Misinformation and miscommunication • Teaching of digital literacies • Exclusion/inclusion/participation • Friendship formation (especially regarding young people)

Challenges The challenges in undertaking research in this area identified by the Delphi panel were placed into 16 categories. These categories are detailed in Table 8.15 and ranked by the number of coded items, with four of those deemed to be domain specific by the consultation workshop marked shown in in bold: • Multi-platform studies • Co-design • Ethics and privacy • Multi-disciplinary working

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   243 Table 8.14  Key Topics Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey Topics

Very important

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

Very unimportant

Privacy and ethics

57.1%

35.7%

7.1%

0.0%

0.0%

Friendship and relationship formation

57.1

35.7

0.0

7.1

0.0

Social change

42.9

42.9

14.3

0.0

0.0

Social and community support

35.7

57.1

7.1

0.0

0.0

Education

35.7

28.6

35.7

0.0

0.0

Exclusion

28.6

57.1

14.3

0.0

0.0

Age factors—cohort and age

28.6

50.0

14.3

7.1

0.0

(Social) Media “bubbles”

21.4

42.9

21.4

7.1

7.1

Work and organizations

14.3

57.1

28.6

0.0

0.0

Political communication

14.3

50.0

35.7

0.0

0.0

Data and representation

14.3

50.0

28.6

7.1

0.0

Table 8.15  Challenges Ranked by Percentage of Cases Challenge Multi-platform studies Theory Co-design Big data Ethics and privacy Surveys Methods Multidisciplinary working

Percent 17 17 13 10 8 6 4 4

Challenge Community Data access Exclusion Longitudinal studies New forms of publication Old media Other Uses and gratifications

Percent 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Note: Domain-specific challenges in bold.

The first category—multi-platform studies—raises the issue of multimodal r­ elationships. It questions how we should explore and how we assess the influence of any one particular technological platform, when many important relationships involve so many platforms (as well as face-to-face, and “legacy media” such as phone, texting, or mass media, etc.)? The question becomes how do we assess these complex combinations?

244   Simeon J. Yates et al. As a result, how do we research or follow people’s digital communication in their everyday lives—especially as looking at only one medium will likely only give us part of the communications or relationships (social network) picture? Research on this domain should therefore not make conclusions about relationships from single-media studies but aim to understand communications platforms as multi-media and hybrid media, addressing dynamic network analytics. Within this is the need to understand the physical and embodied use of the digital in communication activities and processes. The second category—co-designing technologies—was proposed as it was argued that many SNS systems have been implemented without such a focus. The challenge here is how to work with and alongside communities that are often ignored (especially marginalized communities) so as to co-design technologies that are of use to them and of value in their lives. Such work should focus on improving relationships rather than distancing ourselves from others. It was argued that technologies are often designed for communities with some “user testing” but little engagement with people and their lives. Thus, social scientists, working alongside designers and engineers, can use methodologies and approaches central to social science to work alongside communities to understand and communicate their needs and broker relationships. The third category—ethics and privacy—should look at the question of how using SNS data, especially to effectively mine data about relationships (as SNS platforms themselves do) affect our use, trust, or selection of digital technologies, whether for research, business or service provision? Finally, multidisciplinary working is relevant to all the domains. Here it points to the need for the research to integrate ideas from a range of disciplines to best examine and explore the technical, performative, and dynamic nature of digital communication. Such collaborations should include critical approaches (e.g., Marx, Gramsci, Hall, critical theory, Bourdieu, Foucault) so as to question and reflect on the impacts of digital media use. In conclusion, as with the other domains we believe that the complexity and variety of potential work warrants consideration to be taken of all the questions topics and challenges identified. Table 8.16 shows the eight most frequent challenges ranked by importance, with three of the domain-specific in the top four listed as “very important”: ethics and privacy, multidisciplinary working, and multi-platform studies. Noting this, we would argue that the analysis of the Delphi data suggests the following key areas for future research (see Tables 8.10, 8.13, and 8.15): • The norms and values of digital communication and relationships • The “affordances” that different platforms provide for digital communication and relationships • The quality of relationships and communication supported by digital media and technologies • The management of relationships via digital media and technologies Within these areas, future projects need to consider some key cross-cutting topics:

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   245 Table 8.16  Challenges Ranked by Importance from Delphi Survey Challenge

Very important

Ethics and privacy Theory Multidisciplinary working Multi-platform studies Big data Methods Surveys Co-design

64.3% 53.8 46.2 42.9 35.7 28.6 14.3 0.0

Important Neutral Unimportant Very unimportant 14.3% 30.8 38.5 35.7 28.6 42.9 21.4 38.5

21.4% 7.7 7.7 21.4 35.7 28.6 50.0 38.5

0.0% 7.7 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 15.4

0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 7.7

• Social and community aspects • Privacy and ethics • Exclusion • Social change • Work and organizations Furthermore, key domain-specific challenges include • Multi-platform studies • Ethics and privacy

Conclusion Communication behaviors and relationships are fundamental to almost all online activities, folded into and overlapping the other Domains. Digital media use on current scales and developments likely to be undertaken (e.g., with the rise of the Internet of Things; see chapter  23) make such engagements ubiquitous and almost invisible for many citizens. The overall impact of this expansion remains potentially unknown territory. Researching such change requires inter- and multi-disciplinary research methods and groups. It was widely recognized in the literature, workshops, and by the team that a whole new axis in communication has been brought about by the development and use of social media. Already, scholarly research is abundant; however, many commentators felt there were still under-researched areas, especially in terms of theory. Foremost was how people are able integrate digital media so easily into their everyday lives. Experts acknowledge that there will be benefits and further potential in social media but also that the well-documented concerns are still not well understood. These include a range of behaviors that could normatively be described as negative, for example, hyper sociability, sexting, cyberbullying, online grooming, trolling, and more generally, the broad areas of Internet safety and problematic use (see chapters 3 and 4).

246   Simeon J. Yates et al. There is an enduring concern with the virtual versus the physical aspects of c­ ommunication, with questions raised around costs and benefits of functioning effectively in a digital world and particularly if individuals were “being shaped and diminished” by digital technologies as opposed to proactively assessing and shaping future technologies. Understanding what a digital person or a digital citizen becomes problematic as digital forms of communication are folded seamlessly into lives. A general observation was raised, that communication and relationships are impacted differently depending on the particular stages in the life course, e.g., children, adolescents, students, adults and seniors (see chapters 5, 6, and 9) and also by the type of social relations. The team noted that the literature in its breadth highlights how communication density is intensified by digital technologies, so attention must be given to formulating research questions that take this into account. This is likely reflected in the topics and challenges identified in the Delphi work around “multi-platform studies” within which there needs to be focus on communication and relationships as they intersect with • Other people • Things and artefacts • Our personal “curation” of self on platforms • “Nodes” (people/artefacts/bots etc.) and networks themselves Overall, reflecting on the literature and the data, the team noted the following general issues that appeared to cross-cut both the Delphi data and the literature analyses, and which stand out as potential new questions: • What normative pressures do people experience related to relationships shaped and sustained by digital technologies? • What literacies are required for effective communication using digital technologies? • Should these literacies be taught, or do they develop organically? • How do digital media facilitate the quality and quantity of our relations (e.g., “to what extent does an individual’s digital literacy and digital capability affect interactions with others in work and leisure?”) The literature also indicates that Twitter and Facebook are well represented in contemporary literature, but research studies need to include investigations and ­ ­comparisons of other social media platforms. Moreover, the team had concerns about the attractiveness of big data analytics, reflected in the Delphi results, as this might undermine more holistic multi-method approaches required to get at the dynamics of offline and online aspects of communication and relationships. Overall, contemporary research in the Communication and Relationships domain studied here appears to have focused on: comparisons of computer-mediated communication to other media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter; digital media use by

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   247 younger people and adolescents; and understanding social networks. Existing work has employed fairly traditional methods such as surveys and interviews. It is orientated towards psychological and sociological approaches, with some linguistic and information studies aspects. The work does not appear to have extensively employed digital tools and big data methods, though those approaches are increasing rapidly. Most notably the work appears to have been “platform driven” and “platform specific” with a bias towards younger people. The future research identified in the Delphi process is different, though there are some overlapping areas. The focus has shifted towards more general studies of communication and relationship in everyday life and the need to understand the integration of multiple media into communication and relationship behavior. The key questions, topics, and challenges include: norms and values; the “affordances” that different platforms provide; the quality of relationships and communication supported by digital media and technologies; and the management of relationships via digital media and technologies. Within these areas key issues to consider are: social and community aspects, ­privacy and ethics, exclusion, social change, and work and organizations.

Note 1. As part of the review, The Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield applied concept modelling techniques to a curated corpus of 1,900 journal articles from the period 1968 to 2017. Concept modelling is a computational linguistic process that involves identifying the emergence of concepts, or key ideas, via lexical relationships. For the purposes of the review, lexical relationships were limited to high frequency co-occurrences of terms as pairs and trios. The process is entirely data driven and resulted in 2 million rows of data. The website https://www.dhi.ac.uk/waysofbeingdigital/ provides access to the top 50 most frequently occurring pairs and trios through a series of data visualizations. Click on View Data Visualizations at the top. Then check/submit which of the seven ESRC domains you are interested in (including all). Then choose the visualization. These show configurations across selected time frames. Choose bubble chart, tree map, zoomable pack layout, or network diagram, by individual subject or by all seven subjects combined, by document or concept frequency. You can similarly search the analyzed documents (all, by subject, author, concept, concept trio, and year) by clicking on Browse Articles at the top. Also, see https://waysofbeingdigital.com/literature-analysis-interactive-results/ for interactive visualizations with mouse-overs of the main clusters of concepts within each Domain, and the relative frequency of concepts associated with each cluster.

References Anderson, M. & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research Center, 31 (http://publicservicesalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Teens-Social-MediaTechnology-2018-PEW.pdf) Arnett, J.  J. (1995). Adolescents’ uses of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(5), 519–533.

248   Simeon J. Yates et al. Blank, G. (2017). The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for social research. Social Science Computer Review, 35(6), 679–697. Blank, G., & Lutz, C. (2017). Representativeness of social media in Great Britain: Investigating Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, Pinterest, Google+, and Instagram. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(7), 741–756. Borah, P. (2017). Emerging communication technology research: Theoretical and methodological variables in the last 16 years and future directions. New Media & Society, 19(4), 616–636. boyd, d. n., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. Bruns, A. & Stieglitz, S. (2013). Towards more systematic Twitter analysis: Metrics for tweeting activities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(2), 91–108. Critcher, C. (2003). Moral panics and the media. London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education. Donath, J. & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71–82. Drotner, K., & Livingstone, S. (Eds.). (2008). International handbook of children, media and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Durkheim, E. (1993). The division of labor in society. (transl. by G. Simpson), New York: The MacMillan Company (originally published 1893). Ellison, N.  B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook friends: Social ­capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168. Greenfield, P. M., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2003). Online discourse in a teen chatroom: New codes and new modes of coherence in a visual medium. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 713–738. Goffman, E. (2002, 1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294–1318. Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and crosscultural perspectives (vol. 39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Jones, Q. (1997). Virtual-communities, virtual settlements & cyber-archaeology: A theoretical outline. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3). Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T.  W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computermediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123–1134. Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media: Childhood and the changing media ­environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Green, J. (2016). The class: Living and learning in the digital age. New York: NYU Press. Madden, M., Lenhart, M., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith, A., & Beaton, M. (2013, May 21). Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center. http://assets.pewresearch. org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2013/05/PIP_TeensSocialMediaandPrivacy_PDF.pdf Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067. McEwen, R., & Wellman, B. (2013). Relationships, community, and networked individuals. In R.  Teigland & D.  Power. (Eds.), The immersive internet (pp. 168–179). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

ESRC Review: Communication and Relationships   249 McMillan, D.  W., & Chavis, D.  M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6–23. Mesch, G.  S., Talmud, I. & Quan-Haase, A. (2012). Instant messaging social networks: Individual, relational, and cultural characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(6), 736–759. Mikal, J. P., Rice, R. E., Abeyta, A., & DeVilbiss, J. (2013). Transition, stress and computermediated social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A40–A53. Paolillo, J. C. (2001). Language variation on Internet Relay Chat: A social network approach. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(2), 180–213. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDEeffects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689–715. Rice, R. E. (1982). Communication networking in computer-conferencing systems: A longitudinal study of group roles and system structure. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 6 (pp. 925–944). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rice, R.  E. (1987). Computer-mediated communication and organizational innovation. Journal of Communication, 37(4), 65–94. Rice, R. E., & Love, G. (1987). Electronic emotion: Socioemotional content in a computermediated communication network. Communication Research, 14(1), 85–108. Rutter, D. R. (1987). Communicating by telephone. International Series in Experimental Social Psychology. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley. Spears, R., Lea, M., Corneliussen, R. A., Postmes, T., & Haar, W. T. (2002). Computer-mediated communication as a channel for social resistance: The strategic side of SIDE. Small Group Research, 33(5), 555–574. Subrahmanyam, K., & Lin, G. (2007). Adolescents on the net: Internet use and well-being. Adolescence, 42(168), 659–678. Valkenburg, P.  M., & Peter, J. (2008). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the Internet: Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research 35(2), 208–231. Vromen, A., Xenos, M. A., & Loader, B. (2015). Young people, social media and connective action: From organisational maintenance to everyday political talk. Journal of Youth Studies,18(1), 80–100. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and literate linguistic aspects of CMC discourse: A corpus based study in S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins (International Pragmatics Series).

chapter 9

M edi a M astery by Col l ege Stu den ts A Typology and Review Ronald E. Rice, Nicole Zamanzadeh, and Ingunn Hagen

Introduction Digital media, from the early Arpanet and email through to current developments such as social media and the Internet of Things, have changed our everyday lives and social relationships.1 But every aspect of society has also become more and more de­pend­ent on that technology. We use digital media for information, education, entertainment, interaction, and consumption, and for managing countless aspects of our lives. Yet digital media also compete for people’s attention, energy, time, identity, and relationships in a way that can be challenging, risky, and harmful for individuals, groups, and society (Xu, Wang, & David, 2016). Our concern, then, is the tension between the process of trying to master digital media, and the process of being mastered by them (Rice, Hagen, & Zamanzadeh, 2018). The purpose of this chapter is to synthesize and understand the uses and effects of digital media among college students through the framework of media mastery, pervasive but latent in the current literature. We do so by reviewing examples of media mastery factors associated with social and individual contexts. Different age cohorts and life span periods are associated with different exposure to and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs), experiences of positive and negative aspects of ICTs, and cognitive and emotional abilities used to manage ICTs (Reinecke et al., 2017). We focus on college students, because they: have grown up with an increasingly diverse array of new media, are usually experiencing significant transitions from their family and high school friends, are engaging in a wide variety of new social interactions and contexts, and are required to take personal control over

Media Mastery by College Students   251 their tasks, schedules, and relationships (DeAndrea, Ellison, LaRose, Steinfield, & Fiore, 2012; Manago, Taylor, & Greenfield, 2012; Turkle, 2011). They are also prodigious users of digital media and experience a wide array of positive and negative uses and outcomes. We note just a few examples. Amount of use is considerable. In a 24-hour tracking study of the mobile phone use of 793 university students in four countries, Mihailidis (2014, p. 58) found that 31% of the participants logged into social networking apps more than 13 times in a 24-hour period, clearly demonstrating the centrality of mobile Internet use for the “tethered generation.” In Moreno et al.’s (2012) experience sampling study with 189 undergraduate students, participants multitasked 56.5% of the time they were online. Types of use are diverse. Analysis of a week’s worth of social media usage by college students documented content-sharing, text-based entertainment/discussion, relationships, and video consumption as the main clusters of activity (Wang, Niiya, Mark, Reich, & Warschauer, 2015). Negative implications are extensive. A panel study among 484 undergraduate students from the United States found negative effects of perceived “cyber-based overload” (e.g., e-mail volume, pressure to respond, perceived pressure to post content on social media etc.) on perceived stress and overall health status (Misra & Stokols, 2012, p. 740). In a survey study with 600 student participants, LaRose, Connolly, Lee, Li, and Hales (2014) explored the effects of “connection overload” (p. 59) arising from the communication demands resulting from social media and e-mail use.

The Concept of Media Mastery Definition Media mastery is the more or less conscious and more or less successful ongoing process of how people understand, manage, make sense of, cope with, and use one or more new media in their everyday lives, as well as how media in turn come to manage, control, or affect individuals and their social relations. Media mastery includes the choices, engagement, habits, and patterns people engage in and develop in their lives regarding the use of media, its content, and its social connections (see also Picone, 2017). Our concept of media mastery entails four main arguments. 1. Media mastery invokes the reciprocality among structure, actors, and technology of structurational theory (Jones & Karsten,  2008) and adaptive structuration (DeSanctis & Poole, 1994), in the context of individuals, groups, social contexts, and new media. Thus, we apply the concept of media mastery in two ways. The first is how we master the balance and use of one or more media in different

252   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. contexts. The second is the more subtle issue of the ways in and extent to which these media master us—as our activities, concerns, and relationships are being shaped through, facilitated and constrained by, and dependent upon, the use of these media. For example, users may learn about themselves, and benefit from, online identities, but managing and repairing those requires constant connectedness, awareness, revising, and tending (boyd,  2015). This awareness of the dual nature of media (or for that matter, any technology) is not new: Postman (1996), in the context of television and computers, claimed that more important than learning how to use media is learning how they use us. 2. Crucial to the media mastery concept is the awareness, interpretation, and management of both (often simultaneously) positive and negative aspects and implications of media use. Katz and Rice (2002) applied a syntopian approach to the study of Internet use specifically to reject either a utopian or dystopian perspective. Smith (2015), summarizing a U.S. Pew survey, noted that while from 70% to over 90% reported positive benefits relative to disadvantages of their smartphone use, younger users were more likely to report both positive as well as negative emotions about their use. Best, Manktelow, and Taylor’s (2014) review of a decade’s worth of studies on online communication, social media, and adolescent wellbeing, found both positive implications (self-esteem, perceived social support, increased social capital, safe identity experimentation and increased opportunity for self-disclosure) and negative effects (exposure to harm, social isolation, depression and cyber-bullying). Much research and popular literature underscores the potential for various media dependencies, problematic use, and addiction (David, Kim, Brickman, Ran, & Curtis, 2015). 3. Tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes arise in and from media experiences. Research on new media in general and the Internet and mobile phones in particular has identified tensions, contradictions and paradoxes in their use, social construction, and implications, though with varying definitions and foci. For example, Rice, Hagen, and Zamanzadeh (2018) identified a variety of paradoxes associated with college students’ use of new media, such as being both stimulating and exhausting, and both flexible and uncontrollable. Jarvenpaa and Lang’s (2005) analysis of urban mobile device users in Helsinki, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Austin grouped an initial set of 23 paradoxes into eight: empowerment/enslavement, independence/dependence, fulfills needs/creates needs, competence/incompetence, planning/improvisation, engaging/disengaging, public/private, and illusion/disillusion. 4. Media mastery is highly contextual, shaped by the user’s own and their social groups’ values and attitudes towards media, their motivations for using media, and the characteristics, capabilities, convergence, affordances, mobility, and personalization of media. Thus the balance between mastery of media by users, or of users by media, shifts across media, contexts, and time. Using media for some goals in some contexts may have different and even opposed interpretations or outcomes, or activate or even preclude other goals, in other contexts.

Media Mastery by College Students   253

Related Concepts We distinguish the concept of media mastery from a range of established as well as recent terms, ranging from the more individual to the more societal. Some approaches focus on individuals’ self-regulation and attention, emphasizing both psychological and cognitive aspects. For example, Wu (2015) identified four dimensions of an online learning motivated attention and regulatory strategies scale, comprising perceived attention discontinuity, and social media notifications (constituting knowledge of attention), and behavioral strategies, and mental strategies (constituting regulation of attention). Thus Wu highlights the important role of meta-attention or motivated attention. Integrating those with a variety of other measures, Wu clustered users into five categories: (1) motivated strategic, (2) the unaware, (3) the hanging on, (4) the non-responsive, and (5) the self-disciplined. Media mastery involves self-regulation but that is only one component of an individual’s experience of mastery or of being mastered. A related approach is the concept and practice of mindfulness (Schonert-Reichl & Roeser, 2016)—which highlights the importance of paying attention (in a non-judgmental way) to what you are paying attention to, and to avoid being distracted—to the use of media (Hadar & Ergas,  2018; Johnson,  2015; Levy, 2017). Levy’s exercises help students become more mindful and reflective about their technology use, to reshape use and social interactions. Johnson suggests thinking about media use as an information diet, leading to “conscious consumption.” Media literacy is more general and more cognitively oriented, emphasizing the awareness of media practices and the development of media-related skills (O’Neill & Hagen, 2009). Rheingold (2012) integrates mindfulness with media literacy, also underscoring the importance of being aware of how we think about our media use. He proposes five central digital literacies: conscious attention and intention, critical evaluation of content, participation and managing your presentation, collaboration and sharing, and developing networks and social capital. Literacy bolsters users’ awareness of various aspects of media, but via media mastery requires individuals to personalize this information to their capacities, desires, and social surroundings. James (2014) identifies three value-oriented ways of thinking about media use in relation to others, manifesting different levels of conscientious connectivity, “the use of ethical thinking skills, a sensitivity to the moral and ethical dimensions of online situation, and a motivation to reflect on and wrestle with the associated dilemmas” (James, 2014, p. 109). This varies both individually and across online communities. Thus, she asks, what are young people thinking when they use new media? The vastly increased ability to interact with (knowingly or not) diverse others across time and space deepens the gaps between (1) consequence thinking (concerned with implications of a specific action for oneself), (2) moral thinking (an application of principles with known individuals or a group) and (3) ethical thinking (an other-focused consideration of the implications for a broader community or public, concerned with roles and responsibilities thinking, complex perspective taking, and community thinking; James, 2014, pp. 5–7). A 2008–2012 study by James and colleagues identified five ethically related themes related to the use of social network sites, blogs, content-sharing sites, and gaming communities by youth and young

254   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. adults: “online identity, credibility, privacy, property, and participation” (p. 18). The concept of conscientious connectivity is about when and where youth thinking is sensitive to moral or ethical issues, and where there are blind spots (favoring self-interest over others’ interests, and where other concerns diminish ethical concerns, but also including blind spots about technical aspects of new media, such as the extent to which postings can be viewed by the general public) and disconnects (more conscious and intentional dismissal of or indifference to others’ interests in favor of self-interests). Domestication theory explains how new media, through adoption, integration, and conversion, become embedded into daily practices (initially in the home, but then applied in wider contexts), and blur traditional home/work/life boundaries (Haddon, 2003; Silverstone & Hirsch, 1992). What is new eventually becomes an artifact (Rice,  1999). Taken-for-grantedness is the social condition whereby a medium has become fully integrated into society, embedding expectations, interdependencies, and social practices (Ling, 2012), or, in diffusion of innovations terms, structured and routinized (Rogers, 2003). This concept overlaps with the more individual behavior of media use habit, or habitual media use, which itself overlaps with dependency, addiction, and general problematic use (Wilmer & Chein, 2016). Domestication and routines play a role at individual and social levels of media mastery. Over time, as individuals and societies adapt to, and adopt, the tools they’ve created, used, learned, applied, and become familiar with or dependent on, the skills for managing media and their positive or negative outcomes will change and may improve. Given the expanding realm of media choices, the concept of polymedia emphasizes that understanding, choice, and use of a medium is relative to comparisons with other available media (Madianou & Miller, 2013). Rainie and Wellman (2012) and others have discussed the growth of this multiple media environment. Experiences, from small to large, now involve multiple, multitasking, interdependent, layered, and blended media (Hilbert, Vásquez, Halpern, Valenzuela, & Arriagada, 2017). Helles (2013) characterizes this new environment with the term intermediality, especially as, with the widespread adoption and constant evolution of the mobile phone, “the user becomes a mobile terminus for mediated communicative interaction across the various contexts of daily life” (p. 14). Formerly distinct, independent, or location-specific features, and content are now available through smartphones, laptops, and tablet computers. Thus digitization, mobility, and networking create convergence across content and media, and allow or require comparisons across media choices (Jensen, 2010). Burchell (2017, p. 409) highlights that “the individual’s perception of [the] environment of increasingly differentiated communication possibilities becomes a site for managing and partially negotiating the limits, form and organization of one’s social world.” A related concept is Couldry’s (2012) media manifold, where activities are embedded in a pervasive environment of networked media. Other conceptualizations such as mediapolis (Silverstone, 2007) and medialife (Deuze,  2012) refer to the increasing embeddedness, interrelatedness and invisibility of media, creating a pervasive social, sensory, and cognitive experience (Miller, 2014). Gershon (2010) discussed media ideologies, which shape perceptions of media practice norms. Mediatization focuses more on how media are at the center of

Media Mastery by College Students   255 significant cultural, political and social developments, and become embedded and hidden (Deacon & Stanyer, 2014; Hjarvard, 2009; Miller, 2014; Livingstone, 2009). Media mastery takes a more micro focus (individuals and their social relations) than do social construction of technology or social shaping of technology approaches. The social construction of technology (Klein & Kleinman, 2002; Pinch & Bijker, 1987) centers around five major components: Interpretive flexibility (social circumstances and intergroup negotiations affect interpretation and meaning of a technology, and thus varying final designs); multiple relevant social groups (shared and competing interpretations and meanings within and across groups affect technology development and outcome); closure and stabilization (moving through and negotiating conflicting interpretations to resolution, closure, and a stable artifact); the wider context (society, culture, politics, power); and the technological frame (cognitive frame of a relevant group, with shared goals, problems, theories, procedures, and exemplars). The social shaping of technology approach(es) places more emphasis on the social, economic, and policy, in addition to the technical, aspects of innovation processes and technology form. Social, cultural, economic and institutional forces affect each (conscious and unconscious) choice among technical options, often exhibiting path dependence and varying levels of lock-in or closure, with subsequently different innovation trajectories and social implications (MacKenzie & Wajcman,  1985; Williams & Edge, 1996). Thus media mastery does not explicitly consider the origin, development, and design of technological innovations; rather, it is about the construction and shaping by (mastering), and of (being mastered), individuals in their social settings of the meanings, choices, uses, and consequences of, and by, new media already available to them.

Development of the Concept Our initial interest in college students’ use of digital media arose from our observations of the way computers and mobile phones seemingly were already central technologies in their daily lives in the early 2000s. Thus, we initiated the Media Mastery Project, where the focus is on exploring the way college students attempt to use and master digital (especially multiple) media. We first conducted a literature review and analyzed focus group interviews with students at two universities in the U.S. and Norway in 2005/2006 (Rice & Hagen, 2010). Based on those results and an updated literature review, we iteratively developed and refined a detailed Media Mastery typology. We used that to code another round of similar focus groups in 2016 (Rice, Hagen , & Zamanzadeh , 2018). For example, we discovered that students experienced attempts (conscious or not) to master media through their experiencing of paradoxes, contradictions, and tensions, while also being themselves somewhat mastered (conscious or not) by these media. Based on those results, we extended and further refined the typology to use in coding the current set of articles. Essentially, we followed Chaffee’s (1991) claim that “In practice the scholar begins reading prior studies, moves to various steps in the explication process, refines the preliminary definition, and then returns to the literature search with a sharpened definition” (p. 22). Our approach expands beyond an emergent-only or solely grounded-theory approach, which would ignore a vast existing

256   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. set of concepts and literature, as well as a solely a priori approach, which would exclude insights beyond the initial framework. Rather, it takes what Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic (2014) call a hermeneutic approach, by engaging in iterations between (cycles of) search and acquisition, and (cycles of) analysis and interpretation. But it takes that approach even further, by including content and thematic analyses from a set of focus groups a decade apart. Both sources provided some concepts not found in the other, and revealed some different insights in different time periods. Thus the current review synthesizes how the concept of media mastery illuminates the research literature about college students’ experiencing of digital media, within social and individual contexts.

Materials and Coding Scope of the Literature The initial literature review was based on Proquest Social Sciences databases, Google Scholar, and other publications we were aware of, as well as foundational publications from the 2010 literature review. New concepts or issues arising from the focus groups lead us to seek additional relevant publications. Once the typology was fully developed, we then conducted two literature searches. Both were for the period Jan 1 2010 – Jan 1 2018, full text articles in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, or book chapters. Search terms were (student* AND (college OR university)) AND (digital OR social media OR laptop OR mobile phone OR smartphone OR personal computer OR tablet computer OR IPad OR Internet OR World Wide Web). We first searched in abstracts in Proquest (ERIC, PsychArticles, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts), retrieving 65, of which 7 were relevant. Then we searched in the title or abstract in the Social Sciences Citation Index, which returned 3896 publications, which were sorted by relevance (using the SSCI feature); the top 10% of the title and abstracts were read for relevance. Publications about “young adults” were included if they specifically indicated college ages. Publications were not included about: use of media for campus campaigns, interventions, or activism; studies of technology for pedagogy or educational policy, or evaluation of digital media use in classroom on performance, unless from the students’ perspective; and samples of college students without explicit focus on media use. Finally several recent highly relevant books and book chapters were added. From all these sources, we identified 218 publications. Thus our review is extensive and well-grounded and -developed, but is neither comprehensive nor statistically representative. Where possible, we obtained the full publication (.pdf, .html, .docx); 26 were not available, so we used the title and abstract. These were imported into NVIVO 11, along with the full coding typology (component code, subcodes, and subsubcodes, each of which can be aggregated to its higher level analysis). We prepared a spreadsheet with the reference and abstract for each publication. The articles and spreadsheet were separated into three sets, grouped alphabetically, one for each author.

Media Mastery by College Students   257

The Media Mastery Typology The media mastery typology includes three sets of contextual factors or occasions for media mastery (Technology, Social Aspects, and Individual Aspects), and a set of Media Mastery factors. These media mastery factors are ways in which media can more or less “master” the user, and ways in which users can attempt to more or less “master” media. Table 9.1 summarizes and briefly defines these factors (codes) and their levels of subcodes. The NVIVO project also included a Context category (location of media use by the respondents, the type of respondents, and country of the study), and a new emergent category of Theory and Frameworks (includes explicit naming of a theory or a model, as well as of primary concepts, used to frame or motivate the study), and a working category for emergent New Codes for later discussion, relabeling, and integration into the appropriate subcodes.

Table 9.1  Media Mastery Typology Codes and Sublevels Typology Codes

Subcode and (Subsubcodes)

Range of subsubcodes

Technology (refers to the technology—devices & sites, features, and uses)

Devices, services, sites (explicit mention of devices, services, sites) Features (mention of attributes, affordances, features, abilities of the technology (device, service, etc.)) Uses (ways, purposes, or activities for which respondents use the technology; also extent or type of use)

alarm clock to YouTube accessories to technical aspects achievement/ productivity/ completion to writing

Social Aspects (emphasizing the social and relational aspects and contexts— relations, influence, and self-presentation)

Social relations (bonds, relationships, interactions, social use contexts) Social influence (process, concern, behavior related to influence of one’s social context) Self-presentation (issues of and representation of self in social contexts)

affection to social ties-network co-dependence to traditional social values authenticity to superficial

Individual Aspects (individual aspects involved in or arising from or associated with use—problematic use, health, individual traits, individual cognition)

Problematic use (questionable or harmful use, whether to self or others) Health (individual psychological, physical, spiritual health issues, needs, concerns) Traits (individual personality or psychological traits) Cognition (rational, mental information processing and outcomes (attention, learning, recall, etc.))

addiction-hooked to withdrawal adjustment to symptoms disinhibition to self-esteem/self-worth academic performance to recall

(continued)

258   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Table 9.1  Continued Typology Codes

Subcode and (Subsubcodes)

Range of subsubcodes

Media Mastery (aspects related to use, management, and implications of the technology, including contradictions, obstacles, using the content, access, boundaries, and awareness of that use)

Access (access to or accessing, the device, information, self and others) Boundaries (when or where tech use cross boundaries; where user becomes involved across system or social boundaries; the interface between tech and social) Constraints (contradictory, paradoxical, unintended, positive and negative uses or consequences) Managing content (using the tech to create, process, use, obtain content, including about self) Obstacles (difficulties in using technology) Use awareness (level and type of user awareness, intention, consciousness, self-reflexivity, decision making about their use)

access to social coordination ability accountabilityresponsibility to work-nonwork ambivalence to unintended consequences ambiguity-uncertainty to temporary or ephemeral access (technical difficulties) to viruses-malware attitudes about one’s use to use of multiple media

Note: Only the first and last subsubsubcodes for each subcode are listed here. See Table 9.2 for a list of each subsubcode for the Media Mastery subcodes. The full list of codes, subcodes, subsubcodes, and subsubsubcodes, with short operational definition, is available in the supplemental codebook.

The Coding Process Before coding, the three authors carefully reviewed and discussed every code on the typology. We next read our spreadsheet’s set of titles and abstracts to get an overview of the range of topics and terms. For coding, we first read each of our publications (excluding abstract and references) to determine and code for (1) the motivating theory, model or concept, and (2) for the population and country context. For each publication, we then checked each paragraph (excluding abstract and references) for (3) any indicators of media mastery codes. If so, we coded that paragraph for (4) any and all specific subsubcodes of the media mastery component, (5) any instance of a specific technology/ device/site subsubcode, (6) any instance of a subcode in the other two Technology subcodes, or of a Social or Individual subcode, and (7) any emergent codes into Theories and Frameworks, or into New Codes, for later discussion, grouping, and inclusion. Finally, we each also maintained and later discussed a journal within NVIVO to document any questions or suggestions. We first each coded several of the same articles, and met to discuss ambiguities or additions. From then on, each author worked on their set of one-third articles, grouped alphabetically. In the next week we separately coded 10 articles each, met to discuss the

Media Mastery by College Students   259 codings and clarifications, and documented any changes or additional codes. The following week we repeated the coding and discussion process with the next 10 articles each. Finding few additional codes by that time, we then proceeded to code and then discuss the next 20 articles each from our separate sets, and repeated that process until all articles were coded. At each meeting we discussed any new Theories or Frameworks codes or any New Codes, and then each updated our coding file with those so all coders had access to any new codes. As both the list of codes, and the coding process, evolved most during the early stages, when all articles were coded, we removed the codes from each of our first 10 articles, and recoded them using the full coding set and coding procedures. When all articles were coded, we then met to discuss all the new Theories and Frameworks, and the New Codes, and grouped similar ones, especially those with few instances. For example, under Theories and Frameworks, bridging and bonding components were grouped with the general theory of social capital; or under New Codes, managing and expressing emotions were grouped under emotions. Finally, we decided where to move each of the New Codes into the prior codes. The final typology reflects this extensive, iterative, multi-year, multi-study, and multi-data process. The typology and coding operationalizations, as well as the full list of analyzed references, are available from the first author.

Description of the Sample Technologies, Context, and Theories were not the focus of the study, were coded for occurrence anywhere in the article, and thus were not specifically related to text indicating the media mastery components. Therefore, they are not included in the co-occurrence review later in the chapter. A wide range of technologies appeared throughout the retrieved literature. These include 58 devices (from alarm apps to YouTube), representing 182 articles and 380 codings; 9 features (from accessories to personalizing settings), representing 12 articles and 20 codings; and 51 uses (from achievement to writing), involving 30 articles and 60 codings. Nearly all (202) of the 242 population subsubcodes were of college students, with a few samples consisting of adolescent or young adults that included college students. There were 209 country subsubcodes, with the most to the United States (88) and China (32), Turkey (14), and Taiwan (11), with at least one coding to another 36 countries (from Argentina to the United Kingdom). 133 out of the 218 articles mentioned a total of 131 theories, models, frameworks, or primary concepts, with 239 coding instances, ranging from the accessibility hypothesis (Yang et al., 2017) to vertical discourse (Bennett & Maton,  2010). The theories and frameworks mentioned in the most articles included social capital (14 articles), uses-and-gratifications perspective (12), addiction (10), internet addiction (9), digital natives, social cognitive theory (6 each), attachment theory, problem behavior theory (4), and cognitive-behavioral theory, cyberbullying, diffusion of innovations, life satisfaction, personality, smart phone addiction, and subjective well-being (3). Table 9.2 lists each of the Social, Individual, and Media Mastery codes and subcodes, and in the case of Media Mastery the subsubcodes, along with the number of subsubcodes,

Table 9.2  Co-occurrences of Media Mastery Subcodes with Social and Individual Aspects Subcodes Media Mastery Components and Subsubcodes

Social Aspects Subcodes

Individual Aspects Subcodes

Access (A:158, R:750)

Social relations Social influence (SC:24, A:105, (SC:21, A:36, R:307) R:82)

Self-presentation (SC:17, A:49, R:114)

Problematic use (SC:22, A:86, R:265)

Health Traits Cognition (SC:25, A:117, (SC:9, A:58, (SC:6, A:69, R:309) R:109) R:217)

1. access

6

0

0

9

17

1

6

2. access (to a medium)

0

0

0

0

2

1

3

3. access to others

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

105

28

26

74

64

29

38

5. availability of self and others through media

75

8

10

20

25

20

13

6. collaboration through media

13

6

0

4

4

2

11

7. convenience—ease

17

2

4

17

16

4

9

8. notifications

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

9. passive—low effort

4

2

0

6

3

2

3

8

1

1

0

6

1

3

Self-presentation Problematic use Health

Traits

4. accessibility—content & people

10. social coordination ability Boundaries (A:161, R:894) 1. accountability—responsibility

Social relations Social influence

Cognition

11

5

5

9

3

6

0

2. anonymity

7

1

3

9

4

7

0

3. audience

8

5

12

5

3

3

2

4. balancing online and offline self

1

0

2

2

1

1

0

5. balancing online and offline social networks

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

6. barriers to or facilitators of integration across boundaries

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7. blending—blurring

12

5

4

4

5

3

17

8. constant connection

35

9

8

28

31

9

14

1

0

5

1

2

0

0

3

2

0

0

1

0

3

12

0

4

7

8

4

13

12. identity disjuncture

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

13. parental access

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

14. permanence

3

3

4

3

1

0

1

15. perpetual—per­sist­ent—contact (subset)

9

1

2

4

3

0

3

16. personal space

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

17. pervasive awareness

4

2

0

2

3

2

0

18. privacy

9

4

12

17

6

2

4

19. public

5

4

5

3

2

0

2

20. safety

8

2

6

6

8

1

0

22

10

41

5

6

9

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

23. surveillance

5

3

1

4

3

3

1

24. transitions

25

2

4

3

18

3

7

5

1

3

0

2

1

0

9. context collapse 10. continuous co-presence 11. divides

21. self-broadcasting 22. self-editing or self-censorship

25. trust

(continued)

Table 9.2  Continued Media Mastery Components and Subsubcodes

Social Aspects Subcodes

Access (A:158, R:750)

Social relations Social influence (SC:24, A:105, (SC:21, A:36, R:307) R:82)

26. ubiquity

Individual Aspects Subcodes Self-presentation (SC:17, A:49, R:114)

Problematic use (SC:22, A:86, R:265)

Health Traits Cognition (SC:25, A:117, (SC:9, A:58, (SC:6, A:69, R:309) R:109) R:217)

3

1

2

4

2

1

5

27. visibility— transparency

13

5

10

8

8

5

3

28. vulnerability

14

3

4

27

36

14

3

29. watchfulness

5

4

0

4

2

2

5

0

0

0

1

0

0

Self-presentation Problematic use Health

Traits

30. work—nonwork Constraints (A:101, R:291) 1. ambivalence

Social relations Social influence

4 Cognition

2

2

1

4

2

1

1

2. contradiction— paradox—tension

30

12

9

35

30

8

26

3. double-standards

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

4. interpretive flexibility (contrasts)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5. irony

1

3

0

1

2

1

1

17

2

3

9

7

5

7

7. negotiating

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

8. unintended consequence

7

4

1

14

14

3

6

6. loss or change of some traditional skills or activities or relations

Managing Content (A:129, R:551)

Social relations Social influence

Self-presentation Problematic use Health

Traits

Cognition

1. ambiguity— uncertainty

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

2. awareness

3

2

3

7

2

1

2

3. commodification

5

0

3

2

0

0

0

4. consumption

7

4

3

7

6

0

1

5. control over own content (5.4 managing content)

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

26

8

12

16

13

10

14

4

0

1

5

5

1

5

8. media multitasking

19

10

4

16

24

7

82

9. personal info

23

7

22

17

7

4

1

10

7

10

6

2

4

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

Self-presentation Problematic use Health

Traits

6. gratifying—satisfying 7. media literacy (learning how to use media)

10. produsers—to share or post 11. temporary or ephemeral Obstacles (A:49, R:213)

Social relations Social influence

1 Cognition

1. access

4

0

1

4

3

1

6

2. battery—no elec outlet

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3. break drop lose phone or computer

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4. change in technology; updating or upgrading

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 (continued )

Table 9.2  Continued Media Mastery Components and Subsubcodes

Social Aspects Subcodes

Individual Aspects Subcodes

Access (A:158, R:750)

Social relations Social influence (SC:24, A:105, (SC:21, A:36, R:307) R:82)

Self-presentation (SC:17, A:49, R:114)

Problematic use (SC:22, A:86, R:265)

Health Traits Cognition (SC:25, A:117, (SC:9, A:58, (SC:6, A:69, R:309) R:109) R:217)

5. compatibility

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6. complexity

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

7. connections

3

1

0

0

1

0

5

8. costs (financial, time, psych)

4

0

2

6

5

0

11

9. distracting

6

2

0

16

8

1

32

10. frustration

1

2

0

1

2

0

0

11. info overload

1

0

0

1

5

1

5

12. interference

4

0

0

3

4

1

7

13. interruptions

2

3

0

2

2

1

5

14. passwords

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

15. spam

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

16. tech problems

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

17. techno-stress

1

2

0

2

2

0

0

18. time zones

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

19. viruses—malware

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Self-presentation Problematic use Health

Traits

Use Awareness (A:139, R:630) 1. attitudes about one’s use

Social relations Social influence 16

6

4

16

12

11

Cognition 10

2. balance of active sharing or just viewing

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

3. balancing self and group needs

8

5

3

1

2

1

2

24

9

14

16

17

8

9

5. expertise

7

2

3

6

4

8

21

6. filtering

3

1

1

2

1

0

0

7. media comparisons

9

8

3

2

0

1

2

8. media convergence

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

9. media habit

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10. meta-attention

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

11. monitoring or checking frequently

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

12. multiple conversations

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

13. preparing responses

5

0

4

1

3

2

0

4. choices—how when use

14. self-regulation

4

0

0

19

9

3

7

15. strategizing media use for coordination

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

16. taken-for-grantedness

0

0

0

7

3

0

6

17. techno-resistance

1

1

2

0

0

0

1

18. tool awareness

4

2

2

9

1

1

5

19. use of multiple media

1

1

1

4

3

4

2

Note: SC: Number of subsubcodes A: Number of unique articles coded C: Number of times the subcode was used As explained in the text, three components are not analyzed here: Technology: devices, services, sites (SC:58, A:182; C:380), features (SC:9, A:12, R:20), and uses (SC:51, A:30, R:60); Context: location (of the respondents) (SC:8, A:8, R:10), population (respondent type) SC:12, A:202, R:242), and country of the sample (SC:37, A:195, R:209); and Theories and Frameworks (SC:131, A:133; C:239).

266   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. the number of articles jointly coded for a specific Media Mastery subsubcode and either a Social or an Individual subcode, and the number of times each code was used, all provided by NVIVO. For the following review, we then retrieved co-occurrences in NVIVO of media mastery subsubcodes with each of the social aspects and individual aspects subcodes. Here, each of the authors coded two different sets of the subsubcodes, so that coders and materials were crossed between coding and reviewing. Only a few examples from the most frequent and/or most interesting or unique co-occurrences are used. (All citations with three or more authors are referred to as “et al.”)

Review: Co-occurrences of Media Mastery Components with Social and Individual Aspects Access The most frequent association of the subsubcodes for media access is accessibility of content and people, with social relations. The second most frequent subsubcode is availability of self and others through media, also as it relates to social relations. The third most frequent subsubcode is accessibility of content and media, in relation to problematic use for individuals. Accessibility of content and people in association with the health of individuals is also frequent. Accessibility of content and people, and social relations. Research on college students’ use of communication technologies such as cell phones and internet platforms suggests that the students are “power users” of such communication technologies (Abeele & Roe, 2011). These communication tools are significant because they enable students to stay in touch with family and friends at home, and also with new college friends, as well as search for information and enjoy online leisure activities. Aharony (2017) focused on the functions provided by mobile phones, and how these relate to students’ personality characteristics and motivation. Openness to experience and self-disclosure were important personality characteristics associated with mobile phone use. College students are particularly engaged in use of social networking sites (SNSs), which provide them with access to more information and more experiences than they would in a more closed university environment (Chen & Marcus,  2012). If properly framed, these expanded exposures through SNSs can facilitate learning for university students, by use of new social connections to share ideas, build their new student identities, and develop their own learning paths. Thus, SNSs seem to facilitate the transition for students to their new environment, both in terms of socialization and a sense of connection to their institution (DeAndrea et al., 2012; Gray et al., 2013).

Media Mastery by College Students   267 In their recent book Technology and engagement Rowan-Kenyon and Alemán (2018) use the term “ecology of transition” to describe how social media were important in making it meaningful for new students to be in college, as well in assisting their integration into the university setting. However, the use of social media and being online can also be a double-edged sword for students: “Well, I think that it’s really bad if I’m not on top of my e-mail, and it’s really bad if I’m not up to date on the class stuff that I have to do on the Internet. I also definitely value keeping in touch with friends. So all those are things that I really like to be able to do. But it’s tough, because it becomes a real time tradeoff. Often when I do those things, I end up going to other places on the Internet that aren’t so valuable to me.” (Davis, 2011, p. 1972)

Accessibility of content and people, and problematic use. In addition to being communication tools, mobile phones provide access to the Internet and are digital environments where students can seek entertainment, shop, and manage finances (Gökçearslan et al., 2016). However, overuse creates new social problems (Bian & Leung, 2015). The dramatic increase in use of smartphones worldwide has resulted in problematic use related to accessibility of content and people. Smartphone addiction is a concern in many countries (Hong et al.,  2012). According to Demirci et al. (2015), smartphone addiction can be defined as the overuse of smartphones to the extent that it disturbs users’ daily lives. These authors, like Aker et al. (2017), find that psychological problems such as depression and anxiety, and challenges such as insomnia and lack of family social support, can predict smartphone addiction. Chen et al. (2016) find that both internet and mobile phone addiction are closely related to interpersonal problems. According to Aladwani and Almarzoug (2016), low self-esteem also correlates with compulsive use of social media. More generally, social media and easy access to the internet seem to make students more vulnerable to compulsive media use. However, for people with inter-personal problems like social anxiety, face-to-face interaction can be challenging, so having contact with people on Facebook and via their smartphone could be easier (Clayton et al., 2013). Several researchers are also concerned with how overuse of smartphones can have damaging effects on students’ academic performance (Aljomaa et al., 2016). Students may use the phone and be inattentive during lectures, or they disturb others by sharing content like new tones, songs, and YouTube videos with classmates and fellow students. However, as the authors mentioned emphasize, one should not forget the potential positive effects of smartphones in facilitating communication and in sharing information among teachers and students. Also, many students develop various strategies to manage the distractions of smartphones and laptops (Ames, 2013). Still, controlling intrusions can be challenging because both work and distractions are present on the same devices. Thus, multi-tasking is a constant temptation for a number of students (Flanagin & Babchuk, 2015). This is the reason why Chen et al. (2016) characterize mobile phones as a “double-edged sword” for young adults. Thus, Flanagin and Babchuk (2015) characterize

268   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. social media as “academic quicksand”; when you get in, it is hard to escape, even though students describe how they try hard to manage social media. A problematic aspect of the increased accessibility from the viewpoint of the film and music industry is the increasing digital piracy (Duarte et al., 2016). Even though the internet has increased possibilities for distribution of their products, digital piracy is a daily worry for these companies. Another problematic aspect of increasing accessibility of people via new technologies is the growing phenomenon of cyberbullying (Crosslin & Golman, 2014). Experiencing cyberbullying can be so detrimental to the victims that some of them—like the media-exposed cases of Tyler Clementi and Jessica Logan—have committed suicide. Availability of self and others through media, and social relations. Smartphones and social media are central in making self and others available, and thus impacting people’s lives and especially their social relations (Amankwah & Ha, 2015). These authors discuss smartphones as providing great self-broadcasting power, often through the use of SNSs. However, while smartphones are demanding attention from users, many students would emphasize that they would not interrupt a F2F interaction with a phone call (Ames, 2013). A number of students explained that they avoided checking messages or even having their phone out when with other people or in special social situations (like a date or a dinner party). Others went out of their way not to be too accessible by phone. Students, like other young people, are increasingly dependent on social networking sights for their socialization, information-seeking, and self-broadcasting. Fang and Ha (2015) claim that students’ SNS consumption is positively associated with social capital and social support, especially for individuals with low psychological resources. However, Manago et al. (2012) ask whether there is a trade-off between having a large network on SNSs like Facebook and being able to develop intimacy and social support among fellow emerging adults. Their results confirm that Facebook mainly facilitates more distant kinds of relationships, like acquaintances and activity-based connections, while also reinforcing and expanding the number of close relationships. According to Manogo and co-authors, the major function of people’s status updates was emotional disclosure, which plays an important role in developing intimacy. These results indicate that the nature of intimacy is being transformed, and that large networks were related to higher levels of life satisfaction, and also of perceived social support.

Boundaries The most frequent media boundaries subsubcode co-occurrences are self-broadcasting as it relates to self-presentation; vulnerability with both health and problematic use; constant connection in association with social relations, health and problematic use; and transitions with social relations. Constant connection, with social relations. Constant connection easily creates tension, due to the social effect of mediated communication, multi-tasking, and having constant

Media Mastery by College Students   269 technology access, especially facilitated through smartphones. Ames (2013) notes that so-called digital natives negotiate with (both embracing and rejecting) the social expectations enabled by new technologies. Marlowe et al.’s (2017) study interviewed students in Auckland from five ethnic minority groups to examine the role of social media in their social interactions. New media are especially impactful influences on their daily lives, affecting friendship and family networks, providing access to community engagement, and helping a sense of belonging in their diverse society. In recent decades, new webbased technologies and social media sites are also increasingly being integrated into learning contexts as well as daily life, becoming “inevitable” (Pilli, 2015, p. 345). Constant connection, with health. Internet addiction is increasingly a risk area among college students, which, along with drug use, has been identified as risk factors for youth suicide (Aricak et al., 2015). Generally, it seems that smartphone addiction co-occurs with other social, domestic, and academic problems among students. Hassell and Sukalich (2016) note studies finding that higher levels of internet or social media use are negatively associated with life satisfaction. Turkle (2011, p. 276) underscores that “The time-consuming constant demands for attention and performance becomes stressful and distracting, limiting creativity and reflection.” Hong et al. (2012) write about how mobile phone addiction relates to anxiety and self-esteem, claiming that mobile phone addiction “has an indirect effect upon the relationship between anxiety and mobile phone usage behavior and between self-esteem and mobile phone usage behavior” (p. 2158). Similarly, Hussain et al. (2017) report that smartphone dependency, mediated by constant use, can lead to anxiety when the phone is not available. Constant connection, with problematic use. A number of students report how the smartphone allows for constant connection, being in contact with friends, wasting time, and playing games. Ames (2013), for example, reports how some students felt that they have lost their independence by being constantly connected and needing to check on and with people. They also expressed that being constantly connected, they were hardly fully present anywhere. A number of students also expressed resistance towards these constant connection norms and habits, and that multi-tasking was a constant temptation or threat. Students depend on their technological devices to the extent that they feel anxious and tense when the technology is not readily available or when their attention is drawn towards what the technology has to offer (Bicen & Arnavut, 2015). Self-broadcasting, with self-presentation. According to Aricak et al. (2015), social networking sites increasingly serve as mandatory experiences for young people’s identity construction. Self-presentation could be a central part of this process. Chen and Marcus (2012) notice how SNSs provide new arenas for individuals to present themselves, access and broadcast information, nurture their social networks, and establish and maintain connections with others. Amankwah and Ha (2015) conducted a study of smartphones and self-broadcasting among college students via social media. As much as 85.2% of college students self-broadcast at least once a month by updating their status on SNS. Network size, years of experience using social media, and the time spent on social media predicted frequency of self-broadcasting (which occurs mainly within one’s network).

270   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. While most students set their profile as private or semi-private, that did not affect selfbroadcast frequency. Students spend much of their lives in an electronic world, which continuously demands their attention. According to Dalton and Crosby (2013), social media have the most seductive influence on college students’ attention. Since social media have become so engaging for young students, they develop a digital identity, which is “the composite of images that individuals present, share, and promote for themselves in the digital domain” (p. 1). Kim and Lee (2011) distinguish between positive and more honest selfpresentation on Facebook. With honest self-disclosure one is more likely to receive support from Facebook friends, which can be beneficial to students’ social wellbeing and happiness. Sponcil and Gitimu (2013) similarly suggest that intimate self-disclosures help produce greater intimacy in computer-mediated communication. PunyanuntCarter and her colleagues (2017) discuss self-presentation on SnapChat, which is geared towards already solidified interpersonal relationships, like close friends and family. The information disclosed is high in intimacy, and often mundane. Thus they report that on SnapChat “the ‘true’ self can be represented rather than the ‘best’ self as is the norm with other social media sites” (p. 891). Transitions, with social relations. The transition between high school and college is a major one, where students often move to a new location and have to establish new social and academic networks, while trying to maintain old networks with family and friends. Abeele and Roe (2011, p. 237) find that for American new students, “the transition to college involves the task of building up a new social network, and communication technologies play an important role in supporting this process.” Many students need support to cope with problems they might face in order to adjust to transitions (Fang & Ha, 2015). These authors argue for using the concept of self-efficacy to understand how young people continuously use information from both offline and online environments to reevaluate themselves. DeAndrea et al. (2012) discuss a social media intervention intended to increase incoming students’ feelings of connectedness to the university, reduce uncertainty about college, and influence positive expectancies, as understood within a social capital framework, to foster a healthy college transition. Vulnerability, with health and problematic use. Internet addiction disorder has become a clinical concept during the last two decades. Numerous studies find that smartphone addiction is related to a number of psychological and behavioral problems. Kuang-Tsan and Fu-Yuan (2017) argue that smartphone addiction may also be related to life-stress for university students. Floros et al. (2014) suggest that college students are particularly vulnerable to internet addiction disorder “due to the particular psychological and developmental characteristics of late adolescence/young adulthood, ready access to the Internet, and an expectation of computer/Internet use during studies” (p. 672). Students who scored high on internet addiction disorder were higher on psychopathology and distress; they were more lonely, had lower self-esteem, and reported more anxiety and depression than others. Moreno et al. (2015) found increased risk for problematic internet use and addiction among those with most severe depression.

Media Mastery by College Students   271 According to Polo et al. (2017), the mobile phone has caused traditional socialization spaces to be replaced by virtual ones. Mobile phone use can be risky for young people, especially because they use mobile phones almost constantly. This could be detrimental to young people’s psychological and social functioning. Heavy users are also more likely to become problematic or addicted users. Polo et al.’s results indicate that “age, field of knowledge, victim/aggressor profile, and hours of mobile phone use are crucial variables in the communication and emotional conflicts arising from the misuse of mobile” (p. 245). The large presence of self-injury sites on social media and YouTube24 is seen as alarming, as self-injury exposure is feared to be socially contagious, inspiring vulnerable individuals to experiment with self-harm (Jarvi et al., 2017). Some vulnerable individuals such as those with a tendency to seek novel and intense sensations and experiences may use dating apps to look for drugs or sexual intercourse (Choi et al., 2017). Cyberbullying is a very serious outcome of inappropriate use of technology, which has resulted in mental health problems among victims and even suicide (Crosslin & Golman, 2014). Moreover, cyberbullies themselves are impacted negatively by their bullying behaviors.

Constraints The four most frequent occurrences involved contradiction/paradox/tensions (at the heart of media mastery), with social relations, problematic use, health, and cognition. These were followed by a loss or change of some traditional skills or activities or social relations, and unintended consequences related to both problematic use, and to health. Here, we focus on four of these few topics that are not much already covered in other sections. Contradictions, and social influence. Social media help users keep in touch with peers and groups, a source of social influence, and enable access to social support. But social media can also create pervasive anxiety from a “fear of missing out” (FOMO) from salient activities and discussions experienced by those others (Alt, 2015). Indeed, a central contradiction of these new media is that while connectivity is generally positive, the need to constantly monitor others’ communication, and expectations from others for constant connectivity, creates stress and excessive use. Many students are aware of, and concerned about, this contradiction (Ames, 2013). Also, in attempts to strengthen one’s group identity and gain status, users may post messages and photos of activities that are quite harmful (self-injury, for example; Jarvi et al., 2017). Contradictions, and cognition. While thoughtful social media use can improve learning experiences (Castillo-Manzano et al., 2017), compulsive use can degrade academic performance (Aladwani & Almarzouq, 2016), due to factors such as studying for shorter periods and even being more susceptible to being victims of crime (Aljomaa et al., 2016). Some students do attempt to engage in what Ames (2013) calls “techno-resistance” to expectations for constant connectivity, by establishing boundaries or even disconnecting

272   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. from their devices, aiming to lower negative cognitive implications of multitasking. Some studies help explain some contradictions in results by showing that use and knowledge of different Facebook features or activities differentially affect academic outcomes (Wohn & LaRose, 2014). Loss or change, with social relations. Many authors have argued that new media, as with prior communication technologies when they were new (Jensen,  1990; Marvin, 1990), are profoundly affecting individual and social relationships and norms (boyd, 2015; Turkle. 2011). For example, social networks may develop and endure based on members’ using similar technology and apps, in order to avoid inconveniences in communicating with everyone (Bicen & Arnavut, 2015). Or, because online social interactions are so common and normative, factors such as introversion and extraversion may be far less influential on people’s experienced lives (Yao et al., 2014), and users may be more aware of, and able to participate in, a more diverse array of identities and types of relationships (Yang, 2014). More subtly, people are more likely to communicate with multiple others online while with others offline, and even just stay “connected” while not actually exchanging messages (Vorderer et al., 2016). Unintended consequences, with health. The very utility and attractiveness of smartphones, social media, and other digital devices lead to a variety of unintended consequences. Primary among these is internet/smartphone addiction or problematic internet use, associated with a wide variety of health dysfunctions, from depression to obesity (Li et al., 2015). Sleep deprivation may be a consequence of excessive device use (Demirci et al., 2015), with attendant schoolwork procrastination, and then students staying up late to (ineffectively) rush through their work (Li et al., 2015). As college Facebook posts and profiles present more images of alcohol use and drinking parties, from a peer norms theoretical perspective, viewers (incorrectly) perceive higher alcohol use as descriptively normative (Clayton et al., 2013), leading to more positive attitudes toward, and behaviors of, excessive drinking. The pervasiveness of and dependence on digital devices for schoolwork as well as social relations and entertainment may also be associated with musculoskeletal symptoms (Dockrell, Bennett, & Culleton-Quinn, 2015).

Managing Content The most frequent co-occurrences with managing content (including people) involved having a gratifying-satisfying experience in relation to social relations as well as problematic use; media multitasking in association with social relations, health, and cognitions, and personal information in the context of self-presentation and problematic use. Gratifying and satisfying, and social relations. While using media for gratification can become problematic, the social component of media mastery provides an explanation for why media are gratifying. Social connection and social information are inherently embedded in media, especially social media, which has increased the availability

Media Mastery by College Students   273 and diversity in connections and information available. Particularly, the need for social support and connection motivate a great deal of media use. For example, New Zealand college students with ethnic minority or migrant identities used social media not only to establish and maintain intimacies, but also to exchange information about oneself, and others, to determine who will be admitted into existing friendship networks (Marlowe, Bartley, & Collins, 2017). Though the social support received through media use can improve well-being, the need for social interaction and new social information often becomes habitual (Meier et al., 2016). This suggests that media’s role in sharing social information can become a source of tension as it both contributes to well-being and potentially detracts from it. For example, Meier et al. (2016) find the constant checking that becomes habitual leads to usage conflicts which can ultimately reduce well-being and task performance. Gratifying and satisfying, and problematic media use. Mastering media includes using media for one’s own needs. People must manage content in ways in that fulfill their own desires. However, in the literature there is evidence that even when one can use media to gratify their needs, that use can become problematic. Research on the addiction to mobile devices and Internet finds that the reward experienced from media use can become dysfunctional and excessive. Meier et al. (2016), for instance, showed that students use media to provide relief, reward and relaxation from work and from negative experiences. However, in pursuit of reward students express that they begin to procrastinate. This procrastination on academic work can become detrimental. Likewise, Chiu (2014) found that when experiencing life stressors, young adults use mobile phones to alleviate their negative emotions. The gratification and stimulation experienced from using media, however, had led to addiction for those who were not capable of self-regulation. While all college students may experience the gratifications of using media, the motivation for, media choices and outcomes of that use may reflect individual differences. Media multitasking, and cognition. Within the media mastery framework, media multitasking or the splitting of attention between media and other tasks, is a method of managing the various content available. Thus far, cognition or the ability to focus and learn is the commonly studied aspect of individual differences in the media multitasking literature. Media multitasking appears not only a method for managing content but also for managing focus and learning. Some master this management, others do not. Ames (2013) reported that while some students report frequently media multitasking, the majority of students expressed that they have set rules in order to reduce the negative cognitive effects of media multitasking. This implicates that young adults are sensitive and strategic in managing their media and media multitasking habits to avoid cognitive harm. In addition to frequency, college students differ in the types of tasks with which they media multitask. Fan et al. (2017) noted that those that display higher metacognition engaged in less irrelevant media multitasking during difficult learning tasks. This suggests that managing content via media multitasking involves managing the cognitive load and effects of the media used.

274   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Media multitasking, and social influence. However, managing media via media multitasking behaviors is not only driven by cognitive preferences and capacities. Rather, Ames (2013) concluded that the social pressure to be available both to immediate surroundings and extended networks formed a double-standard that created pressure to media multitask. Students reported that media multitasking is coupled with constant guilt both for not being fully present to their offline reality and for not being fully present to their online reality. Personal information, and self-presentation. Within the construct of managing content, people’s desire to connect with others via the Internet requires them to manage and interpret the information they share with and receive from their social network. In our coding we referred to this subcomponent as personal information, and defined it as involving personal self-disclosure and information available about others. Personal information was commonly cross-coded with the individual component of self-presentation. The findings demonstrate the tension in mastering sharing personal information through media. Moreno et al. (2011) showed that young adults frequently expressed that they knew that people exaggerate and even misrepresent themselves on social networking sites. However, the students still found this information valuable and used it to form first impressions of others. They shared that sometimes the personal information they found about others was even accurate. They had friends whose SNS reflects them well. The credibility of information online even on social networks was understood as flawed yet useful. However, loss of control or management over one’s personal information and images can severely affect one’s self-presentation, leading to cyberbullying, “revenge porn,” and even suicide (Virden, Trujilo, & Predeger, 2014). Personal information, and health. Though the personal information shared online has social value, it can cause harm to young adult’s well-being. For instance, Tandoc et al. (2015) explain how the information about others found online is also used to inform the user about what’s attractive, and how people’s feedback can be used to identify how attractive one is to his/her social network, leading to social comparison. Tandoc et al. (2015) provide an example of how young adults use this information to identify their social rank. They contend that if students find themselves unattractive, they often feel envious and depressed. Thus, though the information may be useful for navigating one’s social network, this also fuels comparison which can be detrimental.

Obstacles Physical and technical obstacles to college students’ use of media do not much appear in research publications, though they were mentioned in the focus groups. The most frequently co-occurring were distracting, with problematic use, health, and cognition; costs with problematic use, and cognition; interference, with cognition; and access, with cognition. Access, with cognition. It is obvious that not having access to relevant new media constitutes a grave challenge to students (Goode, 2010). While many students use mobile

Media Mastery by College Students   275 devices for academic practices, Fasae and Adegbilero-Iwari (2015) reported that many students are challenged by obstacles of low quality Internet connections and high data subscription costs. Ironically, some students are concerned that pervasive access to social media (diverting attention, energy, and time from academic work) may lead to obstacles to success later on (Flanagin & Babchuk, 2015). Further, relationships between use of social media for online content creation are affected by more than just traditional digital literacy—they include the kinds of peer support, practices, and technologies that university students have access to, and bring with them, in the first place (Brown et al., 2016), which also extends the concept of the digital divide. In turn, experience in digital creation can provide advantage in the global society, possibly widening certain kinds of disparities in access and use. Costs, with problematic use. Intriguingly, smartphone costs are not only a form of obstacle to access, but also an aspect of problematic use, as over-dependence on smartphones can foster excessive overspending on accessories, upgrades, apps, and data (Aljomaa et al., 2016). Indeed, some studies note that students want to have the most recent device or product regardless of price (Bicen & Arnavut, 2015). Distracting, with health. Many studies refer to the “double-edge” sword nature of the mobile phone, which can provide personal, social, and business benefits as well as disadvantages and harm. For example, many refer to the distractions from one’s own use and the use by others, reducing focus and attention on activities and social relationships, and creating physical and mental health problems (Chen et al., 2016). People may turn to smartphone or internet over-dependence as a distraction from other health or life stress issues (Chiu, 2014; Kuang-Tsan, & Fu-Yuan, 2017). Impaired inhibition and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are associated with increased risk of Internet addiction (Dalbudak et al., 2015). The increased need to maintain constant connectivity, and engage in multitasking, can harm mental and emotional development and create ongoing distractions from relationships and self-reflection (Davis, 2011). Distracting, with cognition. Digital device use during class creates distractions for the user, surrounding students, and even the instructor (Aljomaa et al., 2016; Jacobsen & Forste, 2011), negatively affecting user academic performance (related to issues such as reduced details in class note-taking, less cognitive processing of the content, and poorer recall; Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013). Multitasking in general is frequent in class, and typically negatively affects students’ ability to learn content (Judd, 2014; Junco, 2012). Similar issues arise, but with much graver potential consequences, for students who are distracted by their devices while walking or driving (Kim & Kim, 2017).

Use Awareness Here, the most frequent co-occurrences involved attitudes about one’s use, with social relations and problematic use; choices as to how and when to use a medium, with social

276   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. relations, self-presentation, problematic use, and health; digital expertise, with cognitions; and self-regulation, in association with problematic use. Attitudes about one’s use, and social relations. One aspect of media mastery becoming increasingly important with the ever-growing popular social media is people’s (especially young adults’) perceptions of media as means and context for social connection. Pilli (2015) found that students’ perceptions that Facebook was useful for their social adjustment and relationship maintenance explained why socially competent Facebook users exhibited better psychosocial well-being. This result highlights that individual dispositions play a role in students’ likelihood to have positive attitudes towards their media use. Attitudes about use, and problematic media use. While problematic use includes addiction and dependency, it also includes other dangers such as cyberbullying and revenge porn. We found frequent co-occurrences between problematic use and the attitudes people have about their use of media. Virden et al. (2014) highlight how, especially among young adults, perceptions of the use of media (for instance to explore their sexuality via sexting) affects their likelihood to use media in ways that put them at risk. They found that few young adults recognize the risk of engaging in these online sexual behaviors. The interpretation of their risk in using media affects their vulnerability to that risk. Some studies (and our focus groups) find that students have generally positive attitudes about their digital media, but are aware of wasting time, fear of missing out, being over-dependent, and other problematic uses and effects, but feel they must continue to use their media, and are even resigned to doing so, both on psychological and pragmatic grounds (Turkle, 2011). Choices, and self-presentation. Choices about how to use media are both individually and socially motivated as people manage their online identities in the face of potential context collapse; Thomas et al.,  2017) and privacy issues. Hoy and Milne (2010) detailed, for instance, how privacy protection practices varied from lying to post-hoc changes and image management. These practices also varied by gender: men and women differed in their concerns about self-presentation as a privacy issue and their strategies to cope with potential problems, and those choices in turn were related to various media effects. With the understanding of which practices are least to most successful, understanding the choices users make in self-presentation could lead to more targeted and effective interventions. Choices, and health. Scholars are discovering ways to identify the profiles of usage that are more likely related to diminished well-being. For example, Park et al. (2013) found a relationship between depressive symptoms and uses of Facebook such that a user’s activeness and uses of features could be associated with specific symptoms, highlighting that the ways people use media can reveal and reflect the state of their mental and emotional health. The researchers explore the possibility of using these profiles of how and when people use media to improve or increase diagnostic capacity for depression. Expertise, and self-presentation. In the articles discussing these two concepts, an important and interesting set of tensions arises. Axelsson (2010) discusses that young adulthood is a special developmental period in which the need to express oneself

Media Mastery by College Students   277 becomes increasingly important. However, the ability to do so competently can rely on technological skills, including one’s ability and understanding of Internet uses. He contends that a lack of understanding and competence about the internet can translate into a lack of competence in developmental integral capacities, including self-expression. Ishii et al. (2017) argue that young adults with greater communication competence prefer face-to-face communication for self-disclosure in order to most benefit from the increased cues. Their perspective implies that while all young adults need self-expression, their choice to not express online might not be due to a lack of Internet skills but rather better traditional communication skills. Expertise, and traits. Expertise or the ability to use media with skill is perhaps one of the most seemingly obvious forms of media mastery within use awareness. Chang et al. (2014) documented that traits such as internet self-efficacy not only increased confidence in an online course but affected perceptions of the online course as relevant and was associated with better course performance. There were many similar findings across the literature. Media comparison, and social influence. Group level differences such as shared norms also contribute to one’s preferences, comparisons, interpretations and uses of media. Cultural differences provide one example of such social influence. Ishii et al. (2017) concluded that US and Japan college students differentially perceived text-messaging as a form of communication. The US students perceived text messaging as having more media richness, reduced cues, quickness, ubiquity of the sender and the receiver, satisfaction, effectiveness, and level of comfort than did the Japanese students. The authors proposed that these perceptions follow cultural norms of communication; for example, that Americans prefer direct communication. Students interviewed by Ames (2013) said that pressures such to be constantly available did lead them to alter the particular medium they used in order to meet both their own contexts and the expected contexts of their communication partners. Self-regulation, and problematic media use. Self-regulation represents the capacity to control and manage one’s behaviors. It occurs frequently in the literature, and is an essential aspect of use awareness within the media mastery typology. Wu (2015) validated four dimensions of motivated attention and regulatory strategies by students using social media: perceived attention discontinuity, behavioral strategies, mental strategies, and social media notifications. Integrating those with a variety of related measures (from Internet self-efficacy to academic achievement), Wu identified five categories of students with respect to attention and regulation: motivated strategic, the unaware, the hanging on, the non-responsive, and the self-disciplined. Self-regulation and problematic media use (cyberbullying, to cyberstalking, to dependency and addiction) are frequently co-occurring concepts in the literature. For instance, Gökçearslan et al. (2016) explain that those who are low on self-regulation tend to experience more ego depletion and less focus, and therefore are more likely to engage in cyberloafing where they do not contribute to or benefit from the group. Similarly, Jiang and Shi (2016)

278   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. indicated that people with diminished self-control or trait-like self-regulation engage in problematic media use to alleviate negative emotions. Their engagement in problematic media use can also be diminished through interventions targeting self-control, which is the stable trait form of self-regulation. Thus self-regulation is one way through which the potentially mastered try to develop media mastery.

Conclusion In general, this review shows how the concept, and very detailed typology, of media mastery pervades the more familiar contexts, analyses, and results of research on college students’ use of new media. Each subsection of the review can generate one or more implications of the media mastery framework. For example, mastery of media is a subjective experience that involves believing in one’s expertise and capacity to use media. Masters of media can engage in beneficial media multitasking, while those mastered by media might engage in harmful media multitasking. Media mastery may occur through individual interpretation but can be heavily influenced by the practices and expectations of one’s social network. The masters and mastered potentially seek and react to the potential gratifications from media differently. The tensions in media mastery demonstrate how young adults attempt, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, to navigate the complexities of media use. The media mastery framework allows a more analytical approach, by integrating a variety of prior and new perspectives, highlighting the relevance of many diverse concepts, and revealing associations among many otherwise disjointed or typically unlinked concepts. As a complement to the theoretical perspectives appearing in most of the articles, media mastery would have provided an especially relevant framework for some of the studies. Media mastery could identify and describe a phenomenon heretofore with no name or with a variety of unintegrated names (as summarized in the Related Concepts section), especially the simultaneous two-way mastery of and by media. So the media mastery perspective provides a lens, and allows for nuances, into how users (here, college students) are potentially mastered by new media, but also attempt to potentially master those media. As just one example, this perspective on the diverse research of college students’ digital media use highlights the pervasive paradoxes and contradictions as manifestations of the tensions between attempts to master media and the ways in which media master us. The media mastery framework illuminates the double-edged nature of media technology and especially social media in the lives of students as well as other young people. Moreover, the notion of media mastery may also capture the contradictory and mixed feelings (ranging from pleasure to guilt) that young students and others experience in their daily use of contemporary media technologies. The vast range of ways mastery or being mastered occurs—in association with social and individual aspects, among others—may also be a reflection of the complex, interdependent, and contextual nature of digital media. The detailed and extensively developed media mastery framework may

Media Mastery by College Students   279 help researchers think in new ways about what questions their work attempts to answer— i.e., what aspects of media mastery does their work highlight or extend?

Note 1. We acknowledge support for data collection and software through Dr. Ronald  E.  Rice’s endowed Arthur N. Rupe Professorship in the Social Effects of Mass Communication in the Department of Communication, UC Santa Barbara.

References from Introductory Material Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review, 41(June), 27–36. Boell, S. K. & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2014). A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(1), 257–286. boyd, d. (2015). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Burchell, K. (2017). Everyday communication management and perceptions of use: How media users limit and shape their social world. Convergence, 23(4), 409–424. Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Couldry, N. (2012). Media society world. Cambridge, UK: Polity. David, P., Kim, J.-H., Brickman, J. S., Ran, W., & Curtis, C. M. (2015). Mobile phone distraction while studying. New Media & Society, 17(10), 661–679. Deacon, D., & Stanyer, J. (2014). Mediatization: Key concept or conceptual bandwagon? Media, Culture & Society, 36(7), 1032–1044. DeAndrea, D. C., Ellison, N. B., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C., & Fiore, A. (2012). Serious social media: On the use of social media for improving students’ adjustment to college. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 15–23. DeSanctis, G. & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147. Deuze, M. (2012). MediaLife. Malden, MA: Polity. Gershon, I. (2010). Media ideologies: An introduction. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20(2), 283–293. Hadar, L. L. & Ergas, O. (2018). Cultivating mindfulness through technology in higher education: A Buberian perspective. AI and Society, 1–9. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s00146-018-0794-z Haddon, L. (2003). Domestication and mobile telephony. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Machines that become us (pp. 43–56). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. Helles, R. (2013). Mobile communication and intermediality. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 14–19. Hilbert, M., Vásquez, J., Halpern, D., Valenzuela, S., & Arriagada, E. (2017). One step, two step, network step? Complementary perspectives on communication flows in twittered citizen protests. Social Science Computer Review, 35(4), 444–461.

280   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Hjarvard, S. (2009). Soft individualism: Media and the changing social character. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, challenges, consequences (pp. 159–177). New York, NY: Peter Lang. James, C. (2014). Disconnected: Youth, new media, and the ethics gap. (The John  D.  and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Jarvenpaa, S.  L. & Lang, K.  R. (2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology. Information Systems Management, 22(4), 7–23. Jensen, J. (1990). Redeeming modernity: Contradictions in media criticism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Jensen, K. B. (2010). Media convergence: The three degrees of network, mass, and interpersonal communication. London, UK & New York, NY: Routledge. Jones, M. R. & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens’s structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 127–157. Katz, J. E. & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use: Access, involvement and interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L. (2002). The social construction of technology: Structural considerations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(1), 28–52. LaRose, R., Connolly, R., Lee, H., Li, K., & Hales, K. D. (2014). Connection overload? A cross cultural study of the consequences of social media connection. Information Systems Management, 31, 59–73. doi:10.1080/10580530.2014.854097 Levy, D. M. (2017). Mindful tech: How to bring balance to our digital lives. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press. Ling, R. (2012). Taken for grantedness: The embedding of mobile communication into society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediation of everything: ICA presidential address 2008. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1–18. MacKenzie, D. & Wajcman, J. (Eds.) (1985). The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum. London, UK: Open University Press. Madianou, M. & Miller, D. (2013). Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(2), 169–187. Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48, 369–380. doi:10.1037/a0026338 Marvin, C. (1990). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. New York: Oxford University Press. Mihailidis, P. (2014). A tethered generation: Exploring the role of mobile phones in the daily life of young people. Mobile Media & Communication, 2, 58–72. doi:10.1177/2050157913505558 Miller, J. (2014). Intensifying mediatization: Everyware media. In A. Hepp & F. Krotz (Eds.), Mediatized worlds: Culture and society in a media age (pp. 107–122). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Misra, S. & Stokols, D. (2012). Psychological and health outcomes of perceived information overload. Environment and Behavior, 44, 737–759. doi:10.1177/0013916511404408 Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L., Koff, R., Eikoff, J., Diermyer, C., & Christakis, D. A. (2012). Internet use and multitasking among older adolescents: An experience sampling approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1097–1102. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.016 O’Neill, B. & Hagen, I. (2009). Media literacy. Chapter 18. In S.  Livingstone & L.  Hadden (Eds.), Kids online: Opportunities and risks for children. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Media Mastery by College Students   281 Pinch, T. & Bijker, W. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W.  Bijker, T. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Postman, N. (1996). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York, NY: Vintage. Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked. The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reinecke, L., Aufenanger, S., Beutel, M. E., Dreier, M., Quiring, O., Stark, B., Wölfling, K. & Müller, K. W. (2017). Digital stress over the life span: The effects of communication load and Internet multitasking on perceived stress and psychological health impairments in a German probability sample. Media Psychology, 20(1), 90–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/1521326 9.2015.1121832 Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Rice, R. E. (1999). Artifacts and paradoxes in new media. New Media and Society, 1(1), 24–32. Rice, R. E. & Hagen, I. (2010). Young adults’ perpetual contact, social connectivity, and social control through the Internet and mobile phones. In C. Salmon (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 34 (pp. 2–39). London: Routledge. Rice, R. E., Hagen, I., & Zamanzadeh, N. (2018). College students’ media mastery: Paradoxes in using computers and mobile phones. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(9), 1229–1250. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Schonert-Reichl, K. A. & Roeser, R. W. (Eds.) (2016). Handbook of mindfulness in education: Integrating theory and research into practice. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Silverstone, R. & Hirsch, E. (1992). Consuming technologies: Media and information in domestic spaces. London: Routledge. Silverstone, R. (2007). Media and morality: On the rise of the mediapolis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Smith, A. (April 1, 2015). U.S.  smartphone use in 2015. Pew Research Center. http://www. pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/ Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books. Wang, Y., Niiya, M., Mark, G., Reich, S., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Coming of age (digitally): An ecological view of social media use among college students. Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 571–582). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675271 Williams, R. & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25(6), 865–899. Wilmer, H. H. & Chein, J. M. (2016). Mobile technology habits: Patterns of association among device usage, intertemporal preference, impulse control, and reward sensitivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1607–1614. Wu, J. Y. (2015). University students’ motivated attention and use of regulation strategies on social media. Computers & Education, 89, 75–90. Xu, S., Wang, Z. J., & David, P. (2016). Media multitasking and well-being of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 242–250.

Cited Analyzed References Abeele, M. V. & Roe, K. (2011). New life, old friends: A cross-cultural comparison of the use of communication technologies in the social life of college freshmen. Young, 19(2), 219–240.

282   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Aharony, N. (2017). Factors affecting LIS Israeli students’ mobile phone use: An exploratory study. The Electronic Library, 35(6), 1098–1121. Aker, S., Sahin, M. K., Sezgin, S., & Oguz, G. (2017). Psychosocial factors affecting smartphone addiction in university students. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 28(4), 215–219. Aladwani, A. M. & Almarzouq, M. (2016). Understanding compulsive social media use: The premise of complementing self-conceptions mismatch with technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 575–581. Aljomaa, S.  S., Al Qudah, M.  F., Albursan, I.  S., Bakhiet, S.  F., & Abduljabbar, A.  S. (2016). Smartphone addiction among university students in the light of some variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 155–164. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.041 Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 111–119. Ames, M. G. (2013). Managing mobile multitasking: The culture of iPhones on Stanford campus. Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1487–1498). doi:10.1145/2441776.2441945 Arıcak, O. T., Dündar, Ş., & Saldaña, M. (2015). Mediating effect of self-acceptance between values and offline/online identity expressions among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 362–374. Axelsson, A. S. (2010). Perpetual and personal: Swedish young adults and their use of mobile phones. New Media & Society, 12(1), 35–54. Bian, M. & Leung, L. (2015). Linking loneliness, shyness, smartphone addiction symptoms, and patterns of smartphone use to social capital. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 61–79. Bicen, H. & Arnavut, A. (2015). Determining the effects of technological tool use habits on social lives. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 457–462. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2015.02.012 boyd, d. (2015). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Brown, C., Czerniewicz, L., & Noakes, T. (2016). Online content creation: Looking at students’ social media practices through a Connected Learning lens. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 140–159. Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Castro-Nuño, M., L¢pez-Valpuesta, L., Sanz-D¡az, M. T., & Yñiguez, R. (2017). To take or not to take the laptop or tablet to classes, that is the question. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 326–333. Chen, B. & Marcus, J. (2012). Students’ self-presentation on Facebook: An examination of personality and self-construal factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2091–2099. Chen, L., Yan, Z., Tang, W., Yang, F., Xie, X., & He, J. (2016). Mobile phone addiction levels and negative emotions among Chinese young adults: The mediating role of interpersonal problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 856–866. Chiu, S. I. (2014). The relationship between life stress and smartphone addiction on Taiwanese university student: A mediation model of learning self-efficacy and social self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 49–57. Choi, E. P., Wong, J. Y., Lo, H. H., Wong, W., Chio, J. H., & Fong, D. Y. (2017). Association between using smartphone dating applications and alcohol and recreational drug use in conjunction with sexual activities in college students. Substance Use & Misuse, 52(4), 422–428. Crosslin, K. & Golman, M. (2014). “Maybe you don’t want to face it”: College students’ perspectives on cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 14–20.

Media Mastery by College Students   283 Dalbudak, E., Evren, C., Aldemir, S., Taymur, I., Evren, B., & Topcu, M. (2015). The impact of sensation seeking on the relationship between attention deficit/hyperactivity symptoms and severity of Internet addiction risk. Psychiatry Research, 228(1), 156–161. Dalton, J. C. & Crosby, P. C. (2013). Digital identity: How social media are influencing student learning and development in college. Journal of College and Character, 14(1), 1–4. doi:10.1515/ jcc-2013–0001 Davis, K. (2011). A life in bits and bytes: A portrait of a college student and her life with digital media. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1960–1982. DeAndrea, D. C., Ellison, N. B., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C. & Fiore, A. (2012). Serious social media: On the use of social media for improving students’ adjustment to college. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 15–23. Demirci, K., Akgönül, M., & Akpinar, A. (2015). Relationship of smartphone use severity with sleep quality, depression, and anxiety in university students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 85–92. Dockrell, S., Bennett, K., & Culleton-Quinn, E. (2015). Computer use and musculoskeletal symptoms among undergraduate university students. Computers & Education, 85, 102–109. Duarte-Hueros, J., Duarte-Hueros, A., & Ruano-Lopez, S. (2016). The audiovisual content downloads among university students. Comunicar, 48. Fan, Y., Gong, S., Wang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2017). The effects of learning task and learners’ metacognition on college students’ media multitasking behaviors. Advances in Psychology, 7(7), 895–902. Fasae, J. K. & Adegbilero-Iwari, I. (2015). Mobile devices for academic practices by students of college of sciences in selected Nigerian private universities. The Electronic Library, 33(4), 749–759. Flanagin, A. E. & Babchuk, W. A. (2015). Social media as academic quicksand: A phenomenological study of student experiences in and out of the classroom. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 40–45. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.003 Floros, G., Siomos, K., Stogiannidou, A., Giouzepas, I., & Garyfallos, G. (2014). The relationship between personality, defense styles, internet addiction disorder, and psychopathology in college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 672–676. Gökçearslan, Ş., Mumcu, F. K., Haşlaman, T., & Çevik, Y. D. (2016). Modelling smartphone addiction: The role of smartphone usage, self-regulation, general self-efficacy and cyberloafing in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 639–649. doi:http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.091 Goode, J. (2010). The digital identity divide: How technology knowledge impacts college students. New Media & Society, 12(3), 497–513. Gray, R., Vitak, J., Easton, E. W., & Ellison, N. B. (2013). Examining social adjustment to college in the age of social media: Factors influencing successful transitions and persistence. Computers & Education, 67, 193–207. Hassell, M. D. & Sukalich, M. F. (2016). A deeper look into the complex relationship between social media use and academic outcomes and attitudes. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 21(4), n4. Hong, F. Y., Chiu, S. I., & Huang, D. H. (2012). A model of the relationship between psychological characteristics, mobile phone addiction and use of mobile phones by Taiwanese university female students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2152–2159.

284   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Hoy, M.  G. & Milne, G. (2010). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28–45. doi:10.1080/15252019. 2010.10722168 Hussain, Z., Griffiths, M. D., & Sheffield, D. (2017). An investigation into problematic smartphone use: The role of narcissism, anxiety, and personality factors. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6(3), 378–386. Ishii, K., Rife, T. S., & Kagawa, N. (2017). Technology-driven gratifications sought through text-messaging among college students in the US and Japan. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 396–404. Jacobsen, W. C. & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 275–280. Jarvi, S. M., Swenson, L. P., & Batejan, K. L. (2017). Motivation for and use of social networking sites: Comparisons among college students with and without histories of non-suicidal self-injury. Journal of American College Health, 65(5), 306–312. Jiang, Z., & Shi, M. (2016). Prevalence and co-occurrence of compulsive buying, problematic Internet and mobile phone use in college students in Yantai, China: Relevance of self-traits. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 1211. Johnson, C. A. (2015). The information diet: A case for conscious consumption. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Judd, T. (2014). Making sense of multitasking: The role of Facebook. Computers & Education, 70, 194–202. Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2236–2243. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.031 Kim, B. & Kim, Y. (2017). College students’ social media use and communication network heterogeneity: Implications for social capital and subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 620–628. Kim, J. & Lee, J.-E.  R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(6), 359–364. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0374 Kuang-Tsan, C. & Fu-Yuan, H. (2017). Study on relationship among university students’ life stress, smart mobile phone addiction, and life satisfaction. Journal of Adult Development, 24(2), 109–118. Kuznekoff, J. & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252. Li, W., O’Brien, J. E., Snyder, S. M., & Howard, M. O. (2015). Characteristics of internet addiction/pathological internet use in US university students: A qualitative-method investigation. PloS One, 10(2), e0117372. Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48, 369–380. doi: 10.1037/a0026338 Marlowe, J. M., Bartley, A., & Collins, F. (2017). Digital belongings: The intersections of social cohesion, connectivity and digital media. Ethnicities, 17(1), 85–102. Meier, A., Reinecke, L., & Meltzer, C.  E. (2016). “Facebocrastination”? Predictors of using Facebook for procrastination and its effects on students’ well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 65–76. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.011

Media Mastery by College Students   285 Moreno, M. A., Swanson, M. J., Royer, H., & Roberts, L. J. (2011). Sexpectations: Male college students’ views about displayed sexual references on females’ social networking web sites. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 24(2), 85–89. Park, S., Lee, S. W., Kwak, J., Cha, M., & Jeong, B. (2013). Activities on Facebook reveal the depressive state of users. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(10). Picone, I. (2017). Conceptualizing media users across media: The case for ‘media user/use’ as analytical concepts. Convergence, 23(4), 378–390. Pilli, O. (2015). The changes in social media usage: Students’ perspective. The Anthropologist, 22(2), 345–354. Polo, M. I., Lázaro, S. M., del Barco, B. L., & Castaño, E. F. (2017). Mobile abuse in university students and profiles of victimization and aggression. Adicciones, 29(4), 245–255. [Full article in Spanish] Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., De La Cruz, J. J., & Wrench, J. S. (2017). Investigating the relationships among college students’ satisfaction, addiction, needs, communication apprehension, motives, and uses & gratifications with Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 870–875. Rowan-Kenyon, H. T, & Alemán, A. M. M. (2018). Technology and engagement: Making technology work for first generation college students. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Sponcil, M. & Gitimu, P. (2013). Use of social media by college students: Relationship to communication and self-concept. Journal of Technology Research, 4, 1–13. Tandoc, E. C., Ferrucci, P. & Duffy, M. (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: Is facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 139–146. Thomas, L., Briggs, P., Hart, A., & Kerrigan, F. (2017). Understanding social media and identity work in young people transitioning to university. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 541–553. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books. Virden, A. L., Trujillo, A., & Predeger, E. (2014). Young adult females’ perceptions of high-risk social media behaviors: A focus-group approach. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 31(3), 133–144. Vorderer, P., Krömer, N., & Schneider, F. M. (2016). Permanently online—Permanently connected: Explorations into university students’ use of social media and mobile smart devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 694–703. Wohn, D. Y. & LaRose, R. (2014). Effects of loneliness and differential usage of Facebook on college adjustment of first-year students. Computers & Education, 76, 158–167. Wu, J. Y. (2015). University students’ motivated attention and use of regulation strategies on social media. Computers & Education, 89, 75–90. Yang, H. C. (2014). Young people’s friendship and love relationships and technology: New practices of intimacy and rethinking feminism. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 20(1), 93–124. Yang, T., Yu, L., Oliffe, J.  L., Jiang, S., & Si, Q. (2017). Regional contextual determinants of internet addiction among college students: A representative nationwide study of China. The European Journal of Public Health, 27(6), 1032–1037. Yao, M. Z., He, J., Ko, D. M., & Pang, K. (2014). The influence of personality, parental behaviors, and self-esteem on Internet addiction: A study of Chinese college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 104–110.

286   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Appendix: Publications Analyzed Abeele, M. V., & Roe, K. (2011). New life, old friends: A cross-cultural comparison of the use of communication technologies in the social life of college freshmen. Young, 19(2), 219–240. Aharony, N. (2015). What’s App: A social capital perspective. Online Information Review, 39(1), 26–42. Aharony, N. (2017). Factors affecting LIS Israeli students’ mobile phone use: an exploratory study. The Electronic Library, 35(6), 1098–1121. Akçayır, M., Dündar, H., & Akçayır, G. (2016). What makes you a digital native? Is it enough to be born after 1980? Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 435–440. Aker, S., Sahin, M. K., Sezgin, S., & Oguz, G. (2017). Psychosocial factors affecting smartphone addiction in university students. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 28(4), 215–219. Aladwani, A. M., & Almarzouq, M. (2016). Understanding compulsive social media use: The premise of complementing self-conceptions mismatch with technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 575–581. Al-Gamal, E., Alzayyat, A., & Ahmad, M. M. (2016). Prevalence of internet addiction and its association with psychological distress and coping strategies among university students in Jordan. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 52(1), 49–61. Aljomaa, S. S., Al.Qudah, M. F., Albursan, I. S., Bakhiet, S. F., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2016). Smartphone addiction among university students in the light of some variables. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 155–164. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.041 Alt, D. (2015). College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 111–119. Alwagait, E., Shahzad, B., & Alim, S. (2015). Impact of social media usage on students’ academic performance in Saudi Arabia. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1092–1097. Alzayyat, A., Al-Gamal, E., & Ahmad, M. M. (2015). Psychosocial correlates of Internet addiction among Jordanian university students. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 53(4), 43–51. Amankwah, F. N., & Ha, L. (2015). Smartphones and self-broadcasting among college students in an age of social media. In A. Mesquita & C-W Tsai (Eds.), Human behavior, psychology, and social interaction in the digital era (pp. 95–128). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8450-8. Ames, M. G. (2013). Managing mobile multitasking: The culture of iPhones on Stanford campus. Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work, 1487–1498. doi:10.1145/2441776.2441945 Annisette, L. E. & Lafreniere, K. D. (2017). Social media, texting, and personality: A test of the shallowing hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 154–158. Arıcak, O. T., Dündar, Ş., & Saldaña, M. (2015). Mediating effect of self-acceptance between values and offline/online identity expressions among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 362–374. Armstrong, A., Thomas, J., & Smith, M. (2017). College students’ experiences with anonymous social media: Implications for campus racial climate. Journal of College Student Development, 58(7), 1101–1107. Axelsson, A. S. (2010). Perpetual and personal: Swedish young adults and their use of mobile phones. New Media & Society, 12(1), 35–54. Barkley, J. E., & Lepp, A. (2016). Mobile phone use among college students is a sedentary leisure behavior which may interfere with exercise. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 29–33.

Media Mastery by College Students   287 Bauman, S., & Baldasare, A. (2015). Cyber aggression among college students: Demographic differences, predictors of distress, and the role of the university. Journal of College Student Development, 56(4), 317–330. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the “digital natives” debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321–331. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2729.2010.00360.x Benson, V., Saridakis, G., & Tennakoon, H. (2015). Purpose of social networking use and victimisation: Are there any differences between university students and those not in HE? Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 867–872. Bian, M., & Leung, L. (2015). Linking loneliness, shyness, smartphone addiction symptoms, and patterns of smartphone use to social capital. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 61–79. Bicen, H., & Arnavut, A. (2015). Determining the effects of technological tool use habits on social lives. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 457–462. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2015.02.012 Bjornsen, C. A., & Archer, K. J. (2015). Relations between college students’ cell phone use during class and grades. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(4), 326–336. Bobkowski, P., & Smith, J. (2013). Social media divide: characteristics of emerging adults who do not use social network websites. Media, Culture & Society, 35(6), 771–781. Boswell, S. S. (2012). “I deserve success”: Academic entitlement attitudes and their relationships with course self-efficacy, social networking, and demographic variables. Social Psychology of Education, 15(3), 353–365. Brown, C., Czerniewicz, L., & Noakes, T. (2016). Online content creation: Looking at students’ social media practices through a Connected Learning lens. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 140–159. Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Castro-Nuño, M., López-Valpuesta, L., Sanz-Díaz, M. T., & Yñiguez, R. (2017). To take or not to take the laptop or tablet to classes, that is the question. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 326–333. Chang, C. S., Liu, E. Z. F., Sung, H. Y., Lin, C. H., Chen, N. S., & Cheng, S. S. (2014). Effects of online college student’s Internet self-efficacy on learning motivation and performance. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(4), 366–377. Chan-Olmsted, S., & Shay, R. (2016). Understanding tablet consumers: Exploring the factors that affect tablet and dual mobile device ownership. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(4), 857–883. Chen, B., & Marcus, J. (2012). Students’ self-presentation on Facebook: An examination of personality and self-construal factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2091–2099. Chen, L., Yan, Z., Tang, W., Yang, F., Xie, X., & He, J. (2016). Mobile phone addiction levels and negative emotions among Chinese young adults: the mediating role of interpersonal problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 856–866. Chi, X., Lin, L., & Zhang, P. (2016). Internet addiction among college students in china: Prevalence and psychosocial correlates. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(9), 567–573. Chiu, S. I. (2014). The relationship between life stress and smartphone addiction on Taiwanese university student: A mediation model of learning self-efficacy and social self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 49–57. Choi, E. P., Wong, J. Y., Lo, H. H., Wong, W., Chio, J. H., & Fong, D. Y. (2017). Association between using smartphone dating applications and alcohol and recreational drug use in

288   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. conjunction with sexual activities in college students. Substance Use & Misuse, 52(4), 422–428. Choi, E. P., Wong, J. Y., Lo, H. H., Wong, W., Chio, J. H., & Fong, D. Y. (2016). The association between smartphone dating applications and college students’ casual sex encounters and condom use. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, 9, 38–41. Choi, M., & Toma, C. L. (2017). Social sharing with friends and family after romantic breakups: Patterns of media use and effects on psychological well-being. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 29(3), 166–172. Chou, C., Wu, H. C., & Chen, C. H. (2011). Re-visiting college students’ attitudes toward the Internet-based on a 6-T model: Gender and grade level difference. Computers & Education, 56(4), 939–947. Christakis, D. A., Moreno, M. M., Jelenchick, L., Myaing, M. T., & Zhou, C. (2011). Problematic internet usage in US college students: A pilot study BMC Medicine, 9, 77. doi:10.1186/ 1741-7015-9-77 Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2014). Dimensions of social media utilization among college sport fans. Communication & Sport, 2(3), 261–281. Clayton, R. B., Osborne, R. E., Miller, B. K., & Oberle, C. D. (2013). Loneliness, anxiousness, and substance use as predictors of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 687–693. Crosslin, K., & Golman, M. (2014). “Maybe you don’t want to face it”–College students’ perspectives on cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 14–20. Dalbudak, E., Evren, C., Topcu, M., Aldemir, S., Coskun, K. S., Bozkurt, M., . . . & Canbal, M. (2013). Relationship of Internet addiction with impulsivity and severity of psychopathology among Turkish university students. Psychiatry Research, 210(3), 1086–1091. Dalbudak, E., Evren, C., Aldemir, S., Taymur, I., Evren, B., & Topcu, M. (2015). The impact of sensation seeking on the relationship between attention deficit/hyperactivity symptoms and severity of Internet addiction risk. Psychiatry Research, 228(1), 156–161. Dalton, J. C., & Crosby, P. C. (2013). Digital identity: How social media are influencing student learning and development in college. Journal of College and Character, 14(1), 1–4. doi:10.1515/ jcc-2013–0001 David, P., Kim, J.-H., Brickman, J. S., Ran, W. & Curtis, C. M. (2015). Mobile phone distraction while studying. New Media & Society, 17(10), 661–1679. Davila, J., Hershenberg, R., Feinstein, B.  A., Gorman, K., Bhatia,V., & Starr, L.  R. (2012). Frequency and quality of social networking among young adults: Associations with depressive symptoms, rumination, and corumination. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1(2), 72–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027512 Davis, K. (2011). A life in bits and bytes: A portrait of a college student and her life with digital media. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1960–1982. De Leo, J. A., & Wulfert, E. (2013). Problematic Internet use and other risky behaviors in college students: An application of problem-behavior theory. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 133–141. DeAndrea, D. C., Ellison, N. B., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C. & Fiore, A. (2012). Serious social media: On the use of social media for improving students’ adjustment to college. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 15–23. Demirbilek, M. (2014). The “digital natives” debate: An investigation of the digital propensities of university students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(2), 115–123.

Media Mastery by College Students   289 Demirci, K., Akgönül, M., & Akpinar, A. (2015). Relationship of smartphone use severity with sleep quality, depression, and anxiety in university students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 85–92. Demirhan, E., Randler, C., & Horzum, M. B. (2016). Is problematic mobile phone use explained by chronotype and personality? Chronobiology International, 33(7), 821–831. Dockrell, S., Bennett, K., & Culleton-Quinn, E. (2015). Computer use and musculoskeletal symptoms among undergraduate university students. Computers & Education, 85, 102–109. Dong, G., Wang, J., Yang, X., & Zhou, H. (2013). Risk personality traits of Internet addiction: a longitudinal study of Internet-addicted Chinese university students. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry, 5(4), 316–321. Duarte-Hueros, J., Duarte-Hueros, A., & Ruano-Lopez, S. (2016). The audiovisual content downloads among university students. Comunicar, 48. Egan, K.  G., & Moreno, M.  A. (2011). Prevalence of stress references on college freshmen Facebook profiles. Computers, Informatics, Nursing: CIN, 29(10), 586–592. Ekinci, B. (2014). The relationship between problematic internet entertainment use and problem solving skills among university students. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12(5), 607–617. Fan, Y., Gong, S., Wang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2017). The effects of learning task and learners’ metacognition on college students’ media multitasking behaviors. Advances in Psychology, 7(7), 895–902. Fang, L. & Ha, L. (2015). Do college students benefit from their social media experience? Social media involvement and its impact on college students’ self-efficacy perception. In A. Mesquita & C-W Tsai (Eds.), Human behavior, psychology, and social interaction in the digital era (pp. 259–278). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8450-8. Fasae, J. K., & Adegbilero-Iwari, I. (2015). Mobile devices for academic practices by students of college of sciences in selected Nigerian private universities. The Electronic Library, 33(4), 749–759. Flanagin, A. E. & Babchuk, W. A. (2015). Social media as academic quicksand: A phenomenological study of student experiences in and out of the classroom. Learning and Individual Differences, 44, 40–45. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.003 Floros, G., Siomos, K., Stogiannidou, A., Giouzepas, I., & Garyfallos, G. (2014). The relationship between personality, defense styles, internet addiction disorder, and psychopathology in college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 672–676. Forbush, E., & Foucault-Welles, B. (2016). Social media use and adaptation among Chinese students beginning to study in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 1–12. Garett, R., Liu, S., & Young, S. D. (2018). The relationship between social media use and sleep quality among undergraduate students. Information, Communication & Society, 21(2), 163–173. Genctanirim Kurt, D. (2015). Suicide risk in college students: The effects of Internet addiction and drug use. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(4), 841–848. Gökçearslan, Ş., Mumcu, F. K., Haşlaman, T., & Çevik, Y. D. (2016). Modelling smartphone addiction: The role of smartphone usage, self-regulation, general self-efficacy and cyberloafing in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 639–649. doi:http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.091

290   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Goode, J. (2010a). Mind the gap: The digital dimension of college access. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(5), 583–618. Goode, J. (2010b). The digital identity divide: How technology knowledge impacts college students. New Media & Society, 12(3), 497–513. Gray, R., Vitak, J., Easton, E. W., & Ellison, N. B. (2013). Examining social adjustment to college in the age of social media: Factors influencing successful transitions and persistence. Computers & Education, 67, 193–207. Han, L., Geng, J., Jou, M., Gao, F., & Yang, H. (2017). Relationship between shyness and mobile phone addiction in Chinese young adults: Mediating roles of self-control and attachment anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 363–371. Han, P., Wang, P., Lin, Q., Tian, Y., Gao, F., & Chen, Y. (2017). Reciprocal relationship between internet addiction and network-related maladaptive cognition among Chinese college freshmen: A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1047. Hassell, M. D., & Sukalich, M. F. (2016). A deeper look into the complex relationship between social media use and academic outcomes and attitudes. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 21(4), n4. Haug, S., Castro, R. P., Kwon, M., Filler, A., Kowatsch, T., & Schaub, M. P. (2015). Smartphone use and smartphone addiction among young people in Switzerland. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(4), 299–307. Haverila, M. J. (2011). Cell phone feature preferences and gender differences among college students. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(4), 401–419. Hawi, N. S., & Samaha, M. (2016). To excel or not to excel: Strong evidence on the adverse effect of smartphone addiction on academic performance. Computers & Education, 98, 81–89. Hawi, N. S., & Samaha, M. (2017). The relations among social media addiction, self-esteem, and life satisfaction in university students. Social Science Computer Review, 35(5), 576–586. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., & Aston, R. (2015). Students’ everyday engagement with digital technology in university: Exploring patterns of use and “usefulness”. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 308–319. doi:10.1080/13600 80X.2015.1034424 Hendrickson, B., & Rosen, D. (2017). Insights into new media use by international students: Implications for cross-cultural adaptation theory. Social Networking, 6, 81–106. Hong, F. Y., Chiu, S. I., & Huang, D. H. (2012). A model of the relationship between psychological characteristics, mobile phone addiction and use of mobile phones by Taiwanese university female students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2152–2159. Hou, J., Ndasauka, Y., Jiang, Y., Ye, Z., Wang, Y., Yang, L., . . . & Xu, F. (2017). Excessive use of WeChat, social interaction and locus of control among college students in China. PloS One, 12(8), e0183633. Hoy, M. G., & Milne, G. (2010). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28–45. doi:10.1080/15252019. 2010.10722168 Hussain, Z., Griffiths, M. D., & Sheffield, D. (2017). An investigation into problematic smartphone use: The role of narcissism, anxiety, and personality factors. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6(3), 378–386. Ishii, K., Rife, T. S., & Kagawa, N. (2017). Technology-driven gratifications sought through text-messaging among college students in the US and Japan. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 396–404.

Media Mastery by College Students   291 Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 275–280. Jarvi, S. M., Swenson, L. P., & Batejan, K. L. (2017). Motivation for and use of social networking sites: comparisons among college students with and without histories of non-suicidal self-injury. Journal of American College Health, 65(5), 306–312. Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Wright, S. L., & Johnson, B. (2013). Development and validation of a social media use integration scale. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 38–50. Jiang, Z., & Shi, M. (2016). Prevalence and co-occurrence of compulsive buying, problematic Internet and mobile phone use in college students in Yantai, China: Relevance of self-traits. BMC public health, 16(1), 1211. Jiang, Z., & Zhao, X. (2016). Self-control and problematic mobile phone use in Chinese college students: The mediating role of mobile phone use patterns. BMC psychiatry, 16(1), 416. Jiang, Z., & Zhao, X. (2017). Brain behavioral systems, self-control and problematic mobile phone use: The moderating role of gender and history of use. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 111–116. Johnston, K., Tanner, M., Lalla, N., & Kawalski, D. (2013). Social capital: the benefit of Facebook “friends”. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(1), 24–36. Judd, T. (2014). Making sense of multitasking: The role of Facebook. Computers & Education, 70, 194–202. Junco, R. (2012a). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2236–2243. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.031 Junco, R. (2012b). The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Computers & Education, 58(1), 162–171. Kabasakal, Z. (2015). Life satisfaction and family functions as-predictors of problematic Internet use in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 294–304. Karadağ, E., Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Erzen, E., Duru, P., Bostan, N., Şahin, B. M., . . . & Babadağ, B. (2015). Determinants of phubbing, which is the sum of many virtual addictions: A structural equation model. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(2), 60–74. Katikalapudi, R., Chellappan, S., Montgomery, F., Wunsch, D., & Lutzen, K. (2012). Associating internet usage with depressive behavior among college students. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 31(4), 73–80. Kim, B., & Kim, Y. (2017). College students’ social media use and communication network heterogeneity: Implications for social capital and subjective well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 620–628. Kim, H. J., Min, J. Y., Kim, H. J., & Min, K. B. (2017). Accident risk associated with smartphone addiction: A study on university students in Korea. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6(4), 699–707. Kim, J, & Lee, J.-E.  R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(6), 359–364. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0374 Kim, J. H., Kim, M. S., & Nam, Y. (2010). An analysis of self-construals, motivations, Facebook use, and user satisfaction. International. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 26(11–12), 1077–1099. Kim, Y., Liu, Y., & Shan, Z. (2017). Beyond touchdown: College students’ sports participation, social media use, college attachment, and psychological well-being. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 895–903.

292   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365–372. Kim, Y., Wang, Y., & Oh, J. (2016). Digital media use and social engagement: How social media and smartphone use influence social activities of college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(4), 264–269. Kobus, M. B., Rietveld, P., & Van Ommeren, J. N. (2013). Ownership versus on-campus use of mobile IT devices by university students. Computers & Education, 68, 29–41. Koc, M., & Gulyagci, S. (2013). Facebook addiction among Turkish college students: The role of psychological health, demographic, and usage characteristics. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(4), 279–284. Koh, H., & Mackert, M. (2016). A study exploring factors of decision to text while walking among college students based on Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Journal of American College Health, 64(8), 619–627. Kokkinos, C. M., Baltzidis, E., & Xynogala, D. (2016). Prevalence and personality correlates of Facebook bullying among university undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 840–850. Krasnova, H., Widjaja, T., Buxmann, P, Wenninger, H., & Benbasat, I. (2015). Why following friends can hurt you: An exploratory investigation of the effects of envy on social networking sites among college-age users. Information Systems Research, 26(3), 585–605. Kuang-Tsan, C., & Fu-Yuan, H. (2017). Study on relationship among university students’ life stress, smart mobile phone addiction, and life satisfaction. Journal of Adult Development, 24(2), 109–118. Kuznekoff, J. & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252. Lachmann, B., Duke, É., Sariyska, R., & Montag, C. (2017). Who’s addicted to the Smartphone and/or the Internet? Psychology of Popular Media Culture, (Nov 20). Lau, W. W. (2017). Effects of social media usage and social media multitasking on the academic performance of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 286–291. Lee, E.  B. (2015). Too much information: Heavy smartphone and Facebook utilization by African American young adults. Journal of Black Studies, 46(1), 44–61. Lee, K. S., & Chen, W. (2017). A long shadow: Cultural capital, techno-capital and networking skills of college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 67–73. Lee-Johnson, Y.  L., Jiang, Y., & Li, Y. (2016). Comparing the digital literacy repertoire among college students in China and the USA. Quarterly Journal of Chinese Studies, 4(4), 64–80. Lepp, A., Li, J., Barkley, J. E., & Salehi-Esfahani, S. (2015). Exploring the relationships between college students’ cell phone use, personality and leisure. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 210–219. Li, W., O’Brien, J.  E., Snyder, S.  M., & Howard, M.  O. (2015). Characteristics of internet addiction/pathological internet use in US university students: A qualitative-method investigation. PloS one, 10(2), e0117372. Li, X., & Chen, W. (2014). Facebook or Renren? A comparative study of social networking site use and social capital among Chinese international students in the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 116–123. Lian, L., & You, X. (2017). Specific virtues as predictors of smartphone addiction among Chinese undergraduates. Current Psychology, 36(2), 376–384.

Media Mastery by College Students   293 Lian, L., You, X., Huang, J., & Yang, R. (2016). Who overuses Smartphones? Roles of virtues and parenting style in Smartphone addiction among Chinese college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 92–99. Lin, J. H. (2015). The role of attachment style in Facebook use and social capital: Evidence from university students and a national sample. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(3), 173–180. Lin, J. H., Peng, W., Kim, M., Kim, S. Y., & LaRose, R. (2012). Social networking and adjustments among international students. New Media & Society, 14(3), 421–440. Lin, T. T., & Chiang, Y. H. (2017). Investigating predictors of smartphone dependency symptoms and effects on academic performance, improper phone use and perceived sociability. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 15(6), 655–676. Lin, Y., & Sackey, E. (2015). Use of Facebook: A Comparative Study of US American and Ghanaian College Students. Communication Research Reports, 32(3), 281–286. Liu, D., & Brown, B. B. (2014). Self-disclosure on social networking sites, positive feedback, and social capital among Chinese college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 213–219. Liu, D., Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2017). A meta-analysis of the relationship of academic performance and Social Network Site use among adolescents and young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 148–157. Long, J., Liu, T. Q., Liao, Y. H., Qi, C., He, H. Y., Chen, S. B., & Billieux, J. (2016). Prevalence and correlates of problematic smartphone use in a large random sample of Chinese undergraduates. BMC psychiatry, 16(1), 408. Madu, S.  N., Otuka, C.  C., & Adebayo, I.  A. (2011). Attitude of male and female students towards the use of internet. Gender and Behaviour, 9(1), 3817–3826. Manago, A.M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students’ Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48, 369–380. doi: 10.1037/a0026338 Marlowe, J. M., Bartley, A., & Collins, F. (2017). Digital belongings: The intersections of social cohesion, connectivity and digital media. Ethnicities, 17(1), 85–102. Meier, A., Reinecke, L., & Meltzer, C.  E. (2016). “Facebocrastination”? Predictors of using Facebook for procrastination and its effects on students’ well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 65–76. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.011 Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2015). Facebook use and academic performance among college students: A mixed-methods study with a multi-ethnic sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 265–272. Mihailidis, P. (2014a). A tethered generation: Exploring the role of mobile phones in the daily life of young people. Mobile Media & Communication, 2(1), 58–72. Mihailidis, P. (2014b). The civic-social media disconnect: Exploring perceptions of social media for engagement in the daily life of college students. Information, Communication & Society, 17(9), 1059–1071. Miller, R. A. (2017). “My voice is definitely strongest in online communities”: Students using social media for queer and disability identity-making. Journal of College Student Development, 58(4), 509–525. Miller, R., & Melton, J. (2015). College students and risk-taking behaviour on Twitter versus Facebook. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(7), 678–684. Misra, S., & Stokols, D. (2012). Psychological and health outcomes of perceived information overload. Environment and Behavior, 44(6), 737–759.

294   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Mitchell, M. E., Lebow, J. R., Uribe, R., Grathouse, H., & Shoger, W. (2011). Internet use, happiness, social support and introversion: A more fine grained analysis of person variables and internet activity. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1857–1861. Mok, J. Y., Choi, S. W., Kim, D. J., Choi, J. S., Lee, J., Ahn, H., . . . & Song, W. Y. (2014). Latent class analysis on internet and smartphone addiction in college students. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 10, 817–827. Monacis, L., de Palo, V., Griffiths, M. D., & Sinatra, M. (2017). Exploring individual differences in online addictions: The role of identity and attachment. International Journal of Mental Health And Addiction, 15(4), 853–868. Montagni, I., Guichard, E., & Kurth, T. (2016). Association of screen time with self-perceived attention problems and hyperactivity levels in French students: A cross-sectional study. BMJ open, 6(2), e009089. Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L. A., & Breland, D. J. (2015). Exploring depression and problematic internet use among college females: A multisite study. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 601–607. Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L. A., & Christakis, D. A. (2013). Problematic internet use among older adolescents: A conceptual framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1879–1887. Moreno, M. A., Jelenchick, L., Koff, R., Eikoff, J., Diermyer, C., & Christakis, D. A. (2012). Internet use and multitasking among older adolescents: An experience sampling approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1097–1102. Moreno, M. A., Swanson, M. J., Royer, H., & Roberts, L. J. (2011). Sexpectations: Male college students’ views about displayed sexual references on females’ social networking web sites. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 24(2), 85–89. Morreale, S., Staley, C., Stavrositu, C., & Krakowiak, M. (2015). First-year college students’ attitudes toward communication technologies and their perceptions of communication competence in the 21st Century. Communication Education, 64(1), 107–131. Noh, D., & Kim, S. (2016). Dysfunctional attitude mediates the relationship between psychopathology and Internet addiction among Korean college students: A cross-sectional observational study. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 25(6), 588–597. Odacı, H., & Kalkan, M. (2010). Problematic Internet use, loneliness and dating anxiety among young adult university students. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1091–1097. Oh, S., & Kim, S. (2014). College students’ use of social media for health in the USA and Korea. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 19(4), n4, article 643. Orzech, K. M., Grandner, M. A., Roane, B. M., & Carskadon, M. A. (2016). Digital media use in the 2 h before bedtime is associated with sleep variables in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 43–50. Ouyang, Z., Wang, Y., & Yu, H. (2017). Internet use in young adult males: From the perspective of pursuing well-being. Current Psychology, 36(4), 840–848. Pak, R., Rovira, E., McLaughlin, A. C., & Leidheiser, W. (2017). Evaluating attitudes and experience with emerging technology in cadets and civilian undergraduates. Military Psychology, 29(5), 448–455. Panek, E.  T., Nardis, Y., & Konrath, S. (2013). Mirror or Megaphone?: How relationships between narcissism and social networking site use differ on Facebook and Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 2004–2012. Park, N., Song, H., & Lee, K. M. (2014). Social networking sites and other media use, acculturation stress, and psychological well-being among East Asian college students in the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 138–146.

Media Mastery by College Students   295 Park, S., Lee, S. W., Kwak, J., Cha, M., & Jeong, B. (2013). Activities on Facebook reveal the depressive state of users. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(10). Percheski, C., & Hargittai, E. (2011). Health information-seeking in the digital age. Journal of American College Health, 59(5), 379–386. Pilli, O. (2015). The changes in social media usage: students’ perspective. The Anthropologist, 22(2), 345–354. Polo, M. I., Lázaro, S. M., del Barco, B. L., & Castaño, E. F. (2017). Mobile abuse in university students and profiles of victimization and aggression. Adicciones, 29(4), 245–255. Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., & James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among U.S.  young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 1–9. Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., De La Cruz, J. J., & Wrench, J. S. (2017). Investigating the relationships among college students’ satisfaction, addiction, needs, communication apprehension, motives, and uses & gratifications with Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 870–875. Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2015). Are students really connected? Predicting college adjustment from social network usage. Educational Psychology, 35(7), 819–834. Ragan, E. D., Jennings, S. R., Massey, J. D., & Doolittle, P. E. (2014). Unregulated use of laptops over time in large lecture classes. Computers & Education, 78, 78–86. Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604–612. Rayan, A., Dadoul, A. M., Jabareen, H., Sulieman, Z., Alzayyat, A., & Baker, O. (2017). Internet use among university students in South West Bank: Prevalence, advantages and disadvantages, and association with psychological health. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15(1), 118–129. Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Safyer, P. (2015). Too close for comfort: Attachment insecurity and electronic intrusion in college students’ dating relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 431–438. Roberts, J. A., & Pirog III, S. F. (2012). A preliminary investigation of materialism and impulsiveness as predictors of technological addictions among young adults. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(1), 56–62. Roberts, J. A., Petnji Yaya, L. H., & Manolis, C. (2014). The invisible addiction: Cell-phone activities and addiction among male and female college students. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(4), 254–265. doi:10.1556/JBA.3.2014.015 Roberts, N., & Rees, M. (2014). Student use of mobile devices in university lectures. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 415–426. Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Alemán, A. M. M. (2018). Technology and engagement: Making technology work for first generation college students. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Rutledge, C. M., Gillmor, K. L., & Gillen, M. M. (2013). Does this profile picture make me look fat? Facebook and body image in college students. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(4), 251–258. Samaha, M., & Hawi, N. S. (2016). Relationships among smartphone addiction, stress, academic performance, and satisfaction with life. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 321–325. Sánchez, R. A., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students’ perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes. Computers & Education, 70, 138–149.

296   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Selkie, E. M., Kota, R., Chan, Y. F., & Moreno, M. (2015). Cyberbullying, depression, and problem alcohol use in female college students: A multisite study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(2), 79–86. Selwyn, N. (2016). Digital downsides: exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8), 1006–1021. Servidio, R. (2014). Exploring the effects of demographic factors, Internet usage and personality traits on Internet addiction in a sample of Italian university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 85–92. Sevillano-García, M. L., Quicios-García, M. P., & González-García, J. L. (2016). The ubiquitous possibilities of the laptop: Spanish university students’ perceptions/Posibilidades ubicuas del ordenador portátil: percepción de estudiantes universitarios españoles. Comunicar, 24(46), 87–94. Sheldon, P. (2013). Voices that cannot be heard: Can shyness explain how we communicate on Facebook versus face-to-face? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1402–1407. Smith, E. E. (2016). “A real double-edged sword:” Undergraduate perceptions of social media in their learning. Computers & Education, 103, 44–58. Smith, R., Morgan, J., & Monks, C. (2017). Students’ perceptions of the effect of social media ostracism on wellbeing. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 276–285. Sponcil, M. & Gitimu, P. (2013). Use of social media by college students: Relationship to communication and self-concept. Journal of Technology Research, 4, 1–13. Tandoc, E. C., Ferrucci, P. & Duffy, M. (2015). Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: Is facebooking depressing? Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 139–146. Taylor, D. G., Voelker, T. A. & Pentina, I. (2011). Mobile application adoption by young adults: A social network perspective. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 6(2), 60–70. Teoh, A. N., Chong, L. X., Yip, C. C. E., Lee, P. S. H., & Wong, J. W. K. (2015). Gender as moderator of the effects of online social support from friends and strangers: A study of Singaporean college students. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 4(4), 254–266. Thinyane, H. (2010). Are digital natives a world-wide phenomenon? An investigation into South African first year students’ use and experience with technology. Computers & Education, 55(1), 406–414. Thomas, L., Briggs, P., Hart, A., & Kerrigan, F. (2017). Understanding social media and identity work in young people transitioning to university. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 541–553. Tu, B. M., Wu, H. C., Hsieh, C., & Chen, P. H. (2011). Establishing new friendships- from faceto-face to facebook: A case study of college students. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, 4–7 January 2011, 1–10. Turan, Z. (2013). The reasons for non-use of social networking websites by university students. Comunicar, 21(41), 137–145. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books. Tynes, B. M., Rose, C. A., & Markoe, S. L. (2013). Extending campus life to the Internet: Social media, discrimination, and perceptions of racial climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(2), 102–114. Villanti, A. C., Johnson, A. L., Ilakkuvan, V., Jacobs, M. A., Graham, A. L., & Rath, J. M. (2017). Social media use and access to digital technology in US young adults in 2016. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(6). e196

Media Mastery by College Students   297 Virden, A. L., Trujillo, A., & Predeger, E. (2014). Young adult females’ perceptions of high-risk social media behaviors: A focus-group approach. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 31(3), 133–144. Vorderer, P., Krömer, N., & Schneider, F. M. (2016). Permanently online–Permanently connected: Explorations into university students’ use of social media and mobile smart devices. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 694–703. Wang, H., Chua, V., & Stefanone, M. A. (2015). Social ties, communication channels, and personal well-being: A study of the networked lives of college students in Singapore. American Behavioral Scientist, 59, 1189–1202. doi: 10.1177/0002764215580590 Wang, J. L., Wang, H. Z., Gaskin, J., & Wang, L. H. (2015). The role of stress and motivation in problematic smartphone use among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 181–188. Wang, J.-L., Jackson, L. A., Gaskin, J., & Wang, H.-Z. (2014). The effects of Social Networking Site (SNS) use on college students’ friendship and wellbeing. Computers in Human Behavior, 37(August), 229–236. Wang, Y., Niiya, M., Mark, G., Reich, S., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Coming of age (digitally): An ecological view of social media use among college students. Proceedings of CSCW, 571–582. doi:10.1145/2675133.2675271 Wang, Z., Tchernev, J. M., & Solloway, T. (2012). A dynamic longitudinal examination of social media use, needs, and gratifications among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1829–1839. Wei, R., Lo, V. H., Xu, X., Chen, Y. N. K., & Zhang, G. (2014). Predicting mobile news use among college students: The role of press freedom in four Asian cities. New Media & Society, 16(4), 637–654. Wendorf, J. E., & Yang, F. (2015). Benefits of a negative post: Effects of computer-mediated venting on relationship maintenance. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 271–277. Whitehill, J. M., Brockman, L. N., & Moreno, M. A. (2013). “Just talk to me”: Communicating with college students about depression disclosures on Facebook. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(1), 122–127. Wilmer, H. H., & Chein, J. M. (2016). Mobile technology habits: patterns of association among device usage, intertemporal preference, impulse control, and reward sensitivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1607–1614. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1011-z Wohn, D. Y., & LaRose, R. (2014). Effects of loneliness and differential usage of Facebook on college adjustment of first-year students. Computers & Education, 76, 158–167. Wu, J. Y. (2015). University students’ motivated attention and use of regulation strategies on social media. Computers & Education, 89, 75–90. Wu, J. Y. (2017). The indirect relationship of media multitasking self-efficacy on learning performance within the personal learning environment: Implications from the mechanism of perceived attention problems and self-regulation strategies. Computers & Education, 106, 56–72. Xu, S., Wang, Z. J., & David, P. (2016). Media multitasking and well-being of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 242–250. Xu, X., Lin, Q., Zhang, Y., Zhu, R., Sharma, M., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Influence of WeChat on sleep quality among undergraduates in Chongqing, China: A cross-sectional study. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 2066. Yang, C. C., & Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook activities, and late adolescents’ social adjustment to college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 403–416.

298   Ronald E. Rice ET AL. Yang, C. C., & Brown, B. B. (2015). Factors involved in associations between Facebook use and college adjustment: Social competence, perceived usefulness, and use patterns. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 245–253. Yang, H. C. (2014). Young people’s friendship and love relationships and technology: New practices of intimacy and rethinking feminism. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 20(1), 93–124. Yang, T., Yu, L., Oliffe, J.  L., Jiang, S., & Si, Q. (2017). Regional contextual determinants of internet addiction among college students: A representative nationwide study of China. The European Journal of Public Health, 27(6), 1032–1037. Yao, B., Han, W., Zeng, L., & Guo, X. (2013). Freshman year mental health symptoms and level of adaptation as predictors of Internet addiction: A retrospective nested case-control study of male Chinese college students. Psychiatry Research, 210(2), 541–547. Yao, M. Z., He, J., Ko, D. M., & Pang, K. (2014). The influence of personality, parental behaviors, and self-esteem on Internet addiction: A study of Chinese college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 104–110. Yubero, S., Navarro, R., Elche, M., Larrañaga, E., & Ovejero, A. (2017). Cyberbullying victimization in higher education: An exploratory analysis of its association with social and emotional factors among Spanish students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 439–449. Yuchang, J., Cuicui, S., Junxiu, A., & Junyi, L. (2017). Attachment styles and smartphone addiction in chinese college students: The mediating roles of dysfunctional attitudes and self-esteem. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15(5), 1122–1134. Yuen, E. K., Koterba, E. A., Stasio, M. J. (2018). The effects of Facebook on mood in emerging adults. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. Zhang, Y., Mei, S., Li, L., Chai, J., Li, J., & Du, H. (2015). The relationship between impulsivity and internet addiction in Chinese college students: A moderated mediation analysis of meaning in life and self-esteem. PloS one, 10(7), e0131597. Zhu, R., & Krever, R. (2017). Media use and cultural adaptation by foreign students in Chinese universities. Continuum, 31(2), 307–324.

chapter 10

Bou n da ry M a nagem en t a n d Com m u n ication Tech nol ogies Marta E. Cecchinato and Anna L. Cox

Introduction The growing number of mobile communication technologies and computer-mediated communication (CMC) platforms has brought numerous benefits to and enrichments of the way we work and socialize. However, they also lead to the challenge of being always connected, which can be a source of stress (Barley, Meyerson, & Grodal, 2011). The extent to, and the ways in, which digital technologies foster stress, especially in relation to work-home boundary management, has been of particular interest in occupational psychology and to a lesser extent in human-computer interaction. Understanding this relationship has important implications for improving workplace well-being. In fact, work-related stress is a major health problem in the work environment, costing over £5 billion a year just in the United Kingdom (HSE, 2017). Most work looking at how workers are affected by this constant connection to platforms and devices belongs to the field of occupational psychology, where efforts have been directed towards understanding work-home boundary management practices and developing boundary theory (e.g., Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate,  2000; Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, & Hannum, 2012; Rice, 2017). In contrast, work investigating the ways in which ubiquitous technology is changing our way of working comes primarily from the field of human-computer interaction (HCI), where there is a large body of work looking at computer supported mediated work and availability management (Cecchinato, Cox, & Bird, 2017; Mazmanian & Erickson, 2014). While the two fields complement each other nicely, there is still little research that focuses on how the two

300   Marta E. Cecchinato and Anna L. Cox overlap. In this chapter, we present a critical review (Grant & Booth, 2009) of the literature from occupational psychology and HCI to create an up-to-date understanding of how communication technologies are affecting work-home boundary management. The social construction of technology (SCOT) approach guides our review to explain how users experience work-home boundaries and their use of technology, as a result of interactions that define the experiences. This means, rather than relying on a false dichotomy that technology can be good or bad, SCOT researchers have shown how there is a two-way relationship in how technology is influencing society and vice-versa, otherwise known as “interpretive flexibility” (Klein & Kleinman, 2002). Kalman (2016, p. 9) explains that, “[i]t is not the use of ICTs that blurs the boundaries between work and home, but rather the managers, colleagues or clients who expect work to be carried out at home (or family and friends who expect employees to divert attention to them during the workday).” Similarly, individuals co-construct, manage and negotiate boundaries around their roles through social interactions. As Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep (2009) point out, boundary theory offers an ideal lens to study work-home boundaries within the social-constructionist approach. Our review focuses on the role that communication technologies play in shaping boundary management. As such, we emphasize how the relationship between individuals and technology can bring both enrichment and challenges, and by doing so, we are able to unearth strategies that can help individuals and organizations around boundary management. We start by covering how boundary research has evolved over time and in response to changes in technology, and then explain how mobile devices have shifted work outside the office (and family issues inside the office) through a proliferation of devices and CMC platforms that can support and challenge boundary management, negotiation, and availability. With particular focus on how this impacts knowledge workers (Pyöriä, 2005) who have flexible working practices, we start by reviewing boundary theory to explain work-home conflicts and enrichment. We then reflect on how these have changed as new communication technologies have been introduced. Finally, we conclude with an assessment of boundary management strategies that can be applied topdown and bottom-up to show how policy makers, practitioners and individuals can support better boundary management. Understanding these aspects can help researchers guide future work on boundary management in the digital age, and practitioners know where to focus efforts when designing interactions with communication technologies.

Terminology As this chapter brings together research from different fields, we clarify key terms in our review, namely what we mean by “boundary management” and “communication technologies.”% We refer to boundary management as any practice that an individual puts in place when creating, negotiating, and maintaining boundaries around work and home.

Boundary Management   301 Boundary theory literature does not agree on the terms used to describe the domains around the boundaries: as Allen (2013) points out, the terms work vs. home, work vs. family, and work vs. life are often used interchangeably to cover the variety of life roles. Here, we choose to use the umbrella expression work-home boundaries and to juxtapose work vs. personal to broadly differentiate between life roles and domains that are not necessarily confined to a specific time or space. For a deeper discussion around this terminology, see Moen (2011). From an HCI perspective, we use communication technologies as an umbrella term that encompasses both communication platforms (e.g., email, WhatsApp) and communication devices (e.g., smartphones, laptops). To simplify, while the former refers to the software or applications, the latter represents the hardware through which we can communicate. In particular, rather than “channel,” which can refer to the device or medium in communication research, we use the term “platform” to refer to the means by which one accesses content or communication.

Work-Home Boundaries Over the past 20 years, popular media have reported the growing interest in “work-life balance,” or the ideal equilibrium of well-being in all aspects of one’s life (Kreiner et al., 2009), as the outcome of a more complex process of work-home boundary management. The idea of balance is rooted in balance theory, as first described by Fritz Heider (1946). When people perceive important aspects of their life as being part of a system, they are inclined to maintain a state of balance among these elements, often through a “a juggling act,” where “some balls (roles) are larger (more demanding), some weigh more than others” (Roche, 2015, p. 18). How we juggle all these roles depends on many factors, some of which can have a positive impact on work-life balance (e.g., job satisfaction, telework), while others can impact it negatively (e.g., work overload and job demands).

Boundary Theory In general, boundaries are delimitations of an area, which can refer to a physical space (e.g., a country, a home), or a more abstract domain (e.g., a role). When referred to work and personal domains, boundaries have been classified as physical, temporal, or psychological (Clark, 2000). Physical boundaries for example can be the walls of an office, or a dedicated desk in the home of a telecommuter. Temporal boundaries refer to strict schedules, like a nine to five job, and/or explicit transitions between working time and family time, such as using the commute to shift and detach from one role to another. Finally, psychological boundaries are the series of rules self-created to establish which behaviors and attitudes belong to which domain and preferences for the balance among the domains.

302   Marta E. Cecchinato and Anna L. Cox Boundaries can be conceptualized along an integration-segmentation continuum (Ashforth et al., 2000). At one end of the continuum are individuals who tend to have work and home domains fully integrated, where “home” and “work” are “one giant category of social existence, for no conceptual boundary separates its contents or meaning” (Nippert-Eng, 1996, p. 567). At the other end are those for whom work and home are perceived as two completely separated worlds. Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, and Hannum (2012) describe three main boundary styles that extend the integration-segmentation continuum paradigm, and include: separators, volleyers, and integrators. While integrators and separators reflect behaviors of those at the two extremes of Ashforth’s continuum, volleyers are people who rely on both strategies and switch between them depending on job structure and family situation (Kossek, Balt