Thesis - Griffith University

RidgiDidge: A Grounded Theory of
New Media and Young People
By
Kate Liley BA (Honours)
Griffith University
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy,
School of Arts, Media and Culture,
Griffith University.
Date of Submission: 21st April 2006
Statement of Authorship
This work has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any
university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no
material published or written by another person except where due reference is
made in the thesis itself.
Kate Liley
i
ii
Acknowledgements
My thanks and eternal gratitude to my Principal Supervisor, Dr Wendy
Keys, who has supported and encouraged me in my research from
Honours through to my PhD work. Her commitment and wisdom has
always grounded me and I am deeply appreciative of her guidance.
I would also like to thank my Associate Supervisor Dr Ian Woodward
and Dr Amanda Howell for their support and mentoring during my
candidature.
I would especially like to thank the RidgiDidge participants from
Wynnum State High School who so generously took part in the
research, allowing me to glimpse the dynamics of their lives during the
RidgiDidge Study field work. It is with much appreciation that I thank
Mrs Christine Friendship and Mr Gabriel Trabuco from Wynnum State
High School as without their assistance and support the research with
the RidgiDidge Participants would not have been possible.
Thanks are also due to Dr David Baker and Rea Turner who inspired
my interest in researching young people as well as those friends and
colleagues from the School of Arts, Media and Culture at Griffith
University who shared their wisdom or made me smile when I needed
to most.
I would also like to thank Shihan Reg Ellis and everyone at Sakura Ryu
Ju Jitsu for their encouragement, especially Sensei Dr David Mills who
shared the benefits of his postgraduate wisdom between throws and
straight left punches. Special thanks go to all the junior students as well
who remind me every week what it is to be young, bright eyed and
bushy tailed.
Special words of thanks go to Linda, Neale, Alex, Caitlin, Jessica,
Andy, Marilyn, Christina, Joshua and Lachlan for their constancy and
friendship from way back when I still didn’t know what I wanted to do
when I grew up.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Doreen and Peter Bent, and
my daughter Olivia for their unwavering patience, support and love on
this stretch of the road ahead.
iii
Abstract
The RidgiDidge Study is a qualitative longitudinal project that uses grounded
theory methodology to determine how new media technology figures in the
recreational lives of a group of Australian High School students. The participants
completed a 7-day media diary, a questionnaire and participated in an individual
semi-structured interview at three research stages over a three term period.
The research objective of the RidgiDidge Study is the generation of a middle
range substantive grounded theory that describes how new media technology
figures in the lives of Australian High school students. This type of theory
applies to, and is drawn from, a clearly delineated research context and goes
beyond the simple description of social phenomena to occupy the ground
between basic empiricism and grand theory. The emergent theory in the
RidgiDidge Study will contribute to a growing body of Australian research that
calls for an intergenerational and non-judgemental understanding of young
people’s media technology consumption. Similarly, given that technical change
has the capacity to impact on public conceptions of youth and childhood, a
critical view of research on media technology consumption and young people
also suggests the need to develop methodologies that account for the complexity
of young people’s relationship to new media technology.
The results of the RidgiDidge Study indicate that new media technologies such
as the games system, the internet and the mobile phone are catalysts and
facilitators of social praxis, highlighting the participants’ agency in ways not
iv
necessarily predicted by adults or commercially provided culture. This
conceptual perspective readily accounts for changes in young people’s use of
technology over time. The results also indicate that new media technologies are
used by the participants’ to make and maintain social connections to friends and
family for the purposes of maintaining a positive standard of living where social
relationships are privileged over the consumption of technology for its own sake.
In this way, young people mobilise agency to positively negotiate the duality of
the structures in their lives that simultaneously constrain and enable their new
media technology use.
This grounded theory challenges the current negative mythology about young
people that portrays them as passive media consumers, apathetic community
members, deviant or too dependent on technology and susceptible to a range of
social and health problems. At issue with this negative conception of childhood
is that such a description leads to a prescription for what and how youth and
childhood should be. The theory generated from the RidgiDidge Study shows
that new media technology is a comparatively small, positive and integral part of
the social world of the participants. Research of this type has implications for
future research where the recognition of a positive conception of youth and
childhood in the face of a rapidly changing technological milieu has the capacity
to develop a greater non-judgemental and inter-generational understanding of
young people.
v
Table of Contents
Statement of Authorship .................................................................................. i
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... iii
Abstract......................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents.......................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................ x
List of Tables................................................................................................ xii
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1
Research Problem..........................................................................................3
The Significance of the RidgiDidge Study ..................................................... 12
The Strengths and Limitations of the RidgiDidge Study................................. 15
Organisation of the Thesis............................................................................ 19
Foregrounding a Methodology...................................................................... 21
Researching young people: Special Considerations...................................... 24
Chapter Outline ............................................................................................ 35
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................39
Psychological Perspectives .......................................................................... 40
Ecological Model .......................................................................................... 42
Constructivist/Constructionist Model ............................................................. 48
Cultural Psychology...................................................................................... 53
The Piagetian Paradigm of Developmental Psychology ................................ 55
Sociological Perspectives............................................................................. 57
Agency and Structure................................................................................... 58
The New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood ....................................... 62
Cultural Studies............................................................................................ 65
Media Studies and Audience Research ........................................................ 69
Media Effects ............................................................................................... 75
Australian Childhood .................................................................................... 84
Technological Perspectives .......................................................................... 97
Approaches to Technology ........................................................................... 97
The Social Shaping of Technology ............................................................... 98
Affordance Theories ..................................................................................... 99
Domestication of Technology...................................................................... 102
Extant Australian Research Literature......................................................... 105
3. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................125
Grounded Theory ....................................................................................... 128
Grounded Theory Criticism......................................................................... 136
Identification of Research Area and Data Collection.................................... 141
The interpretation of the data and further data collection............................. 145
Theoretical Sampling.................................................................................. 146
Constant Comparison, Concept and Category Development....................... 149
Theoretical Saturation, Closure and How much is enough? ........................ 152
Evaluating Grounded Theory...................................................................... 154
Research Design........................................................................................ 158
Research Boundaries................................................................................. 158
Data Collection........................................................................................... 159
Data Ordering ............................................................................................ 161
Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 161
Literature Comparison ................................................................................ 164
Design Rationale and Applied Ethical Considerations ................................. 164
4. ANALYSIS OF DATA.......................................................................171
Applied Theoretical Sampling ..................................................................... 172
vi
Data Collection...........................................................................................175
Semi-Structured Interviews.........................................................................175
Media Diaries .............................................................................................178
The Sample................................................................................................182
Data Analysis .............................................................................................186
Coding – Open, Axial and Selective............................................................187
Participant Profiles......................................................................................191
M1..............................................................................................................195
M2..............................................................................................................197
F3 and F4...................................................................................................200
F6 ..............................................................................................................202
M3..............................................................................................................203
M4..............................................................................................................204
M9..............................................................................................................206
M5..............................................................................................................207
M7..............................................................................................................209
F2 ..............................................................................................................210
M6..............................................................................................................212
F1 ..............................................................................................................215
F7 ..............................................................................................................216
F8 ..............................................................................................................217
Development of the Categories...................................................................220
Media Technology ......................................................................................222
Domestication ............................................................................................223
Agency.......................................................................................................226
Social Praxis ..............................................................................................227
5. RESULTS .........................................................................................235
Interpreting the Results...............................................................................237
New Media Technology ..............................................................................239
Digital Piracy ..............................................................................................247
The Internet................................................................................................249
Mobile Phones ...........................................................................................254
Games and Games Systems ......................................................................262
Music .........................................................................................................268
Television and Cable/Pay TV......................................................................272
Social Ecology............................................................................................275
The Home Microsystem..............................................................................277
The Peer Group Microsystem .....................................................................284
The Macrosystem.......................................................................................290
The Chronosystem .....................................................................................296
Differences.................................................................................................299
Core Category: Agency ..............................................................................304
The Emergent Theory.................................................................................312
6. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................326
Evaluating Grounded Theory Method Post Research..................................327
Summary of the RidgiDidge Study: Technological Milieu.............................334
Summary of the RidgiDidge Study: Social Ecology .....................................338
Significance of the RidgiDidge Study ..........................................................343
Limitations of the RidgiDidge Study ............................................................349
Relevance to Contemporary Debates .........................................................350
Implications ................................................................................................354
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................................358
8. APPENDICES...................................................................................384
Data Tables................................................................................................389
vii
RidgiDidge Information Form...................................................................... 405
RidgiDidge Consent Form .......................................................................... 406
Covering Letter to Schools ......................................................................... 407
Media Diary Cover...................................................................................... 408
Media Diary Questionnaire Pages .............................................................. 409
Media Diary Sample Journal Pages............................................................ 418
Interview Aid .............................................................................................. 420
viii
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Research Focus .............................................................................................7
Figure 2: Ecological Systems ...................................................................................... 47
Figure 3: Method Comparison ................................................................................... 135
Figure 4: Research Design Stages of the RidgiDidge Study....................................... 151
Figure 5: Participant Log ........................................................................................... 186
Figure 6: Data Analysis Process................................................................................ 189
Figure 7: Grounded theory method terminology and process ..................................... 190
Figure 8: The Emergent Theory................................................................................. 318
x
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Overview of Ethics Proposal ........................................................................ 167
Table 2: Typical Weekly Media Routine..................................................................... 219
Table 3: Concepts and their emergent categories...................................................... 221
Table 4: Concept Definitions ..................................................................................... 384
xii
xiii
1. Introduction
The emergence of new media technology has consistently triggered a range of
issues in the minds of adults about young people and how new media
technologies might impact on them, and figure in their lives. In a contemporary
context, the potential benefits of Information and Communications Technologies
(ICTs) such as the internet and mobile phone have clear applications in young
people’s education and mobility. The internet is a readily accessible portal to a
surfeit of information; the computer the means of manipulating that information,
and; the mobile phone makes connections between people without need for wires
or proximity. The proliferation of the games system as a new media technology
is indicative of how popular immersion in virtual leisure worlds can be for users
as part of their recreational lives.
Conversely, adults are also concerned about the possible negative impact of new
media technologies. Such concerns extend towards the potential physical effects
of new media technology use such as mobile phones causing brain tumours in
habitual users (Hardell 2002) or the potential for back and eye strain in young
bodies caused by excessive amounts of screen time (Shields 2000). The
possibility of social isolation, or the development of anti-social behaviour in
response to media content caused by solitary activities with new media
technology, are also of concern to adults (Subrahmanyam 2000).
What this dichotomy of adult perceptions about new media reveals is that very
little is known about the intersection between new media technology and young
1
people. This lacuna is exacerbated by the often conflicting assumptions about
young people between the disciplines of Psychology, Cultural Studies and
Sociology and their emergence in often mangled debates about media in young
people’s lives. Further to this fragmentation of knowledge is that very little is
known about young people and new media technology from the perspective of
young people themselves, despite a comparatively small body of Australian
research that focuses on content issues from the perspective of young people.
While the problem of finding out how new media technology figures in the lives
of young people is addressed in the context of the RidgiDidge Study, the results
of this research speak to how the persistence of a negative mythology about
young people and new media technology affects contemporary conceptions of
youth and childhood.
The idea that a description of youth and childhood
becomes a prescription for what and how youth and childhood should be,
demands that accurate and ethical research become a feature of contemporary
debate (Jamrozic and Sweeny 1996: 33). The following discussion introduces
the RidgiDidge1 Study and its research problem of ascertaining how new media
technology figures in the lives of a group of Australian High School students,
1
Naming the study ‘RidgiDidge’ served several purposes. Firstly, ‘ridgididge’ is related to ‘fair
dinkum’ and is Australian slang for ‘honest’ or Australian slang for authentically Australian and
as such, naming the RidgiDidge Study as such speaks to its culturally specific focus as well as its
qualitative approach. Secondly, given the longitudinal nature of the research, the study required
a familiar, easily recalled title in the interests of the continued marketing of the Study among its
participants in the interests of enlisting participants’ continued support. Finally, given the
significant contribution made by the research participants to this work, it was important to give
the study its own identity (in my own mind at least), so that the participants’ thoughts and
feelings about their media technology consumption ‘disciplined’ the emergent theory.
2
according to those students themselves. This study uses grounded theory
methodology to reveal how new media technology functions in the lives and
social contexts of a group of High School students from Wynnum High School,
Brisbane in South East Queensland.
An outcome of the RidgiDidge Study is the generation of an emergent theory of
young people’s new media technology consumption that is non-judgmental and
fosters an inter-generational understanding between young people and adults.
The theory generated from the RidgiDidge Study is then related to comparative
contemporary conceptions of Australian childhood between community and
participant views.
The following outline introduces the research problem, derived from an initial
tentative review of the literature, as well as the significance, focus, strengths and
limitations of the study. The tentative nature of the initial literature review is in
keeping with the demands of grounded theory methodology used in the
RidgiDidge Study and is discussed in the Organisation of the Thesis on page 19
where theoretical perspectives, methodology and data analyses are presented as
part of a parallel progression towards the generation of an emergent theory.
Research Problem
Concepts of youth and childhood no longer take 50 or 100 years to develop
and become part of the social vocabulary. Rather, they increasingly emerge
in tandem with technological innovations, particularly in relation to media
and communications technologies (Luke 1999: 97).
Luke’s statement describes how the emergence of new media and information
technologies contributes to adult conceptualisations of childhood. The
3
experience of childhood has also evolved in that young people now live in a
society saturated with media images and technologies unlike the generations
before them (Tapscott 1998; Rushkoff 1999). The impact of new media and
information technologies on contemporary Australian life is widely recognised,
ranging from ideas about adult convenience to community concerns about the
effects of media and its content on young people.
At the heart of this recognition is an acknowledgment that the emergence and
adoption of new media and information technologies has given rise to a
‘paradigm shift’ away from traditional media discourses where new media and
information technology now resituates and challenges established models of
communication and media (Cunningham and Flew 1997: 429). Derived from
Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the term
‘paradigm shift’ refers to the process of change in basic assumptions about
scientific theory. The term has since become useful in describing changes across
other disciplines. Its use here in the context of the RidgiDidge Study draws
attention to the essential characteristics of a paradigm where its ‘achievement is
sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from
competing theoretical models of scientific activity, yet simultaneously
sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for those adherent
practioners to resolve’ (Barr 2000: 117). In this way, new media technology like
the Internet, the computer and the mobile phone still preserves human
communication in terms of sound, vision, speech and writing, but does so
through converged platforms. The jotting down of messages to self, an individual
4
or a group is now done by mobile phone and computer; shopping is conducted
online via the Internet and the creation and consumption of images is done using
binary information and light. Thus, the mass audience becomes fragmented,
audience members become producers as well as consumers and new media
technology’s rapid spread forces an adjustment to the way human
communication is produced and participated in. Indeed, this shift marks the
passage from the ‘hypodermic’ model of communication to the ‘diversity of
models and modes of communication’ (McQuail 1991: 310).
Given Luke’s assertion on the ability of technological change to impact on
societal concepts of youth and childhood, the challenge of a new media inspired
paradigm shift is to develop an answer to the question of what is going on at the
intersection between Australian childhood and new media technology. This
knowledge deficit is acknowledged and lamented in the literature (Gillard 1999;
Seiter 1988) and the RidgiDidge Study explores this lacuna within the scope of
its remit.
Young people and their relationship with the media technology of the day have
been the focus of one discussion or another since the Socratic dialogues given
Plato’s proposal to ban the dramatic poets from the ideal republic ‘on the
grounds of their corrupting influence on impressionable young minds’
(Buckingham 2000: 124; Gormley 1998).
The inclusion within the RidgiDidge Study of ideas outside the key works in this
focus area is considered unwieldy in the context of this research for reasons
discussed in the review of the literature (see page 326) and the methodology
5
(page 128). Similarly, documenting the rapid development and multiple
applications of new media technologies in both private and public arenas would
be of little use given the capriciousness of the consumer market and individual
technology users. Indeed, the increased visibility of CD ROM burners, MP3
Players and the changing vogue in mobile phone design are readily apparent
changes in new media technology culture since the RidgiDidge Study fieldwork
concluded. The slated rejuvenation of television and digital radio towards the
2010 analogue switchover also presents the ongoing development of the
Australian media and the technological milieu. Under these conditions, the
specific area of this research is restricted to that which directly corresponds to
the intersection between young Australians and new media technology, seen
through the aperture of the specific research design and methodology applied to
this study.
6
Figure 1: Research Focus
Youth and
Childhood
New Media
Technology
Research
Focus
Methodology
Just as Zelizer (1985) maps the economic transformation of childhood since the
industrial revolution, Keys recognises the fluctuating and complex construction
of childhood under ‘the dominant social, political, economic and cultural
interests
and
institutions
of
that
society’
(Keys
1999:
11).
Such
acknowledgement of the significance of social context and the potentiality of
young people suggests that culturally specific research into new media and
childhood holds broader policy implications for Australian education, culture and
society. Recognising the significance of social context and the potentiality of
young people will reasonably lead to culturally specific research into new media
and childhood that holds broader policy implications for Australian education,
culture and society.
Despite this agreement, the bulk of research until recently has tended to
emphasise ‘information-seeking and statistical patterns of usage’, while
7
perceptions about, and the cultural context of new media use is yet to be fully
grasped (Seiter 2000: 227; Gillard 1999).
This research deficit is compounded by the need to develop ‘appropriate
methodologies for the study of children’s interactive experiences’ (Wartella,
O’Keefe and Scantlin 2000: 94). The propriety of such methodologies will
depend on how they account for and reveal the complexities of young people’s
relationship to media and the added dimension this brings to established social
research methods.
While the rate of new media technology adoption in the Australian school, home
and office has been comparatively well documented (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2001; Education Queensland, 1999; Meredyth et al 1999), little is
known about young people's perception of new media and the extent of the role
it plays in the young person's recreational and home life (Larson, Montgomery &
Nikoomanesh 1999: 13; Gillard 1999). For this reason, the focus of the study
emphasises the new media technologies young people have access to outside
school and in the context of their other, non-media technology related activity.
Given the difference between levels of media saturation and availability from
one generation to the next, it is likely that a young person's perception of new
media technology, and the content it delivers, will be different to that of an adult.
For this reason, it is a mistake to confuse or substitute the adult point of view
with that of the young person's perspective on technology (Druin, 1996: 18; Stein
in Goodsall, 2001).
8
As Druin points out, young people have their own likes, dislikes and needs that
fluctuate throughout childhood and youth (Druin 1996: 18).
To make assumptions about today’s young people based on subjective adult
experiences and perceptions of youth and childhood develops a nostalgia that is
not helpful or productive in the pursuit of what is actually happening between
young people and media technology now with a view towards the future.
The research position that an adult perspective cannot be substituted for a young
person’s subjective perspective, demands that the study of young people’s
relationship to new media technology requires a methodology that recognises
that a new media inspired paradigm shift ‘cannot easily be studied within a
conventional analytic media-use framework’ (Wartella, O’Keefe & Scantlin
2000: 94). Part of the challenge for new methods and frameworks is the
recognition of young people’s agency or their capacity to make choices and
impose those choices on the world. The concept of agency is discussed in more
detail on page 58. With this in mind, an interactive research approach presents
itself as more useful given young people's perceptions of media. The
interactive/qualitative aspects of the RidgiDidge Study produce ideas about ‘how
technology functions in specific social contexts, focuses on processes rather than
effects, and is explicitly oriented toward change’ (Kinder, 1999: 12). However,
an important distinction must be made at this juncture. The RidgiDidge Study
looks at the impact of new media technology, rather than its content per se.
Indeed, changes to modes of personal communication and entertainment have
been identified concurrently with the emergence of prevalent personal traits such
9
as openness, curiosity and assertiveness in the user of such technologies (Luke,
1999; Turkle, 1984; Tapscott, 1998: Morrison and Krugman, 2001).
While pockets of research on young people and new media exist internationally,
the RidgiDidge Study proposes that there is a need for extended culturally
specific research about how new media figures in the lives of children. This area
of research has the capacity to enunciate ‘the nature of the society whose
childhood it is’ (McGillivray, 1997: 9).
Recent qualitative research has shown that the ostensibly traditional activities of
Australian childhood have not been displaced by new media as yet, with young
Australians continuing to play sport and socialise with their peer group despite
the ease of accessibility to new recreational technologies such as the Internet
(ABS, 1999). Whether this balance in recreational activity persists requires
ongoing community attention.
Terms associated with media use such as ‘mouse-potato’, Internet addiction and
‘technological autism’ have gained currency in North American advocacy
literature (Healy 1998; 197), suggesting that the impact of new media technology
on Australian childhood needs to be monitored given commonalities between
media markets, language and standard of living. However, the current literature
suggests a disparity between the research agendas of developed countries such as
the United States and Australia warns against supplanting one culture’s research
for another. As Wartella and Jennings have shown in a US context, the
emergence of new technology is more than capable of dredging up the ‘media
10
effects’ concerns seen with ‘films in the 1900s, radio in the 1920s and television
in the 1940s’ (Wartella and Jennings 2000; 31).
Combined with acknowledgment that ‘few things in [US] culture generate as
much difference of opinion as [media] and nothing so exercises us as the thought
that something may be harming our children’ (Schramm, Lyle & Parker, 1961:
2), it is reasonable to suggest that the US research agenda is based on adult
perceptions of media harm rather than those of young people themselves. This
suggestion is in turn supported by the prevalence of the psychologically based
media effects model of research in US research (Gauntlett 1999).
The current Australian literature suggests a domestic research tradition where the
opinion of the young person is paramount to research concerning young people’s
media culture. Studies such as Teaching the Nintendo Generation (Green, Reid
and Bigum in Howard, 1998: 19), those by the Australian Broadcasting
Authority (ABA) (Hall in Squires, 1999: 83-103; Nightingale & Griff, 2000;
Sheldon, Ramsey & Loncar 1994), and the Department of Education, Training
and Youth Affairs (Meredyth, Russell, Blackwood, Thomas & Wise, 1999) have
focused on children’s attitudinal research, mandated by Australian media
regulation under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and cultural policy.
This mandate is still in place under the Act although the Australian Broadcasting
Authority (ABA) became Australian Communications and Media Authority
(ACMA) in July 2005. Similarly, the Office of Film and Literature Classification
periodically commissions research (Spratt 2004; Durkin and Aisbett 1999;
Durkin 1995) to understand community sentiment in relation to classification
11
issues including the setting up of Community Assessment panels in 2004 (OFLC
2005). Griffith’s Teenage Viewers of Television: A Study of the Viewing Culture
of 13 and 14 year old Canberrans (1998) and Pocock’s Can't Buy Me Love:
Young Australians' view on parental work, time and guilt and their own
consumption (2004) also constitute part of the Australian research tradition.
Common to each of these studies is the pivotal role played by the analysis of the
attitudes of groups of young people. The adoption of a structural perspective on
childhood is implicit in these texts, which in turn supports the inclusion of the
ideas informing the RidgiDidge Study.
The Significance of the RidgiDidge Study
Understanding the relationship between young people and media technology is a
special case. Unlike other household technologies like the toaster, microwave or
hairdryer, media technology has a functional significance in that as media ‘they
provide, actively, interactively, or passively links between households and
individual members of households, with the world beyond the front door, and
they do this (or fail to do this) in complex and often contradictory ways
(Silverstone, Hirsch and Morley 1992: 15).
Even so, the origin of the research question ‘how does new media technology
figure in the lives of Australian high school students?’ is to be found in the idea
that new media technology presents a paradigm shift away from traditional
media discourses. As outlined in the introduction, the recognition of a new media
inspired paradigm shift recontextualises and challenges normative theories about
12
media systems, content and reception (Cunningham and Flew in Turner 1997).
As Cunningham and Flew point out, the ‘public trust’ doctrine of the Australian
media industry is under threat from several change factors. Such ‘public trust’
emerges from the relative scarcity of spectrum, a hybrid system that supports
both public and private broadcasters, and the regulation and control of
broadcasting licences. However, Cunningham and Flew see the public trust
doctrine as being under threat from five change factors that emphasise challenges
for media and communications policy, theory and practice (Cunningham and
Flew in Turner 1997: 422). These change factors are economic, cultural,
political, and technological, and include ‘changed understandings of audiences
from the “vulnerable viewer to the “mature/active audience”’ (Cunningham and
Flew in Turner 1997: 422).
The impact of such change factors and the challenges they create can be seen in
the literature about new media technology and young people where the
proliferation of new media is discussed as an empowering force in children’s
lives (Tapscott 1998), and as responsible for the death of childhood; effectively
removing the boundary between the worlds of the adult and that of the child
(Postman 1982). Such a continuum of differing conclusions underscores the
challenge of a new media inspired paradigm shift and given this lack of certainty,
conservative voices suggest that more research about the interaction between
children and new media is needed as society ‘blunders into the future’ (Healy
1998: 17), a sentiment echoed in the work of Larson (1999) and Wartella
(2000). However, most academic research about young people, regardless of the
13
position it might adopt, is written for an adult audience, and in such discussions,
young peoples’ voices are either completely absent or mediated through adult
understanding (Alderson 1995; Buckingham 2000).
With this in mind, the significance of the RidgiDidge Study is to be found at the
intersection of ideas generated by contemporary discourses about childhood and
new media, and the attitudes and experiences of young people themselves.
However, this significance emerges in two ways.
Firstly, the findings of this study will add to the pool of knowledge about the
paradigm shift between traditional and new media discourses. Secondly, the
methodology and field research conduct is significant in terms of its specific
regard for its participants and is discussed in detail in the Methodology Section
(see page 125).
However, the prevalence of marginalising and paternalistic discourses about
young people provides a canon of work with which to rail against. Indeed, the
RidgiDidge Study seeks to redress the balance of extant global literature in terms
of adopting a structural perspective of childhood that gives young people a voice
and allows culturally specific contexts of their media use to be explored.
This perspective is one of the keystones of the ‘new paradigm of childhood
sociology’ (Jenks 1996) described by James and Prout in 1990. This approach
facilitates a more dynamic examination of contemporary childhood and its
intersection with new media. In this way, young people are seen as social agents
creating and participating in their own peer cultures and contributing to cultural
production and change. Indeed, this position acknowledges that while childhood
14
is a temporary period for children, it is a permanent structural category in society
(Corsaro 1997). This approach encourages and gives weight to young people’s
attitudes and experiences, ‘independent of the perspective and concern of adults’
(Jenks 1996).
In adopting this structural perspective, young people as research participants
cease to be a marginalised social group and the study of childhood itself becomes
more appropriately contextualised.
Having described the need for appropriately situated research into children’s
relationship with new media technology, it is important to illustrate the perceived
deficit in the pool of knowledge about young people and new media technology
by outlining the thrust of the extant literature. Indeed, ideas about young people
and media have often emerged in the Australian media within the confines of a
content oriented ‘media effects debate’ (see page 75) despite a body of
Australian work that presents a more balanced and inclusive view (see page
105). A key objective of the RidgiDidge Study is to add to this body of
Australian research and to draw attention towards productive ways of examining
the role of media technology in the lives of young people in everyday
recreational contexts.
The Strengths and Limitations of the RidgiDidge Study
The strengths of RidgiDidge Study are found in the tension between the myths of
Australian childhood at its intersection with media technology and the views of a
group of young people themselves over a three-term period. Addressing the
15
deficits in the extant literature from a culturally specific perspective about young
people and media has resulted in several worthwhile developments.
Firstly, the RidgiDidge Study demanded the development and implementation of
a set of special considerations (see page 24) in ethically applying a grounded
theory methodology to a group of young people has produced some useful
insights into young people's media consumption and how this area might be
productively researched. Secondly, these considerations assist in drawing out the
culturally specific contexts of the 'social embeddedness of technology'
(Warschauer 2003: 202) in the lives of Australian High School students.
In acknowledging the social embeddedness of technology in a contemporary
Australian context, The RidgiDidge Study makes clear that the complex and
mutually evolving relationship between technology and young people can only
be couched in terms of their specific social contexts, rather than applied to young
people as an aggregate. Thirdly, in pursuing such an avenue of research, the
emergent theory from this study presents itself as a means of combating the
negative mythology, by offering an alternative perspective to popular ‘moral
panics’. In this way, research participants are able to produce and re-produce
knowledge about themselves and their media consumption, effectively
combating a negative mythology of community concern that sees young people
as susceptible to deviance, obesity or anti-social behaviour. This is important
given the opportunity for young people to challenge traditional conceptions of
youth and childhood, in the face of the reality of their own experiences. The
perceived negative mythology addressed in the context of the RidgiDidge Study
16
is readily apparent in the ongoing community concerns about young people’s
media consumption that are outlined in the body of Australian research.
Evidence of this popular concern is apparent in the mandates of the Australian
Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), and its predecessor the
Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) under the Broadcasting Services Act
(1992), to monitor issues of public concern in relation to media (Aisbett 2001;
Nightingale 2000; Sheldon 1994) as well as the Office of Film and Literature
Classification (Spratt 2004: Durkin and Aisbett 1999).
Evidence of a negative mythology is articulated by Vromen who has identified
three political myths about young people. Vromen outlines the political
commentary that frames young people as apathetic community members, as
deviant, as not conforming to social norms of behaviour, and suggesting that
young people depend too much on technology (Vromen 2004). As Vromen
points out,
The myths are generalisations that cannot be substantiated, but
politicians regularly invoke them when diagnosing deficiencies in
Australian society. The myths are dragged out during public debate
on the supposed decline of social cohesion, the increasing crime
rate, and the increasing impermanence of relationships. The cures
politicians propose for these problems invariably involve stronger
communities underpinned by a universally shared—that is, adult
led—value system. The distorted way young people are seen and
understood is related to this adult-centered idea of ‘community’
(Vromen 2004).
Similarly, negative generalisations about young people’s media consumption
cannot be substantiated but are often used as a means of explaining community
problems or the gulf between generations.
17
Nevertheless, a number of contributing factors define the scope and limit of the
RidgiDidge Study. Of primary importance is that the research conducted
observes the high level of ethical research practice demanded by the Griffith
University Ethics Committee. The ethical considerations of justice, beneficence,
and respect for persons are discussed in the chapter on methodology on page
125. These ethical considerations demand a slight modification of the theoretical
sampling procedures of the grounded theory methodology employed in the
RidgiDidge Study where the ‘snowball’ technique of theoretical sampling
advocated by Glaser and Strauss (1968) is eschewed. To adopt such an approach,
where one participant recruits another, likely to be a particularly problematic
sampling method given that groups and individuals of interest emerging during
the field research exist outside of the school community and are thus outside the
ethical parameters of the RidgiDidge Study (see Conclusions and Implications on
page 326). Any possibility that this might negatively impact on the findings of
the RidgiDidge Study is ameliorated through Goulding’s assertion generating a
credible grounded theory requires careful consideration of; the design of the
study, the range of sampling, the clarity of discourse used to present findings, the
relationship between theory and other research and the identification of areas for
further research (Goulding 2002: 70 [emphasis added]).
Given that the theory generated by the RidgiDidge Study is a middle range
substantive theory, rather than a formal theory, the modification to theoretical
sampling presents no significant impact on the emergent theory given the
opportunity and necessity for further research on the intersection between young
18
people and new media technology. Drawing attention to this modification at this
point in the discussion serves only to promote research context and the
transparency of method.
As Seidman makes clear, ‘practical exigencies of time, money and other
resources…play a role, especially in doctoral research (Seidman 1998: 48).
Alongside these ethical and practical considerations, there is also the awareness
that the research design should favour the participants and their gatekeepers
rather than the researcher.
In this way, the interview structure, location, schedule and instrument design are
tailored to fit the voluntary nature of participation. Underpinning this essential
aspect of the research design is the marketing of the study to the participant's
gatekeepers (the Griffith University Ethics Committee, the School authority and
the participant’s parents) and to the participant’s themselves as an activity that
does not unduly impinge on their time at school or their schoolwork, while being
of interest to them personally.
In these ways, the scope and limitations of the RidgiDidge Study are governed
by the time, budget and the associated constraints of a single researcher on a
non-industry associated scholarship as well as meeting the objective of
maximising the convenience of participation to prospective study subjects.
Organisation of the Thesis
The structure of this thesis departs from the standard presentation of a grounded
theory and adopts a structure more common to the presentation of qualitative
19
research generally. In this way, the literature review presented here appears
before the methodology, analysis of data, results, conclusions and implications.
It is, however, important to note that this does not reflect the order in which the
research was conducted given the demands of grounded theory methodology
discussed in Chapter 3. Indeed, the key difference in presenting verificational
qualitative research and a grounded theory is in the location and purpose of the
literature review. Verificational research engages hypothesis testing where an
extensive literature review is conducted first so that hypotheses about the subject
of study are developed. These hypotheses are then exposed to methods of data
collection and analysis that are appropriate to the methodology employed. The
results are then written up and presented in relation to the original hypotheses. In
contrast, grounded theory method begins with a tentative and general literature
review of a relatively unknown field. In grounded theory, a review of literature
after data gathering and analysis has the purpose of allowing the emerging data
to ‘discipline’ the research (see Figure 3: Method Comparison on page 135) and
avoids the structuring influence of a priori ideas that might result in the forcing
of data. Glaser uses the word ‘discipline’ to describe the relationship between
data and emergent theory in the context of grounded theory methodology. This
word choice emphasises a focus on data rather than verifying hypotheses. This
later review is then incorporated into the analysis after the data collection and
analysis has begun.
Indeed, grounded theory method is an inductive methodology that contrasts
significantly from logico-hypothetico methods used in verificational research
20
procedures (Glaser 2002; Charmaz 2000; Cutcliffe 2000; Stern 1994). Thus, the
key difference in presenting verificational and emergent research is in the
location and purpose of the literature review.
Foregrounding a Methodology
As indicated earlier, grounded theory method presents itself as a useful tool in
addressing a research problem in that as an approach to qualitative research,
grounded theory is useful to ‘investigations of relatively unchartered water, or to
gain a fresh perspective in a familiar situation’ (Stern in Manteuffel 2002: 2).
This is in keeping with the ABA’s call for a ‘non-judgemental and intergenerational understanding of children’s uses of, and views about the media and
media harm issues’ (ABA 2000: 58). This call forms the cornerstone of the
RidgiDidge Study in its demand for new approaches and contexts of young
people’s media research. In this way, using grounded theory method is
appropriate given that it is a 'problem-solving endeavour concerned with
understanding action from the perspective of the human agent' (Haig 1995: 1).
This method entails gathering and analysing data from a range of sources using
coding and sampling procedures before presenting the results as a ‘middle range
substantive theory’. This process is discussed in detail in the Methodology
section on page 125; however, Glaser and Strauss define a middle range
substantive theory in the following way. Firstly, comparative analysis such as
that used in grounded theory generation can produce both formal and substantive
theory. Substantive theory is developed for an empirical area of sociological
21
enquiry, while formal theory addresses the conceptual areas of sociological
enquiry. Both types of theory can be thought of a ‘middle range’ in that either
can fall between the ‘minor working hypotheses’ of everyday life and the all
inclusive ‘grand theories’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 33). Indeed, as Nightingale
points out in relation to audience studies, the term ‘middle range’ is used to draw
attention to the situation of ‘audience discourses about the meaning of their
media experiences back into the general pattern of everyday life, and the search
for meaningful cultural identities’ (Nightingale 2003: 377). Nevertheless, Glaser
and Strauss point out that each type of theory ‘can shade at points into the other’
and the analyst should ‘focus clearly on one level or on another or on a specific
combination’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 33).
While academic research is often criticised for taking too long for such a rapidly
evolving field such as young people's media culture (Larson, Montgomery and
Nikoomanesh, 1999: 13), the emergent theory derived from the RidgiDidge
Study will reasonably yield patterns of how new media technology figures in the
lives of young Australians. Of particular use to the research problem is that the
application of a grounded theory methodology ensures that research bias is
minimised so that the data gathered ‘disciplines’ the theory or emphasizes a
focus on the data itself, rather than using data to verify hypotheses.
The findings of the proposed field research then form a culturally specific
framework for discussion of the relations between new media technology and
Australian childhood. Indeed, qualitative research is seen as ‘one of the best
22
ways to learn about the differentiated subtleties of people’s engagement with
television and other media’ (Ang, 1996: 35; Morley 1980).
Having previously outlined the origin of the problem of achieving a nonjudgemental and an inter-generational understanding of how new media
technology figures in the lives of young people, implementing such research
entails a logical and systematic approach.
To this end, the RidgiDidge Study participants completed a survey, a 7-day
media diary and participated in a videotaped semi-structured individual interview
at three research intervals over three school terms, about their media technology
consumption. Transcripts and ‘memos’2 of these research encounters were
subsequently made and analysed using NVivo 2.0 software.
In the context of the RidgiDidge Study, media technology consumption is
defined as the technologies participants have access to in their homes and
bedrooms. These technologies include the computer, the Internet, games
systems, and the mobile phone as well traditional media forms such as television
and radio.
The use of game CD’s, Music CD’s and DVD’s are also of interest, but only in
so far as they relate to the technology rather disc content. Similarly, the
consumption of media during school hours was not of significance to the
2
A memo in the context of grounded theory methodology is a field note or the record of a factor
that might impact on data gathering and analysis.
23
RidgiDidge Study given its emphasis on non-curricular and recreational
activities.
Although apathy and deviance per se was not addressed in the context of the
study, technological dependence is defined as the displacement of young people's
non-media activities such as socialising with friends, family and playing sport by
media consumption.
In pursuing the answer to the research question of how new media figures in the
lives of young Australian it is important to remember that this endeavour is part
of the wider concern about young people as the embodiment of the future.
However, before embarking on the full discussion of grounded theory method,
the set of special methodological considerations developed and used in designing
the RidgiDidge Study needs to be discussed in terms of providing insight to how
the research participants were regarded and treated by the study.
These considerations inform the decision to use grounded theory method in the
RidgiDidge Study.
Researching young people: Special Considerations
There are a number of key contemporary prescriptive texts emanating from
diverse fields such as paediatrics, psychology and sociology, on working with,
and eliciting information from, children and young people.
However, the starting point for the RidgiDidge Study in terms of the
development of a research approach is the Griffith University Human Ethics
24
Committee (HREC) document Griffith University Guidelines for Research
involving Human Participation.
The central demands of this document come from the National Health and
Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) National Statement on the Ethical
Conduct of Research involving Humans, the central tenets of which concern
respect for persons, beneficence and justice (HREC 1996; 43).
In meeting these criteria, consideration of the potential research group needs to
be developed with a view to developing an effective research study.
This discussion focuses on the key design principles used in the RidgiDidge
Study in pursuit of research acceptance by research participants of the researcher
and research instruments.
Sociologists Christensen and James (2000) note a cycle of research approaches
with young people. They identify a tradition where adults traditionally articulate
childhood and young people’s lives. This approach is being supplanted by childfocused research that ‘sees children as possessing distinct cognitive and social
developmental characteristics which researchers, wishing to use child
informants, must consider in their research design’ (Christensen 2000: 2).
However, Christensen and James position their research within a relatively
recent approach, one that does not necessarily ‘take for granted the adult/child
distinction’.
Christensen and James suggest:
To carry out research with children does not necessarily entail
adopting different or particular methods…like adults, children can
and do participate in structured and unstructured interviews; they
25
fill in questionnaires; and, on their own terms, they allow the
participant observer to join with them in their daily lives. Thus,
although some research techniques might be thought to be more
appropriate for use with children, with regard to particular contexts
or the framing of particular research questions, there is, we would
argue, nothing peculiar to children that makes the use of any
technique imperative (Christensen 2000: 2).
While there is no question that the majority of school age young people are
capable of tackling questionnaires and participating in interviews, whether they
actually want to participate in research is an entirely different matter and subject
to the potential participant’s engagement with the Information and Consent
forms at first contact with the researcher (see pages 405 and 406).
However, Christensen and James’ statement on the lack of imperative for
specific research design for young people raises the question of why young
people would need special consideration in the design and conduct of research on
them.
While discussions of young people’s rights and the laws that protect them are
varied and issue from diverse fields such as law, medicine, psychology,
anthropology, sociology and film and media studies, at this point in our cultural
history, young people are essentially seen as the human embodiment of the
future. As Grieg and Taylor point out:
In order to ensure that children attain what society wishes for
them, each generation must be analysed, evaluated and steps taken
to rectify past mistakes. We must have an understanding of
children and how they develop, what factors adversely affect their
progress and what factors will best promote their optimum
development. Gaining this understanding is the driving force
behind past, present and future research with children and crosses
all professional boundaries (Greig 1999: 4).
26
This suggests that there is a fundamental need to engage in research on young
people that genuinely reflects their experiences.
This means researchers need to be impeccable in terms of what they look at in
relation to young people and how they look. In terms of the RidgiDidge Study,
this leads to looking at how new media technology figures in young people’s
lives using a methodology and research attitude that is open to their views.
Calls for the development of methodologies appropriate for use with children
and youth are well documented (Seiter 2000; Wartella 2000a; Wartella 2000b;
Gauntlett 1998) and the work of Druin et al (Druin 2002a; 2000b) has criticised
the current range of methodologies as designed to observe and understand adults
as users of technology. Druin points out that those methodologies rarely take into
account the difficulty in studying the constantly changing interaction between
young people and technology, a point that speaks to the necessity of treating
research participants with special consideration.
According to Druin, the distinction between child and adult research is that
research among adults is generally workplace oriented where tasks are clearly
defined for a required end-user product (Druin et al 2002: 2).
Similarly, Druin points out that observation and participation methodologies
among children in a school environment tend to adopt the same characteristics as
workplace research given both the closed environment and that the process of
education can be seen as a task based, adult guided experience for children.
The problem with adult-centric research methodologies, and the mindset they
perpetuate, is that they do little to address questions about how young people
27
themselves use technology in a recreational context, where their activities are
‘open-ended and exploratory’ (Druin et al 2002: 2) and by extension, rather
personal. It is the personal perspective of young people’s media consumption
that the RidgiDidge Study focuses on in the way young people, as the participant
group, think and feel about their recreational use of new media technology. This
focus also supports the use of grounded theory method discussed in detail on
page 125.
In order to find and develop a more appropriate research approach for their own
work, Druin et al discuss the use of an amalgam of the techniques of contextual
inquiry, technology immersion and participatory design for their research in
children’s software design. Druin et al sees this type of methodological
innovation as part of the search for ‘new methodologies that are inclusive of
children’ (Druin et al 2002: 16).
In developing the applied research approach for the RidgiDidge Study, it is
reasonable to assume that study participants on the cusp of adolescence will be
more than capable of dealing with the demands of survey instruments and
interviews. With this in mind, participants are treated appropriately without
condescension on my part as the researcher, or in the instrument design.
However, the nature of a young person’s adolescence and its physical and
psychological constraints influence the design of research instruments and the
data analysis. Mindful of this influence, the research design is specific to a
participant group such as young people rather than adopting a ‘one size fits all’
generic model of research that might apply in an adult research context. In
28
tailoring research to a specific societal group, research projects are more likely to
be acceptable to potential participants if they perceive that their research input
will be valued on its own terms.
Indeed, Woodhead and Falkner (2000) have noted a paradigm shift in children’s
social research from viewing the child as research object, to research participant.
Woodhead and Falkner cite The British Psychological Society’s Code of
Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines (1991) as announcing a shift in
policy from conventional scientific orthodoxy to the recognition that,
Psychologists owe a debt to those who agree to take part in their
studies…people who give up their time should be able to be
treated with the highest standards of consideration and respect.
(Woodhead and Falkner 2000: 17).
Similarly, the Griffith University Guidelines for Research involving Human
Participation, to which the RidgiDidge Study is bound, demands that research
involving humans is governed by the ethical principle of ‘respect for persons’
(HREC 1996: 46).
As the Griffith University Human Ethics Committee (HREC) highlights,
research participants should not be treated as a means to an end for the researcher
(HREC 1996: 43). Research in Paediatric and Child Health supports this idea,
noting that ‘the perceived needs of the researcher must be matched against the
intrinsic dignity, sanctity and rights of the child’ (Pearn 1984: 45).
However, Alderson has observed that research on young people is often devoted
to scientific models of animal research where growth, disease or behaviour is
measured. Alderson argues that although such research can bring great benefits
to children’s health and education, it is largely impersonal. ‘If children’s views
29
are collected, this is usually to atomise and process them through a grid of adult
designed research] (Alderson 1995: 40). Alderson’s criticism reveals a
fundamental problem in research on young people in that a traditional
perspective suggests a lack of respect for participants. As Graue and Walsh point
out, intruding in the lives of people requires permission, and this permission
‘permeates any respectful relationship between people’ (Graue 1998: 56). Adults
extend this permission to other adults, but invariably in many circumstances fail
to extend the same level of respect to young people. Graue and Walsh observe
that,
In relationships between adults and children, adults are most often
the knowledge holders, the permission granters and the rule setters.
In research with children, children are the knowledge holders,
permission granters and the rule setters - for adults (Graue 1998:
56).
Bearing this in mind, Graue and Walsh suggest that researchers enter the field
with a humble posture, carrying the beliefs that ‘kids are smart, they make sense,
and they want to have a good life’ (Graue 1998: 56).
However, Graue and Walsh emphasise that the challenge of research with young
people is that it is not enough to simply treat a child or young people as one
would an adult.
They are not adults. One must treat them like children, but in a
way that adults normally do not treat children. Therein lies the
challenge’ (Graue 1998: 56).
Punch extends this notion by noting that ‘the challenge is to strike a balance
between not patronising young people and recognising their competencies but
30
maintaining their interest and keeping the research familiar and relevant to them’
(Punch 2002: 57).
Indeed, a common theme in Australian research studies among High School
children is the recognition that as research participants, they are ‘astute, aware
and sophisticated’ (Griffiths 1998: 33) and that there is a need for an
intergenerational and non-judgemental understanding of their relationship to the
media world around them (ABA 2000: 58). As Christensen and James suggest,
‘what is important is that the particular methods chosen for a piece of research
should be appropriate for the people involved in the study, its social and cultural
context and the kinds of research questions that have been posed’ (Christensen
2000: 2).
Given the need for appropriate research attitudes and approaches, it is a mistake
to confuse the adult point of view with that of the young people’s perspective on
technology (Druin 1996; Goodsall 2001) or to carry the assumption that a
research approach designed for adult applications has inter-generational
applicability.
Having established that research among young people needs to acknowledge
their sophistication, the challenge of addressing young people’s ‘youth’ needs to
be articulated.
Thus if the concept of ‘respect for persons’ extends into young people’s
biological context, then there needs to be a way of appreciating biological
context without using it as grounds to diminish the ethical treatment of young
research participants.
31
In this way, rather than dealing with the vast physical and emotional differences
among a particular cohort of participants, Solberg suggests that ‘different
contexts and situations’ are better indicators given the exploration of ‘doing’
rather than ‘being’ (Solberg 1996: 64).
It is reasonable to suggest then that Solberg’s idea can be extended to the
statement that potential study participants can be grouped according to shared
cultural capital rather than biological age. As Solberg points out,
My tentative conclusion to ‘ignore age’ does not imply any claims
that children do not possess qualities different from adults. Rather
my suggestion is that our concepts of such qualities should not
influence ways of approaching children in social science research
(Solberg 1996: 64).
Drawing on the work of Solberg, the selection of the RidgiDidge Study sample is
predicated on the experience of being part of the community of a Wynnum State
High School regardless of age group, class, gender or particular socio-economic
status. While it is acknowledged that the transition to High School is a major life
event for most young people (Heaven 2001: 101), Heaven notes that the change
from primary to secondary school ‘culture’ is the most significant event for
young people and that ‘family, close friends and the wider peer group’ have an
influence on social development (Heaven 2001: 78). This social dynamic is
intrinsic to the experience of being a High School student.
To disregard the social factors that impact the experience of Australian High
School students has the potential to undermine the validity of young people’s
research as well as the ethical issues associated with a respect for research
32
participants. The effect of these social factors on new media technology use is
also of interest in the context of the RidgiDidge Study.
In terms of implementing research on a sample of young people, there are several
practical factors to consider. The research involved in the RidgiDidge Study can
be categorised as curiosity research (Pearn 1984: 46), and this type of research
demands that there be no risk to study participants and no displacement of the
customary daily practices of participants such as schoolwork. The term
‘curiosity’ is applied in paediatric settings to differentiate between types of
research such as curative, research to alleviate symptoms or to establish norms
and baselines (Pearn 1984: 46)
However, Pearn points out that curiosity research may be beneficial in order to
study participants in that ‘the experience of the interest and endeavours of a
research project may become a model to the young people involved for the wider
world of curiosity and its place in self-fulfilment and learning’ (Pearn 1984: 46).
Pearn’s technical considerations in working with young people that apply to the
RidgiDidge Study concern the design and marketing of the research itself. Pearn
identifies fatigability as one such consideration necessarily afforded to research
subjects. The recognition of fatigability draws attention to the possibility that
young participants will tire of an activity sooner than an adult, such as an overly
long interview or complex quantitative instrument.
Psychological constraints such as potential motivation or cooperation should also
be taken in to consideration according to Pearn. Each of these considerations has
influenced the design of the RidgiDidge study so that the number of potential
33
participants is maximised and the displacement of a potential participant’s
customary practices is minimised. The decision not to offer an inducement to
participate is based on the minimal budget afforded this research and Pearn’s
assertion that young people tend not to see a need for personal gain if they are
involved in a research enterprise’, nor do they find non-invasive research
particularly intrusive if the interaction between subject and researcher is relaxed
(Pearn 1984: 47).
The inclusion of the ideal of a ‘respect for persons’ manifests itself in the design
of research instruments as well as the selection of a methodology that is flexible
enough to factor in the constraints of youth and childhood as well as allowing
young people the full expression of their experience. In regard to the RidgiDidge
Study, these considerations concern the following key points.
Firstly, young people have come to be recognised as a special category of society
given their potential contribution to the future of humanity; it is in our best
interest to encourage children and young people’s optimum development.
Secondly, a young person is not an adult, and to treat a young person as an adult
is to deny the advantages and constraints associated with the biological state of
youth and childhood. From this perspective, the psychological and physical
constraints of childhood are addressed at the marketing, design and, to a limited
extent, the analytical stages of the research project.
At this point, it is apparent that there is a fine line between accommodating the
biological constraints of contemporary youth and childhood in designing
research, and patronising young potential research participants. However, the
34
genuine application of the ethical principles of respect, beneficence and justice in
the form of an ethical research approach might go some way to ensuring a
productive relationship between researcher and participant, and the production of
research that accurately reflects the attitudes of young people.
Chapter Outline
The preceding chapter introduces the RidgiDidge Study in terms of defining the
research problem, and its origin, as well as the limitations and the significance of
the study. This chapter also serves to outline the tentative literature review that
establishes the lacunae of knowledge about young people and new media
technology. An outline of grounded theory is also located here providing a
justification for the use of grounded theory methodology.
Chapter 2, Literature Review, deals with the search for a theoretical framework
beyond that gleaned from the initial and tentative literature review that informs
the starting point for the RidgiDidge Study. This chapter extracts perspectives
from the three main theoretical areas of psychology, sociology, and technology
associated with research on young people and technology. This chapter
concludes an overview of the extant research on young Australian's media
technology consumption locating the RidgiDidge Study in a growing body of
research about young people and media, in a contemporary and specifically
Australian context. As discussed earlier in Organisation of the Thesis on page 19,
the location of the literature review does not reflect the order of the thesis
35
research itself, but presents a structure more common to qualitative research
generally.
Chapter 3 presents a detailed description of the methodology, its justification,
and the research design and procedures. The inclusion of grounded theory
methodology criticism serves to illustrate and support the method’s use in this
research, as well as highlighting the pitfalls of the methods application so that
they can be avoided here. The Methodology chapter concludes with a discussion
of the implementation of the study in terms of its preparation for use in the field.
The location of the methodology chapter in the sequence of the thesis document
reflects the demands of the methodology.
Chapter 4, Analysis of Data, covers the sampling and data collection methods
practiced in the RidgiDidge Study before presenting how the sample was
achieved, the constant comparison of data, and the development of the
categories. A short profile of each of the participants is included in this chapter
for the purpose of presenting a rounded perspective of the participants.
Chapter 5, Results, present the discussion of the technologies that figure in the
lives of the participants as well as the social structures that constrain and enable
participant agency. Differences across the sample are highlighted in this chapter
as is the core category of Agency. The emergent theory of new media and young
people concludes this chapter.
Chapter 6, Conclusions and Implications, summarises the results of the
RidgiDidge Study in discussion form and evaluates the emergent theory post
36
research in light of grounded theory method criticism and the evaluation criteria
set out in chapter 2 on Methodology.
This chapter concludes by discussing the limitations and significance of the
emergent theory to contemporary debates, as well as suggesting areas for further
research.
37
38
2. Literature Review
This review of the literature critically engages with a range of theories dealing
with young people, technology, and their related fields. The purpose of the
review is to develop a theoretical framework beyond that gleaned from the initial
and tentative literature review that informs the starting point for the RidgiDidge
Study. However, there is necessary separation of literature review from the
generation of the emergent theory as per grounded theory method as a means of
avoiding a priori ideas during theory building. This means that the literature
review must function in two specific ways. Firstly, this engagement with the
literature identifies theoretical perspectives that supplement and extend the basic
working assumptions that form the basis of the RidgiDidge Study. Secondly,
such an engagement provides a context and a language with which to draw on to
articulate how new media technology figures in the lives of young people after
saturation has been achieved.
As previously noted, the origins of this thesis emerge from the disparity between
community concerns about young people and media technology consumption
and those held by young people themselves, and the need to address such a
disparity.
My observations of young people before beginning the RidgiDidge Study
suggested that community concern about young people's media consumption
might be supported by flawed logic rather than empirical evidence. Indeed, much
of the extant literature suggests that very little is actually known about the
39
relationship between young people and their media technology. To that end, the
RidgiDidge Study can be categorised as an exploratory endeavour that pursues
the young person's viewpoint about media consumption with the express purpose
of not colouring this perspective with adult pre-conceptions. The outcome of
such an approach is that the disparity between the views of adults and young
people about media technology consumption will be given a perspective that
accounts for the views of young people.
However, a theoretical framework that would support a study such as this is
unlikely to be ready-made given the interdisciplinary nature of the field itself.
The nature of researching young people's media culture is such that any approach
towards exploring the field must be cognisant of the different elements at work.
To this end, the theoretical framework of this thesis emerges from theories that
deal with the young person, their social context and technology. However, while
this chapter initially treats each perspective as a separate entity, it is reasonable
to acknowledge that the interaction between young people and media is an
integrated system where each perspective overlaps. Such an emergent framework
would account for young people's media technology consumption in terms of
explaining the processes that occur during consumption.
Psychological Perspectives
As Schneider (1993) points out, the debate over nature versus nurture in the
context of human development remains a point of contention among scholars.
However, acknowledging that a combination of influences, both organic and
40
external will indeed affect human development allows for a holistic view of the
developing person. In this way, human development depends on 'the activities
practiced in the social institutions of the culture in which the individual grows
up' (Thomas 2000: 288) as well as inherited mental capacity. This
acknowledgment signals a Gestalt perspective where the young person is seen as
an integrated organism.
Indeed, Gestalt psychology forms the basis of two theories that inform the
theoretical framework of the RidgiDidge Study: ecological psychology and the
Soviet theory of child development. Both these theories recognise the human
being as part of a wider culture. However, human development in a
contemporary context cannot reasonably ignore technology as part of the cultural
milieu. As Crook points out, the impact of technology deserves a special status in
the lives of young people because it is not a transitory pastime like
skateboarding.
Nevertheless, Crook notes that psychology has made only
modest progress in looking at how technology impinges on child development
(Crook 1992: 207).
In this respect Cultural Psychology offers a more self-contained theoretical
tradition where cultural artefacts or 'mediational means' are a central aspect of
the field's focus (Crook 1992: 223).
Thus, in looking at the young person from a psychological perspective, the
ecological model, social constructionism and cultural psychology emerge as
useful tools in the construction of the psychological dimension of a theoretical
framework.
41
Ecological Model
The inclusion of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecology of Human Development as a part of
theoretical framework supports the research objective of the RidgiDidge Study
concerning the investigation of the relational aspects between young person and
their environment. As Durkin points out, this approach is a 'comprehensive
attempt to explain the ways in which interactions among social structures affect
the content and course of human development' (Durkin 1995: 30).
Bronfenbrenner offers an ecological perspective on human development where
the environment is seen as 'an interrelated series of environmental structures,
each nested in the next' (Durkin 1995: 30). The term development is defined as
‘lasting change in the way in which a person perceives and deals with [their]
environment' (Bronfenbrenner 1979: 3). The sociological mantra of ‘context
matters’ echoes in this work in that Bronfenbrenner has identified four ecological
systems within which a young person exists. The first of which is the
microsystem between the young person and their immediate environment.
Bronfenbrenner describes this system as a ‘pattern of activities, roles and
impersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given setting
with particular physical and material characteristics’ (Bronfenbrenner 1979: 22).
The dyad or parent-child relationship is the most basic interaction with other
prominent social interactions and is 'intimately related to the larger interpersonal
structures' (Durkin 1995: 30). Bronfenbrenner points out that the term setting
describes a place where people can ‘readily engage in face-to-face interaction’
and that ‘activity, role and interpersonal relation constitute the elements or
42
building blocks of the microsystem’ (Bronfenbrenner 1979: 22). In terms of a
conjunction with technology, the perception that face-to-face communication
might be more ‘authentic’ than mediated communication is not necessarily
correct. Bronfenbrenner points to Lewin’s ideas and points out that,
Lewin takes the position that the environment of greatest relevance
for the scientific understanding of behaviours and development is
reality not as it exists in so called objective world but as it appears
in the mind of the person; in other words he focuses on the way in
which the environment is perceived by the human beings who
interact within and with it (Bronfenbrenner 1979: 23).
In Bronfenbrenner's later reconceptualisation of the microsystem, he points out
that, proximal processes or,
'the "engines" of development, involve interaction with three
features of the immediate environment: persons, objects and
symbols. To refer to other people in the environment (as
distinguished from those whose development is under immediate
consideration) we adopt Mead's (1934) term: significant others'
(Bronfenbrenner 1995: 638).
Bronfenbrenner points out that the belief systems of these significant others such
as parents, teachers, mentors, spouses and close friends are important 'as
instigators and maintainers of reciprocal interaction with the developing person'
(Bronfenbrenner 1995: 638).
Bronfenbrenner’s second definition is that of the mesosystem where two or more
settings, within which the developing person actively participates, interrelate. For
a young person these settings might concern relations between the home, school
and peer group.
The third system is that of the exosystem, or where the developing person is not
actively involved ‘but in which events occur that affect, or are affected by, what
43
happens in the setting containing the developing person’ (Bronfenbrenner 1979:
25). Bronfenbrenner suggests that it is the conditions of parental employment
that most commonly affects the development of a young person. The final level
is the macrosystem. This refers to ‘consistencies in the form and content of
lower-order systems (micro-, meso- and exo-) that exist, or could exist, at the
level of the subculture or the culture as a whole, along with any belief systems or
ideology underlying such consistencies’ (Bronfenbrenner 1979: 26).
Figure 2.1 on page 47 summarises the ecological systems and shows how
Bronfenbrenner’s work concerns a process-person-context model.
In terms of agency, Bronfenbrenner's later work clarifies his original model by
noting the distinction between two types of personal characteristics. These are
the resources and liabilities indexed by 'ability, achievement, temperament and
personality' and the 'developmentally instigative characteristics' indicative of the
human organism as 'an active agent in, and on, its environment' (Bronfenbrenner
1995: 634). Further to the clarification of his own work, Bronfenbrenner also
adds a third dimension to the bio-ecological model in the form of time. Thus the
process-person-context model becomes one of process-person-context-time.
Berk refers to the temporal dimension of a young person’s ecology as the
chronosystem, involving ‘temporal changes in children’s environment, which
produce new conditions that affect development. These changes can be imposed
externally or arise from within the organism, since children select, modify, and
create many of their own settings and experiences’ (Berk 2000: 30). According
to Berk, these changes occur as frequently as life events present new conditions
44
for change in the young person’s life, but Berk also notes that internal changes
can affect development ‘since [young people] select, modify, and create many of
their own settings and experiences…children are both products and producers of
their own development’ (Berk 2000: 30).
Bronfenbrenner outlines three principles of the 'life course perspective' in
support of the idea that historical events can alter human development for
individuals and groups with both positive and negative effects.
Life Course Principle 1
The individual's own developmental life course is seen as
embedded in and powerfully shaped by conditions and events
occurring during the historical period through which the person
lives (Bronfenbrenner 1995: 641).
Life Course Principle 2
A major factor influencing the course and outcome of human
development is the timing of biological and social transitions as
they relate to the culturally defined age, role expectations, and
opportunities occurring throughout the life course (Bronfenbrenner
1995: 641).
Life Course Principle 3
The lives of all family members are interdependent. Hence, each
family member affects the developmental course of the other
family members, both within and across generations
(Bronfenbrenner 1995: 642).
As Durkin points out, Bronfenbrenner's ecological perspective has a two-fold
legacy. Firstly, Bronfenbrenner's model does not assume 'the universality of our
own [Australian] macrosystem nor the developmental contexts and experiences it
affords' (Durkin 1995: 31). This statement draws attention to the idea that while
Bronfenbrenner's model has a wide application, there are likely to be subtle
differences from macrosystem to macrosystem based on cultural specificities.
45
Secondly, the ecological perspective goes beyond the linear 'cause-effect'
relation between social variables 'to a broader conception of the interrelation
among systems' (Durkin 1995: 31). In this sense, Bronfenbrenner's model is
attempting to deal with the 'real world' more decisively than other psychological
theories might do. Durkin suggests that the ecological model offers a 'bridge'
between developmental psychology and social psychology in that it addresses the
nature of social systems with their contextual variables and societal organisation,
areas neglected by contemporary social psychology (Durkin 1995: 31).
However, the strength of the ecological model is also its weakness in that as a
theoretical perspective, it is difficult to reconcile it with 'what is actually
available in social psychology' (Durkin 1995: 31).
Thomas (1992) points out that not enough empirical work has yet been
conducted to test and develop this theory, particularly at the microsystem level
despite Bronfenbrenner's own research. Nevertheless, this systematic approach to
human development holds considerable promise in 'guiding child rearing,
educational practices, social work, and child therapy' (Thomas 2000: 413).
Indeed, the ecological perspective in an Australian research context appears to
have taken hold given its capacity to account for rapid changes in family
structure (Wise 2003). Its use in the RidgiDidge Study is valid in terms of its
provision of a clear framework to describe the social contexts of the RidgiDidge
participants. Such a framework is sufficiently flexible to allow for a broader
conception of the interrelation among systems (Durkin 1995: 31) that will leave
space for the views of young people to emerge.
46
Figure 2: Ecological Systems
Macrosystem
(Refers to consistencies that exist at a sub cultural and cultural level and their
supporting ideology)
Chronosystem
(The dimension of time as it relates to a young persons environments)
Exosystem
(Refers to one or more settings that do not involve the developing person
but affect the developing person like the parental workplace setting)
Mesosystem
(Comprises the interrelations among two or more settings)
Home
Microsystem
(A pattern of activities, roles and
interpersonal relations)
Peer Group
Microsystem
(A pattern of activities,
roles and interpersonal
relations)
School
Microsystem
(A pattern of activities,
roles and interpersonal
relations)
47
Constructivist/Constructionist Model
There are many varieties of constructivist psychology that investigate and
theorise 'how human beings create systems for meaningfully understanding their
worlds and experiences' (Raskin 2002: 1). However, these theories are yet to
evolve into a unified field and there is still much debate as to whether any
unification is possible (Raskin 2002: 1). Given this diversity of fields and the
idiosyncratic use of the terms 'constructionist'/'constructivist', Raskin points out
that that the terms 'constructionism' and 'constructionist' are better used to
differentiate between social constructionism and the theories of personal and
radical constructivism. Although the similarities in each of these approaches
outweigh the differences, social constructionism rejects the notion of the 'isolated
knower' in favour of the 'primacy of relational, conversational, social practices as
the source of individual psychic life' (Stam 1998: 199 in Raskin 2002: 9). From
this perspective, a social constructionist model sees that,
All knowledge is considered local and fleeting. It is negotiated
between people within a given context and timeframe. What
constitutes personhood one day may change the next, based on
shifts in social surroundings and currently accepted interpersonal
boundaries…There are as many realities as there are cultures,
contexts and ways of communicating. The same goes for
selves…Each of us has multiple 'multiphrenic' selves that are
socially constituted within the boundaries of culture, context and
language (Gergen, 1991). Personhood becomes a matter of how
people are talked about, the social practices they engage in, and the
particular relationships they find themselves in (Raskin 2002: pp.
9-10).
Raskin extends this notion by highlighting the term 'identity' as it is negotiated
and defined within personal relationships, social surroundings, and cultural
contexts. Language in social constructionism is also closely tied to identity in
48
that how individuals 'talk about themselves and their worlds determines the
nature of their experiences' (Raskin 2002: 10).
However, as Raskin points out, some ways of constructing reality through
language can become more dominant that others, leading to the inclusion of
power relations as part of the social constructionist's argument. In this context,
social constructionism comes from a relativist perspective in that it does not
privilege knowledge developed in one context over another (Raskin: 2002: 10).
In this way, the inclusion of new media technology as part of the social
constructionist discussion in this thesis presents a variety of social contexts in
which individual's can perform different identities. As Raskin describes,
Reality in social constructionism is usually viewed as dependant
on how groups of people collectively elaborate their ideas. Thus,
there is an infinite variety of socially constructed realities (Raskin
2002: 10)
As Raskin admits, the lack of a single stable reality leaves social constructionism
open to criticism.
However, the relativism of social constructionism is seen as one of its strengths
in that it generates a less 'dogmatic and righteous society', recognising that 'it
moves people toward interpersonal collaboration and the beneficial reexamination of sometimes stifling cultural practices' (Raskin 2002: 11). This
strength is particularly useful to a re-contextualisation of young people's media
consumption.
In terms of a particular strand of social constructionism (bearing in mind the
idiosyncratic use of the terms 'constructionism'/'constructivism' in the literature
49
identified by Raskin), a Vygotskian perspective sees young people and learning
at its theoretical core.
Vygotsky's basic assumption was that 'activity generates thought, and
development results from dialectical exchanges in historical-cultural contexts'
(Thomas 2000: 291). As Valsiner points out, 'a factor of particular importance' to
the progress of Vygotsky's work was Vygotsky's keen awareness of European
and North American psychology where German Gestalt psychology was
particularly influential (Valsiner in Thomas 2000: 291). Unlike Piaget who
emphasised 'biologically supported, universal stages of development' (JohnSteiner and Souberman 1978: 123), Vygotsky recognised that,
In order to study development in children, one must begin with an
understanding of the dialectical unity of two principal lines [the
biological and the cultural], to adequately study this process, then,
an experimenter must study both components and the laws which
govern their interlacement at each stage of the child's development
(Vygotsky in John-Steiner and Souberman 1978: 123).
Hegel's dialectical formula in the context of child development proposes that,
As children go about the activities of their lives, their established
ways of doing things (thesis) do not always work because these
ways fail to accommodate to the conditions of the current situation
(antithesis). Hence children must devise new problem solving
methods that satisfy those conditions (synthesis) (Thomas 2000:
290).
As Schneider points out, Vygotsky introduced a number of important distinctions
between simple (biological) and higher (cultural) mental functions in human
development, emphasising the social origins of higher mental functions.
In higher mental functions, mediating processes which entail
mental manipulation of signs and symbols are used more
extensively. The individual is seen as endowed with some
50
leverage, rather than as a passive recipient of impinging forces, be
they biological or environmental (Schneider 1993: 8)
Vygotsky stresses young people's active role in human development where
'Children's social development is always the result of their collective actions and
[that] these actions take place and are located in society’ (Corsaro 1997: 14).
Such collective actions lead to an individual's social and psychological
development in that, interactions with others will lead to knowledge and skills
acquisition with culture providing the cognitive tools for development. Tools
such as cultural history, social context and language have always been important
to development although new media technology also appears as a tool for
cognitive development. Vygotsky believed the process of cognitive development
was driven by the 'cultural events and practical activities that lead to the
appropriation, internalisation and reproduction of culture and society' (Corsaro
1997: 15). The concept of internalisation is particularly important to Vygotsky's
notion of development in that 'every function in a child's development appears
twice: first on the social level, later on the individual level: first between people
(inter-psychological) and then inside the child (intra-psychological)' (Corsaro
1997: 15; Vygotsky 1978: 57). An example of this dynamic is where young
children learning to read often read aloud to themselves and others. This outward
articulation becomes a mumble before the practice of reading occurs on a mental
level. In this way, the intra-psychological function or skill of reading has its
origins in social or collective activity such as reading out loud for others and
oneself (Corsaro 1997: 16).
51
In relation to Vygotsky's ideas about self-directed and inner speech, a second
aspect of development in this model emerges in the zone of proximal
development where 'a significant proportion of young people's everyday
activities take place' Corsaro 1997: 16). Vygotsky describes this as the distance
between a child's developmental level based on their ability to problem solve
independently and 'the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers' (Vygotsky 1978: 86). As Corsaro succinctly puts it, the Vygotskian model
of human development is one where young people 'gradually appropriate the
adult world through the communal processes of sharing and creating culture'
(Corsaro 1997: 16). Of particular interest to this thesis is constructionism's focus
is on the 'effects of various interpersonal experiences on individual development'
(Corsaro 1997: 17). However, constructivist developmental psychology often has
adult maturity as a desired endpoint; a point that is antithetical to the research
here. Nevertheless, the usefulness of social constructionism to the current
theoretical framework is that it offers a way of looking at how young people
create systems for understanding their environment and experiences.
In doing so, using a relativist perspective, it does not set greater store by one
person's experience over another's and in this respect it moves psychological
emphasis from 'deconstructed selves to socially constructed identities' (Raskin
2002: 11).
As James, Jenks and Prout highlight,
52
The significance of social constructionism lies in its political role
in the study of childhood. It is well suited to prise the child free of
biological determinism and thus claim the phenomenon,
epistemologically, in the realm of the social. However, it is
important to emphasise that this approach is more than a theory of
the ideational. It is also about the practical application of formed
mental constructs and the impact that this has on the reality and
real consequence (James, Jenks and Prout 1998: 28)
Cultural Psychology
As discussed earlier, there is a relative absence of academic discussion within
psychology on technology's role on human development. Crook suggests that
this problem originates with the traditional style of psychological research 'that
pursues the effects of unitary "variables" acting on isolated actors' (Crook 1992:
207).
Crook's approach is not to 'decouple the individual from the contexts in which
development is taking place' but to acknowledge that cultural artefacts like
technology 'must be viewed as features of the environment that serve to organise,
promote and constrain various kinds of social practice' (Crook 1992: 207).
From this perspective, cultural psychology 'proposes that all human action must
be understood in terms of its embedding in the context of culture.
This context is manifest in the structure of the material environment, in the
availability of various technologies and in the forms taken by various
conventionalised social interactions' (Crook 1992: 223). Indeed, such an
ecological approach suggests that the concept of affordance (Qvarsell 1998;
Gibson 1982; Crook 1992: 225) might offer some useful insights in to the
relationship between the individual and their environment.
53
In this way, the individual as an actor 'perceives and acts in relation to the
affordances of the physical object, the computer, within a particular context of
the social and cultural environment, the home' (Downes 1999: 34). This concept
is discussed further in Affordance Theories on page 99 and is not without
criticism.
Although Crook discusses the indirect effects of computing in terms of computer
use as being a solitary, compulsive or mediated activity, of particular interest to
the RidgiDidge Study is that Crook recognises that young people use technology
for social purposes. In this way young people can engage in face-to-face
communication in groups around a piece of technology or communicate through
technology. Crook points out that a school setting, by way of its everyday
practices, facilitates such a range of uses in that students are put in small groups
around the computer.
Crook's later work (1998) discusses includes the content oriented theme of 'social
representation' as well as the ecological orientation of media technology and its
function as a resource for 'discourse and social negotiation' (Crook 1998: 193).
However, Crook finds that the little academic attention paid to the role of media
technology in social context is found more at the theoretical end of the research
spectrum than the empirical. The RidgiDidge Study locates itself as a project that
in part redresses this imbalance.
54
The Piagetian Paradigm of Developmental Psychology
As the section on Social Constructionism outlines (see page 48), one of the key
problems of developmental psychology is that it often fails to account and give
due regard for young people's experience of their own childhoods. This
perspective is attributable to the Piagetian paradigm where children must pass
through developmental stages from 'incompetent childhood through to rational,
logical adulthood' (Gauntlett 1988: 2). According to Gauntlett, although Piaget
did not intend to 'create a trend of undervaluing children's experiences…he
certainly gave this approach its foundations' (Gauntlett 1996: 35). As Archard
points out, Piaget's contribution to the field of developmental psychology was
also philosophical in that he sought to understand 'how the adult human comes to
acquire the Kantian categories of time, space and causality' (Archard 1993: 66).
However, Archard is critical of this position in that the ideal of adult cognitive
competence is a western philosophical ideal and that children are likely to
'possess some crucial competencies long before Piaget says they do' (Archard
1993: 66).
It is by the nature of these competencies and how they are assessed that
complicates ideas about cognitive functioning. As Archard makes clear, the
conflation of cognitive competence with knowledge, experience, and
intelligence, is misleading.
A child may simply not know as much or experienced as much as
an adult. That is not to say that, relative to what they have
experienced and do know, each may not have the same ability to
make rational decisions. From birth humans fundamentally desire
to make sense of the world and bring it under deliberate control.
55
They are also equipped from birth with the ability to use inner
mental models of the world. In that sense, children are as rational
as adults (Archard 1993: 66).
The common theme of the psychological theories outlined here is that the social
and cultural environment is recognised as an essential factor in human
development. It is from this perspective that the 'nature versus nurture' debate is
seen as a complex articulation of the interaction between the young person and
their environment. The ecological perspective gives due regard for the
individual's perceived role, activity and interpersonal relations in the
microsystems of the home, school and peer group. These psychological
processes are then seen to be available through to the level of the macrosystem,
indicating the usefulness of a relativist and culturally specific discussion. In turn,
social constructionism accounts for the construction of knowledge based on the
reciprocal flow of information between the individual and their wider context. In
turn the individual's interpretation of that experience will affect the construction
of knowledge. The inclusion of cultural psychology within the theoretical
framework recognises the role played by technology in the social context as a
cultural artefact. This acknowledges media technology's status beyond a simple
pastime or toy, given its ongoing presence in educational and future workplace
contexts as well.
However, an important criticism of developmental psychology is the persistence
of Piaget's developmental theory as a general and hierarchical model of
childhood. Although Piaget did not intend to 'create a trend of undervaluing
children's experiences', this mindset has persisted to the detriment of a genuine
56
understanding of the individual experience of childhood (Gauntlett 1996: 35).
Indeed, Jenks notes that Piaget has an 'immeasurable impact on the everyday
common-sense conception of the child' (Jenks 1996: 23). In this way,
developmental psychology presents itself as a useful component of the
theoretical work here in its theoretical construction of a type of child. However,
as Jenks points out, 'it is as if the basic ontological questions "What is a child?"
and "How is the child possible as such?" were so to speak, satisfactorily
answered in advance of the theorising and then summarily dismissed' (Jenks
1996: 4). In the context of the research here, this puts developmental psychology
in the role of an essential ingredient within the framework, although an
ingredient to be used in careful measure.
Sociological Perspectives
Corsaro points out that young people did not appear to exist in sociology until
the late 1980s. Qvortrup (1993) suggests that this state of affairs emerged
because children had been marginalised because of their 'subordinate positions in
societies and in theoretical conceptualisations of childhood and socialisation'
(Corsaro 1997: 7). Indeed this paternalistic view of young people has extended
into discussions about their media technology consumption. As James, Jenks and
Prout point out, childhood is no longer the sole domain of parents, educators or
developmental psychologists (James, Jenks and Prout 1998: 3) but part of a
wider discourse about conceptions of childhood under the banner of the 'new
social studies of childhood'.
57
Agency and Structure
Agency and structure are key terms in sociological debate. In the context of the
RidgiDidge Study, agency by any other name is ‘freedom, free will, action,
creativity originality and the very possibility of change through the actions of
free agents’ (Barker 2000: 182). However, this is not a self-constituting concept;
rather, one that is socially produced. As Barker points out, there is ‘enough
historical and sociological work available, not least from Foucault and Giddens,
to show that subjects are determined, caused and produced, by social forces that
lie outside themselves as individuals. We are subject to the “impress of history”
(Rorty 1989)’ (Barker 2000: 182).
From this perspective, agency is determined in that enacting choice is subject to
social structures such as language, which are without the individual. This idea is
supports the inclusion of the ecological model discussed on page 42 where an
individual is appropriately situated within an ecological system. Nevertheless,
Barker draws attention to the tension between Foucault and Giddens work where
agency becomes problematic. Foucault’s focus on issues of discourse, discipline
and power, where ‘“regimes of truth” (what counts as truth) of a disciplinary
modernity involve relations of power/knowledge whereby knowledge is a form
of power implicated in the production of subjectivity, do not adequately account
for agency (Hall 1996a, Barker 2000: 179). Barker argues that Foucault’s later
reintroduction of the concept of agency, through ideas about techniques of the
self, redresses the balance although Giddens contextualises the fluctuation in
58
Foucault’s ideas as ‘effacing agents from the narratives of history’ (Barker 2000:
180).
Giddens proposes instead that,
'Structure' is regarded as rules and resources recursively implicated
in social reproduction; institutionalized features of social systems
have structural properties in the sense that relationships are
stabilized across time and space. 'Structure' can be conceptualized
abstractly as two aspects of rules -- normative elements and codes
of signification. Resources are also of two kinds: authoritative
resources, which derive from the co-ordination of the activity of
human agents, and allocative resources, which stem from control
of material products or of aspects of the material world (Giddens
1984: xxxi)
In this way ‘regularities or structural properties of social systems, which are
distinct from any given individual, operate to structure what an actor is’ (Barker
2000: 180). Giddens (1984) uses the example of young working class ‘lads’ who
resist school authority on the basis of their working class backgrounds. Their
poor academic performance in turn prepares them only for working class jobs.
This demonstrates the way ‘agents produce and reproduce social structure
through their own actions’ (Barker 2000: 180).
However, Giddens draws
attention to the duality of structure where social structures are not only
constraining, but also enabling. Barker contextualises this idea by pointing out
that ‘identities are posed as an issue of both agency (the individual constructs a
project) and of social determination (our projects3 are socially constructed and
3
The term ‘project’ here is used in Giddens’ context from Modernity and Self Identity (1991).
Identity is a project that we perpetually create for ourselves although it is ‘cultural and social in
that what it means to be a child is formed differently in different cultural contexts’ (Barker 2000:
167).
59
social identities ascribed to us)’ (Barker 2000: 181). In this way, identities are
discursive constructions in that identity is not so much a thing ‘but a description
in language’ (Barker 2000: 166).
In this regard, the RidgiDidge Study might enjoy the best of both worlds by
adopting an anti-essentialist approach to the personal and lived experience of its
participants (sociology) as well as connecting this range of experiences with
concepts of difference and subjectivity (cultural studies) (McRobbie 1994: 186).
With this in mind, the RidgiDidge Study recognises that there is no definitive
reality of being a young person and this subjective positioning speaks to ideas of
selfhood and identity. It is this acknowledgment of difference and subjectivity
that contextualises the RidgiDidge Study in both quantitative and qualitative
forms as illustrative of the role played by new media technology in Australian
High School students’ lives rather than representative. Such illustrative research
has the capacity ‘produce regularities, patterns of repetition which are indicative
of the ‘hardness’, the resistance, of social fact; and they have the capacity,
crucial to empirical research, to take [one] by surprise’ (Bennett et al. 1999).
This suggests that research must go beyond taking the ‘voices of young people’
at their ethnographic face value, and to see them as ‘complex social constructs
which are the products of pre-given discourses, in effect “written” in advance as
scripts made available by dominant culture for their teenage speakers’
(McRobbie 1994).
From this perspective, it is possible to see the waft and weave of the relationship
between young people and new media technology, to the broader issues of
60
culture and society. Indeed, it is children’s relationship to new media technology
that offers entry to a discussion that sees choices in new media technology
adopting the ‘role of taste judgements as mechanisms of social and cultural
power’ (Bourdieu 1984; Woodward and Emmison 2001).
This negotiation or agency, apparent in the RidgiDidge participant relationship
to new media technology sees the theoretical framework of this study turn to
hegemonic theory in the guise of ‘neo-Gramscian hegemony theory’ (Strinati
1995: 172; Storey 1993: 200). Strinati points out that the prefix ‘neo’ is applied
to this term ‘to indicate the holding of certain reservations about the full-blooded
use of the concept, although this should not detract from Gramsci’s significance'.
This position indicates Gramsci’s preference for ‘an interpretation which stresses
the fundamental role performed by human agency in historical change’ (Strinati
1995) given Gramsci’s concern to eradicate economic determinism from Marxist
theory. Indeed, Hall sees a ‘Gramscian understanding’ of ‘conjunctural
knowledge’ as providing stability to cultural studies (Hall 1999).
This knowledge is in turn applicable to ‘specific and immediate political or
historical circumstances; as well as an awareness that the structure of the
representations which form culture’s alphabet and grammar are instruments of
social power, requiring critical and activist examination’ (Hall 1999). If young
people are seen as social agents and childhood as a structural category in society,
then a range of theoretical concepts can be discussed in relation to children and
their childhoods. The concept of power is one such theoretical avenue to travel
61
after resituating childhood in a new sociological light. However, the struggle for
power here is not envisioned in the Marxist sense.
Rather, it is the Foucauldian concept of power that suggests the ways ‘we
constitute ourselves as subjects acting on others’ and that power is ‘taking charge
of life’ (Hartley 2002; Barker 2000). Hartley points out that power manifests
itself as Foucault’s idea of a ‘governmentality’ demonstrated ‘in knowledge, and
in the organisation and administration of bodies’ (Hartley 2002). Here, ‘power
could be seen in the minutæ of everyday transactions, in private life, and in the
technologies mobilised to evaluate, measure, appraise, hierarchise - and so to
produce - ‘normal’ society (Hartley 2002; Barker 2000; Bennett 1998a).
The New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood
In developing the theoretical framework of the RidgiDidge Study, the inclusion
of what James and Prout refer to as the emergent ‘paradigm of new sociology’
(James and Prout 1997: 29) is useful in enunciating a new and more ethical way
of researching children, despite the acknowledgment that 'much more work
needs to be done to integrate, theoretically develop and empirically elaborate
[its] parameters' (James and Prout 1997: 9).
The principles of the new paradigm of childhood sociology are,
1. Childhood is understood as a social construction. As such it
provides an interpretive frame for contextualising the early years
of human life. Childhood, as distinct from biological immaturity, is
neither a natural nor universal feature of human groups but appears
as a specific structural and cultural component of many societies.
2. Childhood is a variable of social analysis. It can never be
entirely divorced from other variables such as class, gender, or
62
ethnicity. Comparative and cross-cultural analysis reveals a variety
of childhoods rather than a single and universal phenomenon.
3. Children's social relationships and cultures are worthy of study
in their own right, independent of the perspective and concerns of
adults.
4. Children are and must be seen as active in their own
construction and determination of their own lives, the lives of
those around them and of the societies in which they live. Children
are not just the passive subjects of social structures and processes.
5. Ethnography is a particularly useful methodology for the study
of childhood. It allows children a more direct voice and
participation in the production of sociological data than is usually
possible through experimental and survey styles of research.
6. Childhood is a phenomenon in relation to which the double
hermeneutic of the social sciences is acutely present (see Giddens
1976). That is to say, to proclaim a new paradigm of childhood
sociology is also to engage in and respond to the process of
reconstructing childhood in society (James and Prout 1997: 8).
The central tenets of this paradigm outlined in this section acknowledge that
childhood is a social construction and as such, is a variable of social analysis that
cannot be divorced from variables such as gender, ethnicity, or class. The
emergent paradigm also foregrounds young people’s agency and that their
relationships and cultures are worthy of study in their own right (James 1997: 8).
In this way, childhood and youth is acknowledged as a transient biological life
stage for the human being, but recognised as a permanent structural category in
society. Nevertheless, this paradigm challenges the deeply rooted psychological
ideas about childhood present in related fields such as education and child health.
James and Prout suggest that this stems from the Foucauldian notion of 'regimes
of truth' (1977), that function as self-fulfilling prophesies.
[Traditional] ways of thinking about childhood fuse with
institutional practices to produce self-conscious subjects (teachers,
parents and children) who think (and feel) about themselves
63
through the terms of those ways of thinking (James and Prout
1997: 23)
To suggest an alternative 'truth' about youth childhood is likely to result in
resistance given the strength of the 'triangularity' of childhood, the family and
socialisation (Alanen 1988 in James and Prout 1997: 23). Nevertheless, this
challenge to traditional ideas has created a theoretical space from which to see
young people as active agents than as 'the "cultural dopes" of socialisation
theory' (James and Prout 1997: 23). However, Livingstone points out academic
discourses about the sociology of childhood (Corsaro 1997; James et al. 1998;
Qvortrup et al. 1994) rarely look outward to the intersection between childhood
and the media (Livingstone 2002). Livingstone suggests that the absence of
research about young people and media from within the new sociology of
childhood stems from the perception that face-to-face communication is more
‘authentic’ than mediated communication, a point debated by Bronfenbrenner
(see page 42).
Nevertheless, as McRobbie notes, ‘cultural studies flaunts its wild style [and]
sociology prides itself on its materialist steadfastness’ (McRobbie 1994: 177), a
point that suggests that the combination of theoretical agility (Cultural Studies)
and a grounded method of inquiry (Sociology), will produce a cogent
contribution to the area of researching young people. McRobbie suggests that
Sociology should consider that,
It is no longer possible to conceptualise and analyse society as a
whole, or even as a layered and uneven totality. There can be no
longer one big picture, and that kind of theoretical imaging of
64
‘society’ which gave sociology its existence, is exactly what is
now being disputed (McRobbie 1994: 177).
The emergent paradigm of childhood sociology addresses this point (James and
Prout 1997: 29) and encourages a new agenda for the discussion of young
people’s media issues suggesting a synergistic relationship between disciplines.
Cultural Studies
Buckingham points out that the central focus of Cultural Studies has been the
relationship between media and society (Buckingham 1993: 269). This direction
finds its origin in literary studies and extends through areas such as semiotics,
structuralism, post structuralism, and Marxist Theory. Lewis (2002: 24) points
out that modernism informs many of the debates in contemporary cultural theory
and Slack draws attention to the idea that, 'the central questions of Cultural
Studies involve the role of ideology and power in the relationship between
textuality, discourse and social practice' (Slack in Downes 1999: 26).
However, Hartley describes Cultural Studies as a ‘crossroads or bazaar for the
exchange of ideas from many directions’ and that it is ‘a symptom of widespread
doubt and disillusionment about the continuing ability of inherited truths to
command assent’ (2003: 2). According to Hartley, Cultural Studies is a site
where everyone, regardless of social group, can engage critically and ethically
with culture ‘without relying on the master narratives of nationalism, racial
supremacy, patriarchy or imperialism’ (Hartley 2003:3). Hartley argues that The
Second World War and the social turmoil of the latter half of the twentieth
century had meant the abandonment of such metanarratives along with
65
modernity’s promise. Hartley asserts that Cultural Studies offered a way of
grappling with the complexities of life in a modern world that was open to
‘young people, women, gays and lesbians, people of colour, and many other
social groups and identities’ (Hartley 2003:3). With this in mind, Hartley draws
attention to Cultural Studies interest in what Foucault was later to call ‘the
plenitude of the possible’ (Foucault 1984: 267). Here knowledge is not the sole
prevail of the powerful few, but plentiful and accessible by all resulting in
Cultural Studies capacity to address both the esoteric and the ‘everyday’ (Agger
1992). In this respect, Cultural Studies presents itself as a field of inclusiveness
where culture is distinguished as neither high nor low, but pervades every aspect
of human existence.
Hartley describes the implication of Cultural Studies for the literary and artistic
imagination as the ‘expansion of difference’ (Hartley 2003: 3-4) outside the
restrictive focus on the high brow and the scarce, such as great works of
literature, art, and music. ‘Folk needed to learn what they didn’t know, as much
as they needed to affirm in knowledge their own identity, subjectivity and
culture’ (Hartley 2003: 5). As Agger elaborates in his formulation of cultural
studies as critical theory, Cultural Studies legitimates, justifies, celebrates and
politicises all aspects of popular culture to the extent that popular culture is seen
as valuable in its own right (Agger 1992). Culture is also seen as a dynamic
process, in a state of constant renewal, anticipating conflict at both the level of
face-to-face interaction and at the level of meaning so that ‘culture cannot be
viewed as a unifying principle, a source of shared understanding or a mechanism
66
for legitimating the social bond’ (Jenks 2005: 3; Agger 1992). Hartley sees the
application of Cultural Studies to the field of political economy as bringing
consumption and usage to discourses about production, profit and power. He
points out that the inclusion of agency and consumer culture into the equation
has profound consequences on the mode of production itself. Thus in an
economy of scarcity, consumers are a dehumanised mass market, readily
manipulated by producers who would seek to exercise power over them.
Conversely, in an economy of plenty,
Consumers are partners, clients, occasionally suppliers and
competitors. They have a determining influence on new products
and directions. They’re part of the force and energy of productive
development, not its passive victims. Their culture and taste will
determine the success or otherwise of new products’ (Hartley
2003: 5).
In this respect, the usefulness of Cultural Studies in addressing the intersection of
young people and new media technology is clear. The rapid adoption of
technology is such that it pervades our everyday lives particularly in the form of
ICT’s. Indeed, technology is plentiful and its consumption is open to the
capriciousness of the user and consumer of that technology.
The focus of Cultural Studies had been ‘to make sense of everyday life within
the terms of its own ongoing inquiry into meaning, power, ideology and
subjectivity in contemporary society’ (Hartley 2003: 121) and as such sees
people as agents ‘doing stuff (purposely and reflexively) not just watching stuff’
(Hartley 2003: 126). Hartley suggests that the concept of agency is what brought
sociology and anthropology into the cultural domain.
67
The exploration of individual meanings was the speciality of those
trained in literary, linguistic and screen studies. Combining the
production and circulation of meaning with certain classic
sociological preoccupations (for instance time, space, institution)
and with classical anthropological concerns (practices, customs,
ceremonies) became possible with the addition of an agent
(Hartley 2003: 126).
Hartley observes that Cultural Studies desire to wrestle with subjectivity
formation in modern commercial cultures was a theoretical quest as much as an
empirical one (Hartley 2003: 128). However, this desire did not necessarily gel
with sociology and anthropology given differences in theoretical and
methodological approaches, particularly in respect to ethnographic media
audience studies.
As Hartley stresses, Cultural Studies was not interested in audiences for
functional or instrumental purposes given its ‘engagement with mediated
meanings, the linguistic, visual and fictional or symbolic components of
contemporary entertainments’ (Hartley 2003:128). In this way, to the field of
Cultural Studies at least, the quantitative and concrete methodologies of
sociology and anthropology asked ‘interesting but secondary questions’ (Hartley
2003: 128) and psychological and behavioural approaches were to be viewed
with suspicion. Lewis argues that what makes Cultural Studies so noteworthy is
its ‘deployment of diverse methodological designs’ from the humanities and the
social science (Lewis 2002: 33). Depending on academic perspective, these
disciplinary differences lead to the perception of Cultural Studies as a
‘methodological wasteland’ (Marcus in Hartley 2003: 129).
As McRobbie points out,
68
Cultural studies, while continually on the cutting edge of theory,
must be willing to substantiate this interest, not necessarily through
recourse to empiricism, but through a mode of research and
analysis which explores more fully the rich suggestiveness of
theoretical work (McRobbie 1994).
However, the very differences that delineated Cultural Studies, Anthropology
and Sociology created the opportunity to move away from a focus on culture to a
focus on agents. This shift now allows for the open pursuit of how young people
think and feel about their new media technology as well as the myriad facets of
their everyday life worlds.
Media Studies and Audience Research
Agger describes Media Studies as a ‘specific formulation’ of Cultural Studies in
its focus on ‘ways in which the media both constitute and are constituted by
hegemonic interests, at once creating audiences and consumers and responding
to administrative imperatives flowing out of corporate and state power centres’
(Agger 1992: 34). Indeed, the study of media in Australia has several
perspectives where the media are defined as ‘cultural institutions, as industries as
producers of texts, as engaged with and by audiences and as a major focus within
cultural and communication theory and policy’ (Cunningham and Turner 1997:
xvii). Despite the importance of addressing such areas, Barker identifies a range
of criticism and derision levelled against the field. These critiques suggest a lack
of academic rigour; a lack of employment options for Media Studies graduates;
that Media Studies are nihilistic and narcissistic; Media Studies are neo-Marxist,
PC claptrap or that Media Studies graduates have ‘trendy, cop-out, slumming
junk degrees’ (Barker 2001: 213). Such criticism boils down to little more than a
69
set of claims about one set of values and standards pitched against another,
particularly in terms of the dialectic between science and culture in the academy
and the popular press. As Turnbull points out, Media Studies was introduced to
the British curriculum as a response to ‘anxieties about the power of the mass
media and it’s corrupting effects and the need for some form of cultural defence
in schools’ (Turnbull 2003: 21). However, Media Studies introduction to the
Australian curriculum serviced the need to address ‘rapid and massive change in
the secondary school cohort’ (Quin 2000: 294 in Turnbull 2003: 21). Turnbull
notes a shift in Australian education from a liberal humanist perspective with its
emphasis on equity, social justice and the pursuit of knowledge, to a vocationally
based curriculum. Media Studies focus on media production gave less
academically gifted students the opportunity to express themselves with greater
ease than with the more traditional forms of literary communication.
Thus, in the early 1990s, the media production aspect of Media Studies meant
that it could justify its existence under the new ‘vocationally oriented rhetoric’
although this emphasis resulted in a struggle to maintain a balance between
theory and practice (Turnbull 2003: 21). This struggle has meant that ‘the status
of Media Studies was often called into question’ (Turnbull 2003: 21). The
pursuit of curriculum status for Media Studies produced three survival strategies
in Australian schools. Firstly, Turnbull observes that the focus on media
production in Australian Media Studies gave less academically gifted students
the opportunity to express themselves with greater ease than with the more
traditional forms of literary communication. The addition of a ‘prophylactic
70
approach’ where students are given knowledge in order to inoculate them against
media effects is matched with a desire to achieve ‘academic respectability’.
As Turnbull points out,
The outcome of attempts to find an academic basis for Media
Studies in school resulted in an odd mish-mash of theories and
approaches which did indeed legitimate Media Studies as a
curriculum area with its own specific body of theoretical
knowledge and critical tools, but at a cost (Turnbull 2003: 23).
However, given that the media are comprised of texts, institutions and audiences,
the divisions between each component means that Media Studies is not a unified,
single disciplinary field. Hence, there are ‘genuine and important theoretical,
methodological and practical differences between its traditions’ (Cunningham
and Turner 1997: xvii).
One such stream of Media Studies is audience research, into which the
RidgiDidge Study locates itself. Although the focus of the RidgiDidge Study is
media technology as opposed to media content, the functional significance of
media technology is such that like media content, media technology links
individuals to the other individuals as well as to the wider cultural context.
Nevertheless, even audience research is not without tension and debate. The
question of how audiences respond to media has been the focus of public
concern and academic research in the US in particular since the twenties.
The Payne Fund Studies published between 1933 and 1935 investigated the
effects of mass media on American youth in the United States and are regarded
as the beginning of mass communication research (Mintz 1997).
71
Film and radio were to continue to succumb to US scrutiny through to the 1930s
and 1940s based on public concern that the media would ‘corrupt the morals of
children or adults or incite to crime’ (Wartella and Jennings 2000: 33). The
emergence of television as a mass medium in 1948 in turn led to concerns about
the ‘further vulgarisation of American culture’ (Wartella and Jennings 2000: 34).
Such views about media ‘effects’ were predicated on a hypodermic model of
audience reception where the audience was thought to passively accept the media
message.
The rise of ‘uses and gratifications’ theory in the 1940s and its later resurgence
in the 1970s and 1980s presented a shift away from notions of a mass
homogenised audience to an acknowledgement of the possibility of differential
interpretations. However, such interpretations were attributed solely to
‘individual differences of personality or psychology’ (Morley 2005: 2) although
Nightingale points out that the 1970s saw the emergence of an increasingly
sophisticated and theoretical debate on method (2003: 360). The challenge to the
predominately quantitative and empiricist audience research came in the form of
Hall’s 1973 communications model Encoding and Decoding in Television
Discourse, later published in 1980 as Encoding/Decoding. Nightingale observes
that Hall’s work presented itself as an alternative paradigm where its multidisciplinary perspective attempted to combine ‘empirical audience research with
criticism and cultural activism’ (Nightingale 2003: 362).
Nightingale discusses this shift in audience research in terms of a ‘cultural
revolution’ where interdisciplinary studies offered new ‘cultural’ ways of
72
looking at audiences in contrast to functionalist and instrumental approaches
(Nightingale 2003: 361). In this way, functionalism was used to build middle
range theories to address the ways ‘media work and can be managed’, ‘cultural
researchers situated the audience discourses about the meaning of their media
experiences back into the general pattern of everyday life, and the search for
meaningful
cultural
identities’
(Nightingale
2003:
377).
Nightingale
contextualises this turn to the cultural in Delanty’s terms (2001) where he
describes university knowledge as ‘a pendulum swinging between culture and
science’ (Nightingale 2003: 361). Although Nightingale describes Delanty’s
dialectic between science and culture as flawed, she asserts that this
contextualisation explains why social science debates on method in the 1960’s
through to the 1980’s took so long to be resolved.
Nevertheless, Buckingham, who specialises in the area of young people and
media, points out that even as ‘effects’ research emphasises the role of
‘intervening variables’ and ‘individual differences’ (2000: 107), it has failed to
keep pace with developments in related fields. Buckingham recognises the
dominance of conservative empiricist traditions in US media ‘effects’ research
highlighting how this reflects ‘a particular set of institutional relationships
between academic researchers, government and the media industries’
(Buckingham 2000: 130).
Unfortunately, such research is erroneously cited by ‘campaigners against media
violence as though it were universally applicable’ (Buckingham 2000: 130).
Buckingham sees the reaction against such views as more political than based
73
purely on methodological or theoretical reasons given that effects research is
used in the context of public debate, policy-making and as ‘deflecting attention
away from more deep seated causes of phenomena such as violent crime’
(Buckingham 2000: 130). Similarly, Gauntlett (1998; 1996) draws attention to a
conservative agenda that tips its hand in terms of displaying concern that media
consumption will lead to ‘disrespect for authority’ and ‘anti-patriotic sentiments’
(Gauntlett 1998). Vromen articulates this concern in an Australian context by
noting that the media and politicians have constructed an ‘us and them’
competition between parents and their children (Vromen 2004).
This idea is referred to in the context of the RidgiDidge Study as the negative
mythology that infuses popular discourse about young people, often in relation to
their media content and technology consumption. It is reasonable to assert a
contradictory view that the technological gulf between parents and children,
created by their conversance with, and favour of media technology, can and
should be a source of pride and wonder. As Wartofski points out, if young people
learned only what they were taught then the human race might have died out
after only a single generation (Wartofski 1981).
The promulgation of alternative perspectives on young people and their media
technology consumption might go some way to creating a less general and more
respectful and understanding agenda for future research.
74
Media Effects
Despite the range of debates about media and society, the idea of negative media
‘effects’ continues to undermine community perceptions about young people and
new media technology. Indeed, the ‘corruption of innocence’ is a persistent
theme in the media ‘effects’ debate where media are seen as deleterious to young
people and the society in which they live (Gormley 1998: 2). This perception
about the effects of media on young people is not restricted to the twentieth
century. Plato (c.427BC - c.347BC) wanted to ban poetry from his republic
given its ‘terrible power to corrupt even the best characters’ (Plato in Gormley
1998: 2). In a contemporary context, the link between media violence and antisocial behaviour is a frequent topic of debate in both the media itself and the
academy.
Cases such as the murder of James Bulger in the UK, the massacre at Columbine
High School in the US and the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania by the ‘childlike’ Martin Bryant, all apparently inspired by violent media texts, are held up as
sensational proof positive of the causal relationship between media violence and
anti-social behaviour.
As Turnbull points out,
Within two weeks of the Port Arthur tragedy, the ‘facts’ of
Bryant’s apparently perverse media habits and their connection to
other ‘similar’ cases were being rehearsed in both the tabloid and
the broadsheet press. Thus for example, Melbourne’s usually
careful Age newspaper ran a piece in its television guide entitled
‘Do Movies Make Murderers? (Age Green Guide, 10 May 1996),
linking Wade Frankum the ‘Strathfield Plaza Gunman’, to the film
Taxi Driver, and Jon Venables (one of the boys convicted of
75
killing James Bulger) to Childs Play III and Bryant to both
(Turnbull 1998: 117).
Nevertheless, twentieth century research has yet to establish a definitive causal
link that stands up to close scrutiny (Gormley 1998; Turnbull 1998; Gauntlet
1999; Barker and Petley 2001). Buckingham observes that the dominance of
conservative empiricist academic traditions in the US is legitimated by early
experimental studies on television violence, but even this is ‘symptomatic of the
deep-seated political paralysis that surrounds the issue of gun-control, in a nation
where there are more handguns than there are people’ (Buckingham 2000: 130).
Unfortunately, those early studies are erroneously cited by ‘campaigners against
media violence as though it were universally applicable’, exasperating
researchers from other countries (Buckingham 2000: 130). Buckingham sees the
reaction against such views as political rather than purely methodological or
theoretical given that effects research is used in the context of public debate,
policy-making, as a justification for censorship and as a means of ‘deflecting
attention away from more deep seated causes of phenomena such as violent
crime’ (Buckingham 2000: 130).
While this is not to say that the media are effect-less, rather that the hypodermic
model of audience reception is open to damning methodological, historical and
political criticism (Buckingham 2000; Gauntlett 1998; Barker and Petley 2001;
Gormley 1998). As Gauntlett points out, the ‘effects’ model should be laid to rest
given that takes the wrong approach to the mass media and its audience and that
despite the volume of research, the ‘direct effects of media on behaviour have
not been clearly identified’ (Gauntlett 1998: 120). Gauntlett suggests that given
76
this lack of certainty, perhaps the conclusion should be drawn that media effects
are simply not there to be found. Gauntlett also puts forward the idea that media
effects research has consistently taken the wrong approach to the mass media, its
audiences, and society in general given ten fundamental flaws (Gauntlett 1998).
1. The effects model tackles social problems 'backwards'
2. The effects model treats children as inadequate
3. Assumptions within the effects model are characterised by
barely-concealed conservative ideology
4. The effects model inadequately defines its own objects of study
5. The effects model is often based on artificial elements and
assumptions within studies
6. The effects model is often based on studies with misapplied
methodology
7. The effects model is selective in its criticisms of media
depictions of violence
8. The effects model assumes superiority to the masses
9. The effects model makes no attempt to understand meanings of
the media
10. The effects model is not grounded in theory
Gauntlett’s first point is that the ‘effects’ model of research tackles social
problems backwards. Gauntlett suggests that to explain the problem of violence
in society, researchers should start by looking at the people who engage in
violence, rather than those who consume media. Gauntlett hammers this point
home by citing criminologist’s Hagell & Newburn’s 1994 study that found that
violent juvenile offenders tended to watch less film and television than the
control group of ordinary young people of the same age. This idea is further
supported by similar work by Joy, Kimball and Zabrach in 1986, again looking
at the effect of the advent of television to remote communities.
77
In terms of a link from young people and media effects to the impact on
community concern, Gauntlet points out that the ‘effects model’ of research
treats young people as inadequate. In the same way, and according to Jean
Piaget’s theory of developmental psychology, young people are judged to be
comparatively incompetent in comparison with adults, and are thus defined by
what they cannot do in relation to media, rather than what they can. Piaget’s
intention was not to undermine children when he first developed his ideas, but
this is the legacy we must now bear. Part of this legacy is the perseverance of
assumptions within the effects model that reveal a conservative ideology. In this
way, Gauntlet suggests that the general condemnation of screen violence can be
traced to conservative ideas about disrespect for authority and anti-patriotic
sentiment. Gauntlett makes the further distinction that programs with similar
quantities of violence are seen as more objectionable because of their more
challenging socio-political position. In turn, he observes that the ‘effects model’
inadequately defines its own subjects of study. This flaw concerns methodology
where the terms pro-social and anti-social media content become ideologically
loaded value judgements. Thus an ‘act of violence’ in the context of content
analysis has a wide range of definitions from a depiction of murder or harm, to
the slamming of a door. Other methodological concerns emerge in the media
effects model of research in the use of artificial studies where studies are often
conducted on tight budgets with minimal time. Those types of studies are
conducted in laboratory conditions or in natural settings where the researcher is
invariably conspicuous. Such approaches are never conducive to good research
78
in that the presence of the researcher can change the context of viewing
behaviour or force research participants to temper their behaviour or responses.
Indeed, methodological impropriety is extended within the effects model of
research in a lack of rigour where the wrong approach is used or inappropriately
applied. Gauntlett cites the research of Liefkowitz, Eron, Walder and Huesmann
who damaged the credibility of their research by failing to be consistent with
their assessment procedures, not explaining why another one of their studies
contradicted the flawed research in question and then failing to pursue the
research question that they started out with. Consistency continues to be
problematic in that violence depicted in the television news is portrayed as
somehow exempt from media effects criticism; a point that indicates
philosophical inconsistency, which the media effects model cannot account for.
Similarly, the media effects model of research is inconsistent in that it is only
ever other people who are likely to be affected by violence in the media. Indeed,
when young people talk about media effects, it’s usually in the context that a
program might frighten other children and never themselves (Sheldon et all
1994). As Gauntlet points out, this phenomenon occurs among media effects
researchers who are invariably inured to the effects they talk about in their own
research. ‘The point here is not that the content of mass media must not be
criticised, but rather that the mass audience themselves are not well served by
studies which are willing to treat them as potential savages or actual fools’
(Gauntlett 2000: 126).
79
Having identified that the effects model rests on a base of reductive assumptions
and unjustified stereotypes, within the effects model, ‘the meanings of media
content are ignored in the simple sense that assumptions are made based on the
appearance of elements removed from their context’ (Gauntlett 2000: 127). Such
an assertion speaks to the polysemy of texts and the active audience. Indeed,
there is an abundance of qualitative and market research to support the idea that
audiences often make up their own minds about media texts, and that these
opinions can vary greatly.
Given that the substantial bulk and history of media research has yet to provide
any definitive answer, it is clear that resting an entire research tradition on a
shaky foundation is foolhardy at best.
Despite criticism of the media effects model of research outline here, the
dominance of the ‘effects’ tradition in popular discourse has perpetuated
negative perceptions about young people’s relationship with media in Australia.
Young people are still regarded as an undiscriminating and passive audience,
evidenced by research commissioned by the then ABA in response to community
concerns about young people’s media consumption.
Even though, the resulting research such as the ABA’s Children's Views about
Media Harm (2000) and 'Cool' or 'Gross': Children's Attitudes to Violence,
Kissing and Swearing on Television (1994) revealed the sophistication of young
audiences and the need for further non-judgmental and intergeneration research
(Nightingale, Dickerson and Griff 2002).
80
Nevertheless, the negative mythology about young people still holds sway in the
Australian media and political discourse (Vromen 2003), suggesting a broader
broadcast of research about young people, particularly among the training
grounds of media and political professionals. A negative perspective of the
intersection between young people and media sees media content in particular as
received by the audience, young people in particular, in an undiscriminating and
passive way. This perceived inability to actively engage with a media text is
attributable to the view that young people 'acquire cognitive competencies
according to a universal sequence' where they develop from irrational children to
rational adults (Archard 1993: 64). This negative view of young people's
competence has persisted in public discourse in Australia because it suggests a
simple relationship between young people and media. However, these
perspectives also ‘bolster[s] the standing of politicians and possibly reassure[s]
individuals who are anxious about adult control in a time of social change’
(Gillard 2002; Vromen 2004).
Indeed, blaming the media is a relatively easy solution to questions about why
young people become obese ('Warning on fat epidemic for children', The Sunday
Mail, May 30, 2004,) harm others ('TV violence influences adulthood', Courier
Mail, June 14, 2003) or present a menace to society ('Teens run riot on city
trains', The Sunday Mail, November 21, 2004). This idea of young people as
‘defective adults’ or ‘adults in training’ is indicative of the marginalisation of
young people in developed countries such as Australia. Ironically, it is the media
81
itself, composed of working adults, that perpetuates this view among other adults
in the community given the media’s role as an ideological industry.
It is this persistence of an often negative perspective that reinforces the
acknowledgment among the academic community that there is a paucity of
research that appreciates young people as a social group in their own right rather
than exclusively for the adults they will become, or as a consumer market to be
exploited (Rushkoff 1999).
This point reinforces the acknowledgment that the bulk of young people’s media
research has, and continues to be, proprietary and as such is unavailable for
public or academic discussion (Montgomery 2000; Wartella 2000). However,
such research is often commissioned for marketing purposes (CBC 2006) and
has an exploitative purpose rather than an ethical purpose based on respect,
justice and beneficence.
Having identified that young people are worthy of study in their own right, the
role played by media technology in young people's lives is an area of interest
given the adoption rate of new media technologies by Australian families and
community concern about content issues. Research conducted by the Australian
Broadcasting Authority (ABA)4 in response to popular community concerns
about young people's media consumption has highlighted the disparity between
adult perceptions of young people's relationship to media and the views of young
4
The ABA merged with the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) in July 2005 and
became the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
82
people themselves. Such research has acknowledged the active engagement of
young people with their media (Nightingale 2000; Sheldon et al 1994) and
revealed the need for a 'non-judgemental and inter-generational understanding' of
young people and their media consumption at both political and community
levels (Nightingale 2000: 58).It is from this perspective that the ideology of the
RidgiDidge Study is based.
In this respect and cognisant of generational differences in the media cultures of
young people and their parents generation, the importance of distilling the young
person's views on their technology consumption from those of their gatekeepers
is crucial to the pursuit of ethical and useful data (Druin, 1996; Stein in Goodsall,
2001).
Hence, the RidgiDidge Study uses grounded theory methodology to look at how
new media technology figures in the lives of Australian High School students.
An inductive grounded theory approach addresses the research problem by
ascertaining how young people think and feel about their media technology
without relying on a priori assumptions. As outlined earlier, young people’s
media culture is often preoccupied with quantitative methodologies and/or
couched within a media effects debate where young people are seen as passive
and uncritical consumers of media culture. However, the research problem
addressed in this study of young people’s media technology consumption
demands an approach that is oriented ‘towards how technology functions in
specific contexts, focuses on processes rather than effects and is explicitly
oriented towards change’ (Kinder 1999).
83
Australian Childhood
Concepts of childhood describe what childhood is seen to be as
well as prescribe what childhood ought to be (Jamrozic and
Sweeney 1996: 33).
This assertion is evident through the acknowledgment that different cultures have
produced different ‘childhoods’ at different times in history (Woodhead and
Montgomery 2003). As Jenks points out, the range of views about childhood
circulating in contemporary western discourse often originates from the work of
Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau and ‘continue[s] to exercise our theorising about
the child in social life’ (Jenks 1996; Woodhead and Montgomery 2003). With an
Australian focus in mind, it is possible to argue that the social construction of
Australian childhood is a conception predicated on changing adult conceptions
and institutions, rather than the nature and experience of youth childhood itself.
The pursuit of the origins of a contemporary conception of childhood is
important to the RidgiDidge Study in terms of the disparity between adult
conceptions of childhood and the views of the RidgiDidge participants.
As an historical examination of the representation of childhood in European art,
Ariès 1960 work L’Enfant et la vie familiale sous l’ancien régime (translated by
Robert Baldick in 1962 as Centuries of Childhood), put forward the view that
‘concepts of childhood’ did not begin to emerge in a western context until the
late seventeenth century.
The prominent profile of this work has meant that it is often ‘cited as holy writ’
(Manuel (1971) in DeMause 1974), when it perhaps should be seen as raising
84
more questions about childhood than it answers, as its critics would argue
(Archard 1993; Kociumbas 2002; Woodhead and Montgomery 2003).
Ariès (1962) points out that,
In medieval society the idea of childhood did not exist; this is not
to suggest that children were neglected, forsaken or despised. The
idea of childhood is not to be confused with affection for children:
it corresponds to an awareness of the particular nature of
childhood, that particular nature that distinguishes the child from
the adult even the young adult. In medieval society, this awareness
was lacking (1962: 125).
Ariès supports this idea by pointing out that because children were depicted as
miniature adults, then medieval artists did not know childhood or did not attempt
to portray it (Ariès 1962). Ariès develops his thesis through an examination of
the images of children in paintings from the middle Ages and the diary of
Heroard, Henri IV’s physician who chronicled the childhood of Louis XIII. Ariès
use of the medieval depiction of children to support his thesis reveals an opening
for criticism in that ‘paintings are not produced in a social and political vacuum’
(Woodhead and Montgomery 2003), nor are they devoid of expectations of the
commissioner of the work or the artist’s patron.
DeMause’s points out that Ariès assertion that medieval painters did not
accurately depict children because ‘they did not know childhood’ is refuted
through Lasareff’s5 work that puts forward the assertion that medieval painters
could indeed ‘paint realistic children’ (DeMause 1974). DeMause also suggests
5
More ‘realistic’ paintings of children from the early middle ages are discussed in Victor
Lasareff, ‘Studies in the Iconography of the Virgin’, Art Bulletin, 20 (1938), pp. 26-65
85
that Ariès ‘etymological argument for a separate concept of childhood is …
untenable’ (DeMause 1974).
As Archard elaborates,
The French word that Ariès actually uses, and is translated as
‘concept’ is sentiment, rather than idée or concept. Sentiment
connotes both ‘awareness’ and ‘feeling’. A society, which has a
sentiment of children, is both conscious of children as a distinct
group and possessed of a certain attitude towards them as a group.
Ariès allows the term its double meaning even though in the
quoted summary of his view, he seems explicitly to deny that
being aware of children implies being affectionate towards them
(Archard 1993: 17).
DeMause intensifies his criticism by noting that Ariès assertion that the modern
family ‘restricts the child’s freedom and increases the severity of punishment’
(DeMause 1974) is not supported by evidence either.
Although Ariès also alludes to the absence of childcare manuals during the
Middle Ages to support his thesis, there is historical evidence to suggest that
medieval children were both nurtured and treasured by their parents, evidenced
by diary writings, family correspondence and poetry (Archard 1993; Woodhead
and Montgomery 2003).
Ariès suggests that up until the middle Ages children were free to mix with many
classes and ages. However, children were thought to not yet constitute a
permanent part of the family until they reached the age of seven, primarily
because of parental uncertainty about their children’s mortality. Once a child had
survived past this age any emotional investment in the child by the parent was
tempered by the child’s economic contribution to the family (Woodhead and
86
Montgomery 2003; Zelizer 1994) although Ariès does not suggest that children
were treated particularly badly.
Indeed, Ariès dismissal of the sexual molestation of children as simply part of
‘widespread tradition’ (Ariès 1962) is an example of what DeMause describes as
the social historian’s desire to ensure that the practices of the past are perceived
as benign. Rather Ariès suggests that it was the ‘invention’ of childhood resulted
in a ‘tyrannical concept of the family which destroyed friendship and sociability
and deprived children of freedom, inflicting upon them for the first time the birch
and the prison cell’ (DeMause 1974).
DeMause suggests that childhood evolved through a psychogenic evolution from
antiquity to the twentieth century. The ‘cruelty thesis’ espoused by DeMause and
as described by Archard (1993: pp16-20), suggests that ‘children in the past were
the systematic victims of cruel treatment and abuse which nevertheless was not
perceived as other than normal or natural’ (Archard 1993: 16). Indeed, DeMause
puts forward the idea that the evolution of ‘childhood’ features a tension between
the projective and reversal reactions that are a feature of adult-child
relationships.
The child is loved and hated, rewarded and punished, bad and
loving all at once. That this puts the child in a ‘double bind’ goes
without saying. But the conflicting signals themselves come from
adults who are striving to demonstrate that the child is very bad
(projective reaction) and very loving (reversal reaction). It is the
child’s function to reduce the adults pressing anxieties: the child
acts as the adult’s defence (DeMause 1974).
In this way, DeMause suggests that the rampant physical and sexual abuse of
children in history is derived from the adult seeing the child ‘as both full of the
87
adults projected desires, hostilities and sexual thoughts and at the same time as a
mother or father figure’ (DeMause 1974).
This idea is supported by DeMause’s periodisation of modes of parent-child
relations where infanticide, abandonment, swaddling, discipline and sex are
historically documented.
Since some people still kill, beat and sexually abuse children, any
attempt to periodise modes of child rearing must first admit that
psychogenic evolution proceeds at different rates in different
family lines and that many parents appear ‘stuck’ in earlier
historical modes (DeMause 1974).
While a critical view of the Art History of the Middle Ages fuels a lively debate
on the visual representation of childhood, Archard’s semantic criticism of Ariès
thesis is useful to a contextualisation of Australian childhood. Archard highlights
Ariès presentism where Ariès displays ‘his predisposition to interpret the past in
the light of present day attitudes, assumptions and concerns’ (Archard 1993: 18).
Thus while Ariès judges that the past lacked a concept of childhood, what the
past lacked was our concept of childhood.
Previous societies did not fail to think of children as different from adults; it
merely thought about the difference in different ways from ours. Ariès claims to
disclose an absence where he should have only found a dissimilar presence
(Archard 1993).
Archard points out that Ariès’ presentism suggests that contemporary discourse
about children is seen as more appropriate and thus ‘grasps the nature of children
and so leads to morally appropriate behaviour towards them’ (Archard 1993: 19).
88
However, the key point that Archard makes is that ‘to think the past morally
inferior to the present is a further unwarranted presumption’ (Archard 1993: 19).
This point also speaks to the earlier idea about the benign effect attributed by
social historians to the physical and sexual abuse of children in the past. While
Archard’s assertion that we must not think the past morally inferior to the present
is useful in an etymological discussion, the present must also be recognised as
progressing in some sense from the past.
Archard makes clear that Ariès’ distinction between the past and the present is
simply one of the distance between the past and most recent period of human
history and that nothing beyond this needs to be taken as implied by its use. In
this context with periods of time established, Archard enriches his criticism of
Ariès to illustrate the difference between concepts of childhood and conceptions
of childhood.
The concept of childhood requires that children be distinguishable
from adults in respect of some unspecified set of attributes. A
conception of childhood is a specification of those attributes. In
simple terms to have a ‘conception of ‘childhood’ is to recognise
that children differ interestingly from adults; to have a conception
of childhood is to have a view of what those interesting differences
are (Archard 1993: 22).
Archard argues that Ariès argument that the western concept of childhood only
began to develop in the middle Ages references the particular nature of
childhood, suggesting that Ariès’ grasp of childhood is a conception rather than a
concept.
89
Archard asserts that all societies have a concept of childhood and that while
these concepts of childhood might vary in terms of each culture’s changing
conceptions of childhood, the recognition that a child is not an adult is universal.
Archard suggests that conceptions of childhood vary in three different respects
from culture to culture and these are constituted as boundaries, dimensions and
divisions.
The boundary of childhood has occupied many contemporary debates concerning
abortion to the appropriate age of consent and majority. Consider the Japanese
practice of oyako shinj where mothers attempting suicide often kill their children
first as an act of maternal love.
This practice is considered family suicide rather than child murder given that the
child is seen as an extension of the mother. To deliberately leave children
motherless through suicide is not condoned in Japanese society (Woodhead and
Montgomery 2003).
Western debates still rage as to whether childhood begins at birth or at
conception and the age of majority varies from US State to state between the
ages of 18 and 21 years. Indeed the contrasts between cultural constructions of
childhood are striking, despite Australia’s ratification of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1990. Under this convention,
childhood is defined as the life period between a person’s birth and the time they
reach the age of eighteen.
In an Australian context, ratification of the convention meant declaring the
recognition that children have the same human rights as adults; above all the
90
right to be treated with respect for their human dignity (Harvey et al. 1993). In
Archard’s terms, this convention presents itself as a conception of childhood,
within which differing cultural conceptions of childhood must fit.
The fact that different conceptions of childhood have different
boundaries is relevant to a criticism of Ariès. A distinction can be
made between failing to mark any difference between children and
adults, and marking it in the wrong place. Non-modern societies
can be accused of failing to recognise that children are different
from adults or of failing, whilst marking some difference to
include those young persons that ‘we’ do (Archard 1993: 24).
The dimensions of childhood that Archard identifies are those ‘vantage points
from which to detect a difference between children and adults’ (Archard 1993:
25).
He includes moral and judicial perspectives where our conception of childhood
might consider a child incapable of being responsible for their actions;
epistemological or metaphysical perspectives where a child might be seen as
lacking knowledge or reason. In physical terms, these dimensions also extend
towards biological development.
The point Archard makes is that ‘the various dimensions of “childhood” need not
converge in defining one consistent and agreed period in human life’ (Archard
1993). Archard suggests that the most probable choice of defining dimension
will be one that observes prevailing social priorities (Archard 1993: pp. 23-28).
As Archard points out, in a society where sustaining and reproducing life is of
overriding importance the ability to work and bear offspring is a strikingly
obvious mark of maturity.
91
The third of Archard’s variable features of childhood conception is that of its
division. As Archard points out, nearly all cultures recognise a period of infancy
where the child is most dependent on its parent for its survival.
Ariès sees this period as being from birth to the age of seven, although Archard
suggests that weaning is seen by some cultures as more important given that this
takes place during the next pregnancy of the Mother. However this point is
debatable given that breastfeeding is thought to suppress ovulation thus reducing
the incidence of pregnancy.
In this respect, the next child will replace the weaning child as ‘the object of
close maternal attention’ (Archard 1993). In the modern western conception of
childhood, Archard refers to the ‘middle-aged child’ as being between the ages
of 6 and 12, or after a child’s infancy and before its adolescence. In
contemporary Australian discourse, a child experiencing this division of
childhood is referred to as ‘a tween’, and as such now comprises the most
lucrative demographic available to the producers of consumer goods.
Although Ariès claims that adolescence was not recognised until the nineteenth
century, it is argued that conceptions of youth were identified much earlier that
this (Woodhead and Montgomery 2003; Archard 1993; Ariès 1962). However,
this position remains one where it is adults who define the ‘child’ and
‘childhood’ and not children themselves. As Gittins points out, the meanings of
‘child’ and ‘childhood’ are ‘part of adult discourse, adult representations, adult
culture and politics. Representations and discourses are expressed through
imagery and language’. With this as a basis for discussion, Gittins directs
92
attention to the Stainton Rogers postmodernist model of childhood where it is
argued that ‘the whole world’ can be created through narrative and language.
Thus all apparently factual information such as statistics on child mortality, birth
weight and household size, are just as much ‘stories’ as are more obvious
narratives of fictive children such as Alice or Tom Sawyer or Peter Pan (Gittins
1998).
However, while this position supports an anti-essentialist perspective, it also runs
the risk of ‘trivialising and even denying the inequalities based on difference’
(Gittins 1998). As Gittins points out, if young people’s experiences as the
victims of physical or sexual abuse are considered merely ‘stories’, then such
children suffer a second injustice by not being ‘heard or believed’ (Gittins 1998).
This last point is a cautionary tale against the wholesale acceptance of adult
discourses about young people and childhood, where the voice of the child is
absent or disregarded.
However, it is reasonable to suggest that through Archard’s re-contextualisation
of concept/conceptions of childhood and the acknowledgment that such
conceptions are those of adults, that the pursuit of a more realistic conception of
Australian childhood is possible where the views of children hold a position of
weight.
It is important to state that the conceptions of indigenous Australian childhood
are not at issue here in the context of the RidgiDidge Research. This is not to
dismiss the indigenous experience of Australian childhood since white settlement
and before, but to acknowledge that the intricacies and injustices of the
93
indigenous experience cannot be appropriately addressed in the context of this
work. As Kociumbas points out, the impact of white settlement on the
indigenous population since 1788, particularly on the indigenous family structure
‘struck at the very heart of Aboriginal society’ (Kociumbas 1997), a point
echoed in contemporary discourses about the ‘Stolen Generation’ and the issue
of Reconciliation. It is the inability of such a comparatively small work such as
the RidgiDidge study to address such large issues that precludes their full
discussion but demands an awareness of this aspect in charting the trajectory of
Australian childhood. Indeed, it is important to restate Archard’s assertion that
while all societies have a concept of childhood, each society’s conception will be
different predicated on cultural norms.
The differences between indigenous and non-indigenous cultures in Australia,
particularly the indigenous experience of the legal, political and medical systems,
are considered so great as to warrant their separation from this discussion.
However, this does not preclude the usefulness of pursuing research on
indigenous youth and childhood where it intersects with new media technology,
in the future.
Having recognised that all societies have a concept of childhood, but those
conceptions of childhood will vary through time and from culture to culture, the
current conception of Australian childhood can be put in to context in terms of its
development since 1788. In this way it is possible to argue that childhood has not
changed since white settlement but that an Australian conception of childhood in
terms of it boundary, dimension and division has changed according to adult
94
institutions. However, it is important to contextualise early Australian childhood
as a construction gleaned from picking over what can only be described as
fragmentary evidence.
As Factor points out,
It is revealing though not rewarding to comb the many books on
Australian history in search of the lives of children in colonial
Australia (Factor 1981).
Unlike Ariès’ history of the representation of childhood in Europe, Australian
historians have no such rich pictorial history of children from which to draw
histories, despite caricatures and political cartoons of ‘Young Australia’ as a
happy, fat, contented child (Inglis 1981).
The paucity of Australian pictorial material featuring children in the earliest
years of colonisation indicated that children were not only not heard, they were
usually not seen (Larkins and Howard 1981). This perhaps explains why those
writers who have sought to draw out the real history of Australian childhood,
rather than the imagined, have contextualised their work as an outline, as
fragmentary or distilled from many diverse fields (Archard 1993; Factor 1981;
Inglis 1981; Kociumbas 1997; Larkins and Howard 1981). Indeed, while there is
a skeletal history that maps out the early political and social events in the lives of
children, any fleshing out of discussions about colonial children’s relationships
and experiences reveals ‘how little we know and how much there is still to be
discovered’ (Factor 1981). Inglis (1981) suggests that the reason for this paucity
of historical evidence is to be found in the idea that until comparatively recently,
history has been about ‘powerful and articulate males’. Despite the recognition
95
that history is an almost entirely adult domain, Inglis points out that feminist
historians are producing new social histories that tip the balance away from
patriarchal historical discourse.
However, this historical review is unlikely to occur with children’s histories in
that ‘children may not have deposited enough evidence about themselves for
historians to reconstruct their lives thoroughly’ (Inglis 1981). Compounding this
problem is the likelihood that children were and are unlikely to begin writing
their histories themselves. This discussion demonstrates that the modern
conception of childhood is neither simple nor straightforward given differences
between theoretical and cultural perspectives.
Although Ariès work remains an important inclusion in the discussion of
childhood, criticism from DeMause and Archard places Ariès work back into its
appropriate context; as an examination of the representation of childhood in the
Middle Ages. Here 'context' resonates as a means of defining the parameters of
any given childhood in terms of its historical moment. In this way, the Australian
conception of childhood is defined by its boundaries, dimensions and divisions
assigned to it through cultural specificity and the institutions of adults. The
relevance of this position to the RidgiDidge Study is twofold. Firstly, there is the
is the recognition that the general conception of childhood operating at the time
of RidgiDidge Study will be to a significant degree, tempered by the inclusion of
new media technologies in the lives of the participants. Secondly, conceptions of
childhood held by young people about themselves and their peers are likely to
differ from that of the adults around them. With this in mind, the imbrication of
96
Cultural Studies and Sociology leads to a change in emphasis from aesthetic and
moral judgements about culture to the overall map of social relations in whose
interests’ cultural difference and practice are articulated. Thus the idea that
young people's choices in new media technology are a mechanism of social and
cultural power also presents itself as a key theme in the approach to the
RidgiDidge research.
Technological Perspectives
Various approaches towards understanding how new media technology figures in
the lives of young people have jockeyed for position in the available literature on
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) consumption. With this in
mind, this section deals with establishing an outline of the extant literature on the
sociology of technology, providing a template of ideas with which to compare
and contrast the findings of the RidgiDidge Study.
Approaches to Technology
As Mackenzie and Wajcman point out, 'technology' has come to mean 'physical
objects: objects in conjunction with related human activities and knowledge'
(Mackenzie and Wajcman in Grint and Woolgar 1997: 9). Of specific interest to
the RidgiDidge Study is the conceptual space where technology and the human
element meet. In this space, knowledge of technology is social in that it is a
'construction rather than a reflection of the machine's capabilities' (Grint and
Woolgar 1997: 10).
97
However, the social construction of technology exists as a range of theories,
unlike technological determinism that, in its simplest form, it ‘portrays
technology as an exogenous and autonomous development, which coerces and
determines social and economic organisations and relationships’ (Woolgar and
Grint 1997: 11).
Technological determinism appears to advance spontaneously and
inevitably in a manner resembling Darwinian survival in so far as
only the most 'appropriate' innovations survive and only those who
adapt to such innovations prosper (Woolgar and Grint 1997: 11).
A key problem with the technologically determinist perspective is the idea that
society is passive in relation to technology, adapting to it rather than shaping it
(Mackenzie and Wajcman 1999: 5). Indeed, as Grint and Woolgar point out,
technological determinism attracts criticism in terms of the absence of any
reference to technology in context and the idea that it is technologies that 'form
and mould society' (Ling 2004: 23).
The Social Shaping of Technology
In opposition to technical determinism is the range of theories concerned with
the social shaping of technology. At their root, according to Grint and Woolgar is
the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) that 'argues for the "socially
constructed" character of scientific knowledge (Grint and Woolgar 1997: 19).
This in turn has lead to the social construction of technology (SCoT) (Kline and
Pinch 1999); constructivist approaches (Grint and Woolgar 1992); and social
shaping approaches (Mackenzie and Wajcman 1985). This perspective allows
technology to exist in a sociological space so that 'social analysis must "take in to
98
account the technology itself" or "take seriously the content of technology"
(Grint and Woolgar 1997: 19). Thus technologies are acknowledged as being
'continually reinterpreted by users and given new, often unexpected trajectories'
(Ling 2004: 23), a point supported by Orlikowski 1992.
However, there are problems with both technical and socially deterministic
perspectives in that technical determinism sees technology in a vacuum where
the social context of design and use create little impact (Grint and Woolgar 1997:
Ling 2004: Hutchby 2001: Orlikowski 1991). On the other hand, social
determinism taken to extremes sees technology in the context of its social
interpretation and little else. As Ling writes,
A critique of both positions is that while they stake out positions as
to the nature of technology, they seemingly operate at such a high
level of abstraction that there is really no way of proving or
disproving the assertions they make. Given this, we are left to
interpret them as ideological positions used to guide our inquiries.
We can unkindly suggest that both the technological and socially
deterministic positions are left arguing as to how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin (Ling 2004: 24).
Unkindness aside, theoretical ideas that privilege the social aspects of technology
are more useful to the development of the theoretical framework of the
RidgiDidge Study in that they allow for participant reflexivity.
Affordance Theories
The concept of affordance comes from John Gibson's 1979 work on the visual
perception of animals and is the starting point of ideas 'about perception and the
world to be perceived' (Gibson 1982: 55).
As such, this concept has been
discussed in terms of the relationship between technology and people in varying
99
degrees in the work of EJ Gibson (1982), Norman (1988), Qvarsell (1989),
Downes (1999) and Ling (2004).
As Gibson (1979) puts it,
The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal,
what it provides or furnishes for either good, or ill…. It implies the
complementarity of the animal and the environment (JJ Gibson
1979: 127 in EJ Gibson 1982: 56).
Gibson elaborates by pointing out that the ground beneath one's feet affords
support.
It is stand-on-able, permitting an upright position for quadrupeds
and bipeds. It is therefore walk-on-able and run-over-able. It is not
sink-in-able like a surface of water or a swamp, that is, for heavy
terrestrial animals. Support for water bugs is different (JJ Gibson
1979: 127 in EJ Gibson 1982: 56).
In this way, the concept of affordance is 'relative to the posture and behaviour of
the animal being considered' (Gibson 1982: 56). As Downes highlights,
'affordances are neither solely an objective property of the environment nor
solely a subjective property of the observer; they are both' (Downes 1999: 33).
From this perspective, Qvarsell's discussion on the importance of affordance in
children's views on computers facilitates a shift in focus from the effects of
computers on young people. Instead, Qvarsell directs her work towards the
'importance of knowing how children themselves perceive and conceive the
possibilities and functions of computers in and outside school' (Qvarsell 1989:
223). Qvarsell enlists Turkle's concept of the computer as an 'evocative object'
where an object, such as a computer, can be seen in two ways.
Firstly, it might be seen in terms of an 'effects' debate, where the object might
evoke either negative or positive psychological traits. As Qvarsell points out,
100
'this view is quite in line with the way we have historically tended to get control
over popular plays and games that can lead the "uneducated masses" astray'
(Qvarsell 1989: 224). Qvarsell's identification of a phenomenological approach
is useful in illustrating technology as evocative object.
One can genuinely ask what the computer is, as a phenomenon for
youngsters and what functions and aspects of the computer evoke
in the first hand ideas and thoughts, when children approach a
computer as an object. In this case, it is possibly more appropriate
to regard the concept of evocative object as a question of what the
object affords as food for thought, in a manner similar to Gibson's
question on what phenomena afford as perceptual objects. The
question of the computer as an evocative object becomes a
question of trying to describe the computer in terms of its ability to
be used by children both operationally and as food for thought and
reflection (Qvarsell 1989: 224).
However Ling points out that an affordance approach is a narrow approach and
'has been most completely elaborated in the area of design' (Ling 2004: 24)
where affordance becomes a way of determining how an object can be used. As
Norman points out,
Affordances provide strong clues to the operation of things. Plates
are for pushing. Knobs are for turning. Slots are for inserting
things into. Balls are for throwing or bouncing. When affordances
are taken advantage of, the user knows what to do just by looking:
no picture, label or instruction is required. Complex things may
require explanation, but simple things should not (Norman 1989:
9)
It is from this perspective that the concept of affordances becomes an important
idea in tempering the flaws of social or technological determinist approaches.
However, Ling draws attention to two drawbacks in using the concept of
affordance as an approach. Firstly, the individual characteristics of a user are not
accounted for to the same degree as technical design considerations. Ling
101
suggests that what is often interpreted as an affordance might in fact be a learned
behaviour. Using the example of mobile telephony, Ling points out that the
success and popularity of SMS in comparison to the relative difficulty of
composing messages and accessing menus 'results from determined individuals
who persevered in their desire to communicate. To simply call this an affordance
stops short' (Ling 2004: 25). This statement recognises 'the difficulty of the
affordances approach in describing the broader social motivations for the
adoption of text messaging' (Ling 2004: 25).
Ling also identifies a tautological problem with the affordances approach in that,
If an object is used a certain way, then it has an affordance for that
use. In a sense A=A. There is no analytical leverage in this
equation. Any use to which an object is put can be interpreted as a
naturally arising characterisation with that object (Ling 2004: 25).
Domestication of Technology
Given the problematic nature of technological and socially deterministic
approaches discussed on page 97, and the 'narrowness' of an affordance
approach, the domestication of technology emerges as a useful approach in
dealing with the role media technology plays people's lives. The concept of the
domestication of technology was originally used in British studies on
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the home and the
interactions between household members. Research about this relationship was
later extended to include mobile telephony and social networks outside the home
(Haddon 2003: 43-4). As Haddon points out, several assumptions support the
domestication approach that can be described as 'a package of understandings'.
102
Firstly, there is an emphasis on consumption rather than simply use.
We have to be aware of individual and household aspects, and
strategies to control technologies, both in the sense of controlling
use by others and controlling the place of technologies in one's
own life, which, in turn, relate to the life and identity to which
people aspire. And if we are to appreciate fully the symbolic
dimensions of ICT's, we need to see aspects of consumption such
as how technologies are talked about and displayed (Haddon 2003:
45).
Secondly, adoption is seen as a process rather than an event in that early
perceptions about a technology or service inform the process of acquiring a
technology or not as the case may be. Experimentation with a new technology
leads to the 'routinisation' of its consumption. Relatedly, this routinisation leads
to domestication or the 'taming of the wild' where ICT's are taken from 'the
public domain but then made personal, or, in these early studies in the domestic
context, made to be part of the home' (Haddon 2003: 46). Haddon's fourth theme
'is that attention must be paid to individuals in context', a theme that recognises
the role of gatekeepers, communal household practices and the idea that
individuals can also exhibit ambivalence towards any given technology.
Nevertheless, the validity of a domestication approach is best illustrated by the
cycle of adoption that features 'imagination, appropriation, objectification
incorporation and conversion' (Ling 2004: 28).
To elaborate, imagination is the point at which the idea of the technology enters
the individual consciousness; appropriation, the acquisition of the item;
objectification speaks to 'how a particular object or service comes to play out our
values and sense of aesthetic' (Ling 2004: 29).
103
Incorporation occurs in the functional sense where artefacts are routinised, while
conversion is where an artefact 'becomes an element in others estimation of us'
(Ling 2004: 30). In basic terms, this is the trajectory where an individual
becomes aware of a technology, sees how it can be of use, associates a sense of
identity with the technology, makes it part of their life before finally becoming
identified with use of the technology. However, Ling draws attention to several
caveats about the domestication approach. Firstly it works on the micro-level
rather than a technologically deterministic macro-scale. In this respect, it is an
approach ideally suited to smaller studies such as the RidgiDidge study.
Secondly, the domestication cycle can be linear in terms of the consumption
process, but it is also flexible enough to keep pace with the capriciousness of the
individual. As Ling points out 'people seem quite agile in the ability to mentally
objectify items long before the actual purchase has taken place' (Ling 2004: 30).
Despite various meanings being ascribed to 'technology', the focus of the work
here is on the relations between young people and technology. This focus
favours a social construction of technology approach although criticism
contextualises this position as more of a guiding ideology.
An awareness of affordance, particularly as Qvarsell contextualises it, opens the
door to the idea that technology is an evocative object in a recreational, or extracurricular context as well as in an educational setting. However, as Ling points
out, affordance is more completely elaborated at the design stage, making an
affordance approach somewhat narrow in its application. The problem then, as
far as the RidgiDidge Study is concerned, is compounded by the possibility that
104
affordance is a learned behaviour and that it lacks the analytical leverage
necessary for what is admittedly a complex set of relations. Nevertheless, its
inclusion here highlights the problems of both technical and socially
deterministic approaches in that 'it articulates the physical and the social
imbedding of artefacts into our lives' (Ling 2004: 25). This 'imbedding' speaks to
the idea of technology consumption. This heralds a domestication approach that
accounts for the domestication of technology by individual users. It is at this
nexus of approaches that the theoretical framework of the RidgiDidge Study
comes into relief.
Extant Australian Research Literature
The preceding section of the current chapter deals with the search for a
theoretical framework that best suits the research problem in extracting
perspectives from the three main theoretical areas of psychology, sociology, and
technology associated with research on young people and technology. This
following chapter section deals with an overview of the extant research on young
Australian's media technology consumption.
In keeping with the grounded theory methodology that structures the RidgiDidge
Study, this literature comparison phase is useful in contextualising the results
and emergent theory against extant knowledge as well as locating areas for future
research. This process also has the benefit of locating the RidgiDidge Study
research on a continuum of research already conducted about young people and
media, specifically in a contemporary Australian context.
105
The implications of this literature comparison phase are discussed in more detail
in Conclusions and Implications on page 326. The preponderance of research on
young people and media has focussed on media effects and content issues
(Buckingham 2003; Livingstone 2002), while the RidgiDidge Study is concerned
with how media technology figures in the lives of young people. Such a
divergence in focus might suggest incompatibility between research themes, but
Livingstone points out that the concerns behind the effects tradition ‘may be
better addressed by a more contextualised analysis of the meanings and practices
which constitute children and young people’s life worlds, locating adoption of
new media within this account’ (Livingstone 2002: 24).
Such concerns are expressed in community attitudes and public debate resulting
in the acknowledgement that young people are a special case, particularly where
media is involved.
Keys describes this concern in a contemporary Australian context as the
recognition that the relationship between young people and media is special
‘requiring special responsibilities to be assumed by the government and the adult
population in general’ (Keys 1999: 9). Keys relates this outlook to the
dichotomous position and definition of children and young people in society as
‘innocent, natural and in need of protection’ on one hand and as
‘underdeveloped, irrational and incomplete’ on the other (Keys 1999: 9).
However, Livingstone draws attention to the lack of discussion about media as
technology or content within the new sociology of childhood (Qvortrup 1994;
James 1998; Corsaro 1997) or the sociology of the family. This knowledge gap
106
is especially perplexing given a high level of media saturation and technology
adoption in developed countries such as Australia. With a comparative absence
of discussion in media and cultural studies (Buckingham 2003: 174) about media
technologies beyond reported statistical patterns of usage and ‘effects’ studies,
the interdisciplinary lacunae the RidgiDidge Study addresses is clear.
The RidgiDidge Study reconciles an interdisciplinary gap by seeing young
people as a ‘special’ but competent category; looking at media technology rather
than content issues, and; relating this relationship to the contemporary
conception of childhood itself. This is not to say that the vast array of research on
young people, media, technology and society has little to offer new research as a
comparison or a benchmark because it simply does not directly address a specific
focus. Rather, what is suggested here is that; providing that there is an awareness
of the research context of the extant literature, it is possible to find useful
insights into how young people use and consume media technology in Australia,
regardless of the specific focus of the research. For example, in Children's Views
about Media Harm (ABA 2000: 58), a collaborative project between the
University of Western Sydney and the Australian Broadcasting Authority, the
research objectives were:
i. To illustrate the understanding children hold about media harm
in
the context of their everyday experiences of media
regulation;
ii. To explore the different media experiences and forms of media
regulation described by children who use a broad range of
media, including television, pay TV and the internet; and
iii. To identify any changes taking place in children's access to
adult
material as a result of an expanding array of media and
107
internet availability, particularly in regard to the availability of
violent and
pornographic material.
The quality of the research and its discussion presented in the published
monograph are such that the perspectives of the research participants about
media technology itself are glimpsed despite a research emphasis on their
perceptions of media harm. The observation that 'the children in the focus groups
did not assume, as many adults do, that technological change means more risks
for children' (ABA 2000: 57) is one such serendipitous statement useful to
research such as the RidgiDidge Study.
In this way, a research focus on content issues can also reveal other aspects of
media consumption not necessarily sought by the research authors themselves.
As Buckingham points out, young people’s relationship to television in particular
has generated over seven thousand research accounts from around the world
since television’s introduction in the 1950s (Buckingham 2003: 163). According
to media research criticism, these research accounts are varied in terms of depth
and quality of research, and their disciplinary context (Gauntlett 1998; Barker
and Petley 2001; Buckingham 2003). The question of how to sort or categorise
such an extensive body of research is addressed by Alasuutari (1999). So as to
suggest a '"story line" in cultural media research', Alasuutari suggests dividing
reception studies and audience ethnographies into three phases as a way of
'pointing out an emergent trend, a direction audience research could take'
(Alasuutari 1999: 1). From this perspective, Alasuutari outlines first generation
of reception research that began with Hall's (1974) Encoding and Decoding in
the Television Discourse, part of the body of work generated by the Centre for
108
Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) that carried on and readdressed the
themes of the American 'uses and gratifications' paradigm, although Alasuutari
acknowledges that reception theory has other roots as well (Alasuutari 1999: 2).
The second generation foregrounds audience ethnography in terms of adopting a
qualitative approach, although this approach is subject to criticism and is not
without its difficulties (Nightingale 1989; Alasuutari 1999). The third generation
of reception studies Alasuutari discusses is not a defined paradigm, but rather 'an
emergent trend' that 'conceives of the media and media use' in terms of
contemporary media culture and the role of media in everyday life (Alasuutari
1999: 6).
The RidgiDidge Study locates itself as part of this emergent trend in its
interdisciplinary approach and focus on technology rather than content. As
Alasuutari puts it, critical, reflective and empirical research in the face of rapid
social change has the capacity to reinvigorate media research. Thus, the task of
the emerging new agenda of cultural audience studies is to study different
phenomena related to contemporary media cultures empirically, and in such a
way that researchers are not blinded by their own fears and concerns' (Alasuutari
1999: 17). With this in mind and with an awareness of the 'story' of cultural
media research, the Australian research story comes into relief.
The history of moral panics about media in the lives of young people is long and
varied (Wartella 2000; Barker and Petley 2001; Buckingham 2003), and adult
concern for young people has always been a factor in public debate in relation to
media. Buckingham draws attention to Plato’s proposed ban of the dramatic
109
poets from his republic lest their ‘stories about the immoral antics of the gods
would influence impressionable young minds’ (Buckingham 2003: 165) as an
illustration that public debate and concern for young people is nothing new.
As Keys makes clear,
Debates about what knowledges and experiences children should
or should not have access to are in fact debates about much
broader moral and political concerns (Keys 1999: 9).
Contemporary Australian research on young people and their relationship to the
media in their lives is a clear part of those debates and concerns. Gillard (2002)
points out that concerns about young people and media have been articulated by
a number of groups such as the broadcasting industry, media production,
researchers and the public. Nevertheless, contemporary concern about Australian
young people and the media can be traced back to the prevalence of radio as an
early mass media form.
In 1945, the Australian Teachers Association (ATA) expressed concern over the
content of children’s radio programming in terms of a lack of content designed
specifically for young people and the problems of exposure to adult content
(Keys 1999: 14).
The subsequent conference between the Post Master General and the ATA
produced a ‘List of Principles to Govern Children’s Programs’, which in turn
informed the development of a draft code that the Federation of Commercial
Broadcasters agreed to adopt. This concern for young people and their media
consumption highlights awareness that the government and adult society of the
110
day acknowledged the assumption of a ‘special’ responsibility toward young
people.
Keys (1999) goes on to draw attention to the early days of television
broadcasting in Australian where the first committee to advise the Australian
Broadcasting Control Board on children’s programming in 1957 appreciated the
need for commercial broadcasters to recoup their capital expenditure at the
expense of fulfilling any obligation to the community. As Keys points out, this
committee was ironically composed of ‘experts from the fields of education,
psychology and child development’ (Keys 1999: 14).
The second committee to advise the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in
1959 had a more balanced outlook given the involvement of members
experienced in television production, children’s theatre and broadcasting
industry executives. This second committee expressed the need for networks to
fulfil their obligations to the community. This change in perspective was to
continue through the introduction of television in Australia. The 1953 Australian
Royal Commission on Television recommended that national stations would
broadcast age-specific material for children.
Commercial stations were to make provision for children in their scheduling and
this would be taken in to account at licence renewal time (Keys 1999: 14). Keys
identifies this as the beginning of the development of Australian television
industry practice towards young people with standards for children’s television
being instituted in 1956.
111
Keys’ analysis of the Children’s Advisory Committee documents of the time
reveals that their role, as Australian Broadcasting Control Board advisors on the
adequacy of children’s television programs, adopted a Reithian concept of
broadcasting to children that constructed children as proto-citizens who needed
to be ‘directed towards high moral, clean living, spiritual and physical integrity’
(Keys 1999: 15).
The development of age-specific broadcasting was instituted in the 1960s in
keeping step with developments in childhood research, suggested by the 1963
Vincent Committee’s findings and the subject of children’s television policy
continued to be a topic of debate during the 1970s and beyond, particularly in
relation to the emergence of converged and new forms of media. During this
period, ideas about media such as television and radio featured a preoccupation
with content issues and the possibility of either positive or negative ‘effects’.
Gillard asserts that the last 20 years of Australian research on young people,
television and new media has ‘turned on its head what was once common
wisdom’ (Gillard 2002: 65).
Gillard recognises two research trajectories from this era. One arc follows the
expansion and exploration of ideas about young people as a media audience in
the midst of public debate. The other sees research increasingly being relegated
to the ‘small worlds of private companies, universities and organisations’
(Gillard 2002: 80). The problem with such a bifurcation in research areas and
practice is that it prevents the innovative and sustained research needed in
addressing a rapidly evolving technoscape and the consideration required in
112
nurturing the young people who play and interact there. Gillard isolates the late
1970s as the time when anxiety about television and its social impact manifested
itself as the condemnation of parents who allowed their children to watch
television. Gillard highlights Winn’s The Plug-in Drug (1977) as a key work of
the period, noting its dismissal of the pursuit of quality broadcasting for young
people as simply a quest for ‘a superior drug’.
The Australian perspective emerged, then also based within a US ‘effects’
tradition of research, in Tindall, Reid and Gordon’s Television: 20th Century
Cyclops (1975), with this work focussed on television itself rather than perceived
parental shortcomings.
Tindall, Reid and Gordon made their recommendations based on the premise that
television ‘belongs to the community and not to advertisers or shareholders’
(Tindall, Reid and Gordon 1975: 158). Indeed, research from this era
contextualised young people’s relationship to television as passive, with ‘very
little notice taken of the viewing environment or children’s own interactions and
experiences’ (Gillard 2002: 66).
However, the institution of the South Australian Council for Children’s Film and
Television, now Young Media Australia, heralded a move away from the
pontifications of ‘middle class experts’ such as Winn (Gillard 2002: 66) towards
a more rational desire to develop quality broadcasting for young people. Gillard
draws attention to the work of activists such as Patricia Edgar who as a member
of the Children’s Program Committee, worked to develop children’s television
113
regulations that later became the Children’s Television Standards in 1984
(Gillard 2002: 67).
Gillard also points out that the principle virtue of the Children’s Program
Committee ‘was its creation of a process whereby researchers, community
members and TV producers cooperated to support quality children’s television’
(Gillard 2002: 67). According to Gillard, the 1980s saw links being developed
between networks and universities ‘resulting in research about children as an
audience that was relevant to program makers’ citing the Children in front of the
small screen (Noble 1975) as a key work in children's social uses of television
programming (Gillard 2002: 67).
Networks were able to fund research that focused on the child’s perspective on
television content rather than statistical patterns of viewing and adult
judgements.
The emergent consensus from research in the 1980’s was an acknowledgement
that young people, when thought of as an audience, were not a homogenous
mass, but made up of different age groups, genders, understanding and tastes.
However, network funding and the resulting research were viewed with
suspicion in academic circles despite the opportunities for researchers to engage
in sustained and larger scale research (Gillard 2002: 68). Gillard draws on her
own experience in pointing out that the networks saw this type of research as the
networks push to gain ‘brownie points’ at license renewal time. Nevertheless, the
trade off for researchers like Gillard was ‘a very free hand in all aspects of the
research itself, including the fieldwork, analysis and reporting’ (Gillard 2002:
114
69). Indeed, Hodge and Tripp's network funded research for Children and
Television: a Semiotic Approach (1986) continues to resonate with the
development of 'Ten Theses on Children and Television' (Hodge and Tripp 1994:
174-179) that remain cogent to contemporary discussions of new media. Gillard
counts her own work during the 1980s as part of the trend in natural observation
techniques that were to ultimately begin to reveal the social context of children’s
viewing (Palmer 1986).
It is the contextualisation of viewing practices alongside survey information that
Gillard identifies as producing the opportunity to make comparison about young
people’s media consumption over time.
From this perspective, Gillard draws attention to the work of the Australian
Broadcasting Authority (ABA) and its collaborators as perhaps the best examples
of
Australian
research,
addressing
pertinent
issues
with
innovative
methodologies (Gillard 2002: 79) under a statutory mandate.
This work of the ABA continues under the new name of the Australian
Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), a change that came about as
part of the restructuring of Australia’s broadcasting regulators in July 2005.
Prior to this regulatory restructuring, the ABA commissioned a series of research
monographs in partnership with the Office of Film and Literature Classification
(OFLC) and the University of Western Sydney. Under the Broadcasting Services
Act 1992, the ABA, and now the ACMA, has a statutory responsibility to
consider the interests of young people in relation to broadcasting through section
158 (g) of the Act ‘to conduct or commission research into community attitudes
115
on issues relating to programs’. The OFLC is similarly obliged by the Australian
Law Reform Commission (1991) to ‘ensure members are kept up to date with the
values and attitudes of the wider community’ (Cupitt and Stockbridge 1996:
xvi). Although the monographs are primarily concerned with broadcast and
electronic content, the quality of this research has produced a cogent portrait of
young people and their views towards broadcast media generally.
Gillard identifies two key differences in television consumption and
understanding among children that emerged in the early 1990’s from the ABA
research. Firstly, Gillard cites the Australian Broadcasting Authority Monograph
4, ‘Cool’ or ‘Gross’: Children’s attitudes to violence, kissing and swearing on
television (Sheldon, Ramsey and Loncar 1994) in revealing that children’s
consumption of news had increased despite young viewers encountering a high
level of discomfort in response to disturbing news images. The second difference
Gillard identifies is the greater sophistication of young audiences in terms of
recognising special effects and the use of VCR technology to ‘constantly repeat
segments to find out how special effects are put together’ (Gillard 2002: 71).
Increases in the consumption of sporting content among boys, and children’s
ability to draw on their own social capital to enjoy an understand narratives are
acknowledged by Gillard in terms of drawing attention to the use of cultural
theories in media research.
What follows here is an overview of key Australian research as well the
inclusion of validating European perspectives in the contextualising the results of
the RidgiDidge Study. Given the RidgiDidge Study’s focus on new electronic
116
media technology, it is reasonable to take the Australian Broadcasting
Authority’s research Families and Electronic Entertainment (Cupitt and
Stockbridge 1996), as a starting point given its assertion that ‘Australian families
were adapting new media to their household values’ (Gillard 2002: 73).
According to Cupitt and Stockbridge, in 1996, parents were not overly concerned
with the amount of time spent by their children with electronic media, believing
that there was a reasonable balance in their children’s lives. Households with
young people had more media technologies with some technologies being
located in young people’s bedrooms although communal viewing was a
dominant trend in these results. The completion of homework and chores were
regulating factors in young people’s media consumption and levels of parental
expertise were not necessarily a factor in the type or use of electronic
entertainment.
The usefulness of the specialised discussion of media technology is reflected in
Downes Children’s use of Computers in their homes (1998).
Downes PhD Thesis focuses on the interaction of children and technology, in
particular the use of computers in the home. Downes proclaims her results as a
blended contribution between Gibson’s theory of Affordances (1979) and the
childhood studies as defined by James and Prout (1990). While this approach has
theoretical implications for interdisciplinary research and pedagogical practice,
the inclusion of an affordances approach suggests a view of the relationship
between humans and technology that does not readily accommodate agency nor
117
account for the complexities of young people’s relationship to media technology
(see Affordance Theories on page 99).
Griffiths (1998) research on the television viewing culture of 13 and 14 year old
Canberrans does, however, emphasise social contexts that influence the uses and
attitudes towards television. Like Downes, the inclusion of a structural
perspective is implicit in the work, although Griffith’s conclusion privileges the
views of her participants in presenting her results over the needs of the adultcentric research goals specified in Downes (Downes 1998: 280).
Griffith’s research shows that sport is the most popular activity for her Canberran
research participants, with more boys than girls participating in sporting activity.
Parents played a significant role in regulating how spare time was spent,
establishing domestic routines, with media consumption revolving around
chores, homework and other activities. Griffith’s stresses that ‘parental
behaviours form social frameworks which impact on the viewing culture of
adolescents’ (1998: 229).
Peer group influence in Griffith’s study has a significant impact on viewing
culture, or perceptions of it at least, with ‘coolness’ necessitating knowledge of
the programs other peer group members were watching. Talking about television
was significant with her participants as were the uses of other media technologies
and non-electronic media such as books. Griffith concludes that teenagers are a
special audience in that they are sophisticated self-aware readers and users of
television and other media texts. As Griffith’s points out, viewing cultures are
118
likely to vary from region to region and more research is needed to add to the
growing body of Australian research.
Durkin and Aisbett’s 1999 work Computer Games and Australians Today is one
such study, but with an emphasis on emphasis on peer interaction and the
interactive nature of gaming itself. In Computer Games and Australians Today
(1999), Durkin and Aisbett address the nature of the gaming product range and
its market, using quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Durkin and Aisbett
make clear that, the subject of young Australians and computer gaming need not
be seen as inherently problematic and that the time is ripe to listen to what
research participants and their families and communities have to say about the
experiences and perceptions of gaming (Durkin and Aisbett 1999: xi).
Essentially, the findings of Computer Games and Australians Today show that
gaming is a popular activity for young people between 12-17 years of age and
adults with 54% of adults having played a game within a twelve month time
frame. However, as a recreational activity, gaming lags behind sport and other
outdoor pursuits as a preferred activity, although males rate this activity more
highly than females. In the RidgiDidge Study, the social nature of game playing
is highlighted and the most popular gaming features concern high quality
graphics, sound game levels and multi-player functionality. In 1999, 29% of
adults were concerned about gaming and the well being of young people
although this concern was well behind issues such as drugs, education, personal
safety and education. In terms of violent content, displacement was highlighted
in that most respondents felt that such content was unlikely to affect their own
119
behaviour. Differences in realism and interactivity were key differentiations
between gaming and films and most young people were aware of the
classification of computer games. Durkin and Aisbett also found that young
people were sustaining their interest in gaming, continuing to play games into
adulthood.
Durkin’s earlier work (1995) in reviewing the literature from research journals
between the early 1980s to early 1995 found that an addictive relationship to
gaming was rare; gaming is usually held in perspective with other activities
although playing is often initially quite enthusiastic; there is very little evidence
to support the claim that gaming is bad for the physical health of players; there is
no strong evidence to support a correlation between gaming and aggression; that
gaming increases social involvement; gains in cognitive ability, symbolic
representation and motor skills are apparent in game players, and; the main
characteristic to differentiate game players from non-game players is gender with
more males playing games (Durkin and Aisbett 1999: pp 1-6).
Nevertheless, Durkin and Aisbett’s inclusion of observational data on arcade
gaming is indicative of the comparatively rapid change in new media technology
consumption and choice in the location of that consumption given that arcade
gaming has long since been superseded by the accessibility and popularity of
home games consoles.
In keeping with the positive perspective of Computer Games and Australians
Today is Aisbett's work 20 years of C: Children's television programs and
regulation 1979-1999 (2000). This research indicates that the 'quality, quantity
120
and diversity of programming available for Australian children on commercial
television has improved' (Aisbett 2000: 55) and is part of an ongoing and more
visible research tradition that addresses television issues. In terms of internet
research, Aisbett’s 2001 work The Internet at home: a report on Internet use in
the home, and the later study Kidsonline@home (NetRatings Australia 2005) are
part of the specialisation of research on young Australian’s media consumption.
Aisbett's work focuses on the impact of the internet on the family while
Kidsonline@home considers mobile phone communication, the uses and patterns
of internet use and strategies for online safety in accordance with the federal
NetAlert initiative. Kidsonline@home showed that parents were aware of
internet safety but that internet safety needed to be a continuing part of the
community education agenda. Kidsonline@home revealed clear differences
between parents' and childrens’ concerns about online safety with 92% of parents
indicating concern about their child's use of the Internet. Young people were
concerned about hackers, spyware and exposure to pornography with online
communication with strangers and span being indicated issues of concern.
Mobile phone use among young people was high and parental concern about
their children’s use of mobiles generally relate to the costs of use, and not
content issues.
As a special body of research, Gillard holds up the Australian Broadcasting
Authority’s collaboration with the University of Western Sydney’s Monograph
10 Children’s Views about Media Harm as a benchmark in addressing Australian
121
research that looks at young people’s perceptions about classification, testing the
adult notion of media harm.
This research builds on the Australian Broadcasting Authority’s earlier research
published as ‘Cool or Gross’ Children’s attitudes to violence, kissing and
swearing on television (1994) and Kids Talk TV: ‘super wikid’ or ‘dum’ (1996).
As Gillard rightly points out, Children’s Views about Media Harm addresses a
key anomaly in young people’s media research which is the absence of young
people’s voices (Buckingham 2003; Gillard 2002; Gauntlett 1998). Indeed,
Children’s Views about Media Harm makes several recommendations
concerning the inclusion of young people's views in community regulatory
activity (ABA 2000: 57). This includes a call for a non-judgemental and intergenerational understanding of children's uses of, and views about the media and
media harm issues; the inclusion of media literacy programs on the school
curriculum including new media literacies, and; classification and program
advice that is 'sufficient for young people to 'judge their capacity to handle
certain media material' (ABA 2000: 57).
This outline of Australian media research, when set against the backdrop of
Alasuutari's notion of three phases of audience and reception studies, shows that
Australian research is part of an emergent trend that deals with contemporary
media culture particularly in its role in the everyday life worlds of young people.
What these developments in research means is a shift towards ‘research that has
new audience theory as its conceptual base, rather than resorting to the
122
demographic matrices that underpin most industry as well as academic audience
research’ (Gillard 2002: 75).
It is from this perspective that the RidgiDidge Study aligns itself in terms of
seeing young people as competent research partners, who are singularly qualified
to shed light on their own media experiences in the context of their everyday
lives, and by extension, the experience of the contemporary conception of
childhood itself.
123
124
3. Methodology
We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself
but nature exposed to our method of questioning (Heisenberg in
Physics and Philosophy: Revolution in Modern Science, 1959).
The previous chapter outlined the RidgiDidge Study in terms of its objective in
generating a grounded theory of young people’s media technology consumption
and addressing the origin of the research problem. The introduction indicated
significance of the RidgiDidge Study as well as delimiting the scope of the
research. Further to the purpose of introducing the thesis material is the inclusion
of the organisational profile of the RidgiDidge Study given that the demands of a
grounded theory methodology demand a departure from a traditional thesis
format. The implementation of grounded theory among young people also
necessitates the need to outline the special considerations employed in
developing the RidgiDidge Study for its ethical and practical application.
This chapter presents grounded theory method in terms of its history, criticism
and its defining characteristics. In doing so, the criteria for the evaluation of the
methodology are laid out as well as signposting how grounded theory
methodology is suited to addressing the research problem. The area of research
explored in this thesis is the intersection between new media technology and
Australian childhood.
The importance of exploring this intersection lays in the young person's potential
as a contributor to society (Martineau 1997: 225) and by extension ‘the
125
relationship between children’s media culture and its larger social context’
(Kinder 1999: 3).
Indeed, this notion of young people as a special group has gained currency
through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Kofi Annan,
Secretary-General of the United Nations points out, the convention recognises
the idea that ‘tomorrow’s world may be influenced by science and technology,
but more than anything, it is already taking shape in the bodies and minds of our
children’ (Annan 2003).
With this in mind, to approach the field of young people and new media
technology from a purely bibliographic perspective suggests failure to capture
the comparative immediacy and capriciousness of young people’s uses of new
media technology. The rapid adoption of new media technologies has led to the
acknowledgment among the research community that keeping pace with
developments in new media technologies is problematic at best (Larson 1999:
13).
Given Australia’s enthusiasm for technology, indicated in its ranking at third in
the world on the National Office for the Information Economy’s NOIE Index
(NOIE 2002), the relatively static nature of academic research can reasonably
become out of step with rates of technological change and adoption shown by
developed countries such as Australia.
Such a ranking is based on range of indicators relating to Information
Technology progress in comparison with fourteen other developed nations, each
of whom has ‘demonstrated a high use and adoption of technologies’ (NOIE,
126
2002: 6). The Australian Government report, The Current State of Play indicates
that Australia is still at the forefront of the ‘emerging global information
economy’ (DCITA 2004: 5).
The inherent problem of rapid technological adoption is that there is little time to
consider the impacts of technology where it intersects with childhood and youth.
As Healey suggests, the young people of developed nations are the subjects of a
vast optimistic experiment that is enthusiastically supported by corporations, the
public and their governments (Healey 1998; 17). This perspective suggests that it
is necessary to pursue a flexible and immediate approach where the intersection
between new media technologies and young people is examined directly.
However, as Seiter points out, much of the current research on young people and
new media technology tends to emphasise ‘information-seeking and statistical
patterns of usage’, while perceptions about and the cultural context of new media
is unclear (Seiter 2000: 227). Added to this research imbalance are calls to
develop appropriate methodologies (Wartella 2000b: 19) that would account for
the complexities of a young person’s relationship to new media technologies and
the added dimension this brings to established research methods.
Under these research conditions, the application of a grounded theory approach
appears to present an appropriate methodology to use in addressing research
issues concerning young people. The propriety of such an approach lies in its
properties for generating theory, a function that might overcome the problems
associated with defining the cultural context of new media technology as well as
the inherent obsolescence of media theories in the face of technological flux.
127
Grounded theory method guards against ‘the eternal danger that scientists lean
too heavily on inherited dogma or theories’ (Hutchinson 1986: 111) and
acknowledges that people make sense of the world around them in their own
ways although this world may seem ‘disordered or nonsensical’ to the casual
observer.
With this in mind, the grounded theory method used in the RidgiDidge Study
generates a middle-range substantive theory that explains how new media
technology figures in the lives of a group of young people on a day-to-day basis,
according to those young people themselves.
In clarifying the RidgiDidge Study’s use of grounded theory method, the
following discussion outlines grounded theory in terms of its origin, evolution
and practice focusing on the nomothetic principles of grounded theory and their
application to the RidgiDidge Study. Critical issues such as ‘method slurring’ are
discussed and serve to highlight how the potential pitfalls of this method are
addressed and dealt with in the RidgiDidge Study.
Grounded Theory
Formulated in the 1960s by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss,
grounded theory emerged as a contrast to the hypothetico-deductive theories of
the 1950s and 1960s and the subsequent logico-deductive, or ‘great man’
theories, of Mead, Weber and Durkheim (Stern 1994).
Glaser and Strauss developed grounded theory method as a challenge to the
arbitrary division between theory and research; the belief that qualitative
128
methods were impressionistic and unsystematic; the separation of data collection
and its analysis, and the assumption that qualitative work is only a precursor to
rigorous quantitative methodologies and not capable of theory development in its
own right (Charmaz 2001: 335; Glaser and Strauss 1967).
Haig describes grounded theory as a ‘problem-solving endeavour concerned with
understanding action from the perspective of the human agent’ (Haig 1995: 1).
Grounded theory is a qualitative research approach that utilises many forms of
data such as memos, literature, observation and interviews that are then analysed
using coding and sampling procedures, before being written-up and presented as
an emergent theory.
The primary distinction between a grounded theory approach and a logicodeductive methodology is that a grounded theory is one in which theory is
discovered from data ‘systematically obtained from social research’ (Glaser
1967: 2). This perspective is born of a ‘mixed marriage’ between Glaser’s
training in quantitative survey methods of sociological research at Columbia
University and Strauss’ background in the symbolic interactionist tradition of
qualitative research as taught and practised at the University of Chicago (Dey
1999: 25). In this context, the social interactionist stresses that people construct
their realities from the symbols around them through interaction; therefore,
individuals are active participants in creating meaning in a situation (Morse and
Field 1995: 27).
Stern asserts that within this framework, the researcher also assumes that
information provided by participants is accurate and true (Stern 1994: 215).
129
Under these conditions, Glaser and Strauss posit that grounded theory emerges
from the data itself during the data gathering process, leaving no room to deduce
a theory from a priori ideas about data at the conclusion of the research. In this
way, theory cannot be divorced ‘from the process by which it was generated’
(Glaser 1967: 5).
This idea is at the heart of Glaser and Strauss’ polemic against logico-deductive
research approaches. It is their contention that it is the data that should discipline
the theory, an idea that they see as ‘forestall[ing] the opportunistic use of theories
that have dubious fit and working capacity’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 4). It is
this key aspect of grounded theory method that lends itself so well to ethical
research with young people practiced by the RidgiDidge Study in that it is the
participants’ views that discipline the research and thus the potential for
researcher bias is substantially reduced. This core value addresses the need for
research that is neither impersonal nor purely statistical.
With an avoidance of a priori ideas in mind, grounded theory method begins
with a tentative literature review only, rather than developing a hypothesis to test
based on a deep and extensive engagement with the literature. As Goulding
makes clear, the grounded theorist should only be reading for ideas with a view
to connecting these to the developing theory so that theoretical sensitivity is
enhanced. Only when the emergent theory has substance should the researcher
review the literature directly related to the field of study (Goulding 2002: 71).
Glaser and Strauss emphasise the flexibility of a grounded theory approach in
that while the dynamic between data and theory remains constant, the form in
130
which the theory is presented can be either ‘a well-codified set of propositions or
in a running theoretical discussion, using conceptual categories and their
properties’ (Glaser 1967: 31). This point emphasises their assertion that a theory
is a theory because it explains or predicts something, not because of the form of
its presentation (Glaser 1967: 31).
A theory provides the best comprehensive, coherent and simplest
model for linking diverse and unrelated facts in a useful and
pragmatic way. It is a way of revealing the obvious, the implicit,
the unrecognised and the unknown. Theorizing is the process of
constructing alternative explanations until a “best fit” that explains
the data is most simply obtained. This involves asking questions of
the data that will create links to established theory (Morse in
Goulding 2002: 45).
This idea signals the uses and applications of grounded theory method. As Stern
suggests the best use of grounded theory is in ‘investigations of relatively
unchartered water, or to gain a fresh perspective in a familiar situation’
(Manteuffel 2002: 2; Hutchinson 1986) such is the area of young people and
media.
Given the relative paucity of publicly available information on the intersection
between new media technology and Australian childhood, the application of
grounded theory method to this research area seems appropriate. What is of
particular interest to the RidgiDidge Study is how young people feel and think
about the new media technology in their lives, concepts not readily derived from
deductive methodologies or purely statistical research.
Indeed, the application of grounded theory method by Bigus et al (1994) has
revealed that social life is not random, existing as ‘sets of behavioural
131
uniformities which occur and recur over time’ (Manteuffel 2002: 2). As Glaser
notes,
Today’s grounded theory, however conceptual, can be tomorrow’s
description, as people get familiar with the categories and use them
to describe an area rather than account for its action (Manteuffel
2002: 2).
This statement speaks to the substantive nature of a grounded theory where an
emergent substantive theory draws from, and applies to, the area of its focus.
Such a theory is of particular use to practitioners in the field given that grounded
theories aim to understand how people use social interaction to define their
reality within specific contexts. Part of this understanding is based in grounded
theory’s social interactionist foundation where clothes, speech and everyday
artefacts contribute to the ‘presentation of self to the world’ (Hutchinson 1986:
112; Streubert and Carpenter 1995).
In capturing these sets of information, grounded theory research aims to
accurately perceive and present the world of its participants (Hutchinson 1986:
112). With this objective and typically using these types of information, the
application of grounded theory method is most useful where an area of study is
oversimplified in the extant literature, requires a deeper understanding or has
been neglected in the context of the literature (Streubert and Carpenter 1995:
151).
Under these circumstances, the application of grounded theory method is
appropriate, particularly given that such knowledge deficits are reduced through
the generation of middle range substantive theories that can be tested empirically
later.
132
As Hutchinson (1986) points out, where grounded theory method looks to
develop a more inclusive general theory based on the analysis of specific social
phenomena, verificational research moves from general theory to specific
situations using deduction. In this respect, grounded theory is not to be confused
with other approaches. To do so erodes the validity of the method and the
subsequent research and theory produced. Figure 3: Method Comparison on page
135 illustrates the difference between grounded theory method and a
verificational approach.
Given the differences between grounded theory and other qualitative approaches,
the research question needs to be sufficiently broad to accommodate the
refinements required through the constant comparative method of data analysis.
According to Stern (1980), these differences are;
!
The conceptual data is generated from the data rather than previous
studies;
!
The researcher attempts to discover dominant processes in the social
scene rather than describing the unit under investigation;
!
Every piece of data is compared with every other piece of data;
!
The collection of data may be modified according to the advancing
theory; that is false leads are dropped, or more penetrating questions
are asked as needed;
!
The investigator examines data as they arrive, and begins to code,
categorise, conceptualise, and to write the first few thoughts
133
concerning the research report almost from the beginning of the study
(Stern in Streubert and Carpenter 1995: 147).
With these differences in mind, the phrasing of the research question in the
RidgiDidge Study, ‘how does new media technology figure in the lives of
Australian High School Students’ is sufficiently broad to allow a modification of
direction as data is produced and processed.
This allows the question of ‘what is going on here?’ to be answered by data as it
arrives, with subsequent data collection building the categories and concepts
from which theory will emerge.
134
Figure 3: Method Comparison
Basic Verification
Model of Research
(Theory to Practice)
Vs
Grounded Theory
Method
(Practice to Theory)
Data Sources
(in Constant Comparative Analysis)
Interviews | Diaries | Literature | Memos
Literature Review
Develop Hypothesis
Data Generation
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Concept Formulation
1 Substantive Codes
2 Categorisation
3 Basic Socio-Psychological
Processes Identified
Test Hypothesis
Interpret Results
Specific Situation
(Practice)
Concept Development
1 Reduction Sampling
2 Selective Review of the Literature
3 Selective Sampling of Data
Core
Grounded Theory
(‘relevant to the world
from which it emerges’
Hutchinson 1986: 184)
135
Grounded Theory Criticism
Given the differences between traditional verificational research approaches and
grounded theory it is important to point out grounded theory method is not
without criticism. The substance of this criticism is primarily concerned with
method slurring and the evaluation of the method under different criteria from
that stated by Glaser and Strauss in The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967).
This criticism is addressed here to highlight potential pitfalls that are
subsequently avoided in the context of the RidgiDidge Study.
Glaser and Strauss stress in The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967) that their
methodology was designed specifically for the sociologist in pursuit of
sociological theory generation (1967: 6). Glaser and Strauss went on to publish
many other books and articles but according to Glaser’s vociferous criticism in
Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis (1992) on Strauss’ work since The
Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967), only Glaser’s version of grounded theory
methodology is ‘the correct one’ (Glaser 1992: 6). As Babchuk (1997) argues,
Glaser’s criticism appears petty and overstated although Babchuk sees it as
crucial to a clear understanding of grounded theory methodology.
The central differences between Glaserian and Straussian versions of grounded
theory methodology are to be found in the ‘epistemological and methodological
chasms between approaches’ (Babchuk 1997).
136
While Strauss is intent on producing a detailed description of the cultural scene
and observing the canons of good science in keeping with ‘traditional
quantitative doctrines’, Glaser’s version is more flexible and guided by its
participants and their ‘socially constructed realities’ (Babchuk 1997). As
Babchuk accurately concludes, such criticism from Glaser does little to convince
the researcher that grounded theory methodology is ‘inherently flexible’
(Babchuk 1997).
According to a number of grounded theory critics, the key to producing good
grounded theories is to establish on which type or style of grounded theory a
research project is based (Morse and Field 1995: 28; Babchuk 1997).
However, since its discovery, grounded theory method has diffused across
disciplines such as social work, health studies, psychology and management,
resulting in the ‘adaptation of the method in ways that may not be completely
congruent with all of the original principles’ (Goulding 2000: 263). Indeed, the
fields of nursing (Stern 1994; Baker et al 1992; Skodol-Wilson and Hutchinson
1996; Morse and Field 1991; Cutcliffe 2000; Morse 1995; Streubert and
Carpenter 1995), Marketing (Goulding 2002; 2000; Spiggle 1994) and Adult
Education (Babchuk 1997) have demanded that the delineation between
grounded theory and other styles and methodologies is explicated in pursuit of
research rigour. Even Glaser himself has continued to interrogate the method
with a view to maintaining rigour (Glaser 1992; Glaser 2002).
137
Nevertheless, in commenting on the interdisciplinary transfer of research
methodologies in Nursing, Morse describes the resulting research as a ‘sloppy
mishmash’ of methodologies (Morse 1991: 15).
The problem with a pick-and-mix approach to research is elaborated by Baker et
al under the banner of ‘method slurring’ (1992: 1355). In comparing grounded
theory methodology and phenomenology, Baker et al point out that differing
intellectual assumptions and the methodological implications of these approaches
are clear. Such implications include the role of previous knowledge, data
sources, sampling, data collection and analysis, and validity (Baker et al 1992).
Skodol-Wilson and Hutchinson (1996) also highlight method slurring or
‘muddling’ as well as generational erosion, premature closure, overly generic
research, the importing of concepts and methodological transgression.
In adding to the sustained criticism, Cutcliffe highlights the problems of
sampling, creativity and reflexivity, use of the literature and precision (2000).
Glaser himself takes Charmaz (2000) to task in a recent article where Charmaz’s
discussion of performing constructivist grounded theory method is slated as an
attempt to subvert grounded theory method into qualitative data analysis (Glaser
2002).
Stern however appears to have a keen perspective on the grounded theory
method criticism through her conversance with Glaserian grounded theory
method and her personal correspondence with both Strauss and Glaser (1994).
Stern argues that the question of whether grounded theory has evolved or been
eroded since its discovery becomes a matter of ideology. Stern asks that readers
138
of Glaser’s 1992 work Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis ‘see beyond Glaser’s
tendency for tirade against what he considers to be the spiriting away and
mangling of his method to the clear exposition of the original grounded theory
method of allowing theory to emerge’ (1994: 221).
Baker et al (1992), Cutcliffe (2000) and Stern (1994) also make clear that
explication is the key to producing research rigour in that the researcher needs to
be clear about grounded theory methodology and that any deviation needs to be
clearly explained.
I have no problem with researchers tinkering with a given method
or inventing a new one…I really don’t care what you do, just tell
me about it. I might learn something (Stern 1994: 219).
However, Stern brings up Glaser’s post-1967 demand for fledging grounded
theorists to find themselves a grounded theory mentor, or experienced researcher
who can steer them in the right direction, avoiding method slurring in the first
place. She cites Richards and Richards 1991 assertion that neophyte grounded
theorists will assume that themes are waiting to be released from the data and
that such themes will be recognised as they emerge. As Richards and Richards
point out, ‘neither assumption is justified by research experience’ (Richards and
Richards in Stern 1994: 218). However, given an apparent abundance of ‘bad’
grounded theory work on which to base grounded theory criticism, none of the
research is directly cited or discussed in detail.
This deficit begs the question of to which specific studies is this criticism
directed? Which studies featured mentoring and which did not? Without a
signposting of the grounded research available, or the clear presentation of how
139
grounded theory method is applied in any given study, the neophyte grounded
theorist is left to come to their own conclusion about which style best suits their
research endeavour.
Fernandez points out that even the risks of ‘minus mentoring’ for PhD candidates
in particular, can be minimised through networking, reading widely and
participating in relevant discussion groups (2004: 91-92). Nevertheless, at the
heart of this range of criticism is the desire to preserve the usefulness of
grounded theory methodology and to instruct prospective research. Indeed, the
use of grounded theory methodology in a number of research fields such as
marketing and nursing has also ensured grounded theory method’s evolution and
its role as a valid and useful qualitative method. This is particularly pertinent to
studies such as the RidgiDidge Study where presenting how people think, feel
and socially interact is of specific interest.
So, mindful of the key criticisms of grounded theory method, Goulding points
out that most discussions advocate using The Discovery of Grounded Theory
(1967) as a starting point given the evolution of grounded theory methodology
from 1967. However, Goulding asserts that despite ‘conflicting perceptions over
methodological transgressions and implementation’ since grounded theory
method’s inception there remains a set of nomothetic principles (Goulding 2000:
263).
These principles of process concern the identification of an area of interest and
data collection; interpretation of data and further data collection; theoretical
sampling, and; concept and category development (Goulding 2000). Indeed,
140
these principles speak to both the flexibility of a grounded theory approach and
the key elements that constitute grounded theory method.
Identification of Research Area and Data Collection
To embark on grounded theory generation is to identify an area of research that,
as discussed previously, is relatively neglected; requires a deeper understanding
or has been neglected in the literature (Streubert and Carpenter 1995: 151).
Although there have been several notable Australian Studies on media and young
people, there is a clear demand to know more about the intersection between
young people and new media technology from the perspective of young people
themselves, given their role as the embodiment of a nation’s future. These
lacunae speak to the potential usefulness of the results of the RidgiDidge Study
in enriching the ongoing discussion about young people and new media
technology.
In approaching such a relatively unexplored and evolving area, a researcher’s
disciplinary background will also inform how to address a given topic. For
example, a health perspective would reasonably address the physical impact of
media technology on young people’s bodies; a psychological perspective would
seek to account for any cognitive impact, and; a sociological perspective will
seek to establish the role of media technology in young people’s social worlds.
In this way and in addition to developing a deeper understanding of the
intersection between young people and new media technology, the researcher’s
disciplinary background ‘provides a sensitivity and focus which aid the
141
interpretation of data collected during the research process’ (Goulding 2000:
263).
Nevertheless, while academic training will determine the general approach to an
area of research, it should not unduly influence any emergent theory given that
there will be little established knowledge in the research area to begin with. Such
training will however provide a point from which to approach the topic. Cutcliffe
refers to a range of authors (Morse, 1994; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Turner,
1981; Stern, 1994) in supporting the argument that the creativity and reflexivity
of the researcher is a legitimate aspect of the grounded theory inductive process
(Cutcliffe 2000: 1479) and one that should be included given the need for the full
methodological report.
Indeed, as Glaser points out,
Theoretical sensitivity refers to the researcher’s knowledge,
understanding and skill which foster his ability to relate them into
hypotheses, and to further integrate the hypotheses, according to
emergent theoretical codes. Accomplishing this result[s] in
relevance, fit and work are the criteria of grounded theory (Glaser
1992: 27).
With this in mind, it is prudent to outline my own background as the author of
the RidgiDidge Study in the interests of contextualising the reflexivity critical to
the evaluation of the RidgiDidge Study as a whole.
I am a postgraduate with BA (Hons) from the School of Arts, Media and Culture
at Griffith University, in my late-thirties and the sole parent of a primary school
child.
Academically speaking, I have a healthy interest in the possibilities that interdisciplinary ventures might offer to the better understanding of young people’s
142
life worlds. I am also a Martial Arts Instructor in Ju Jitsu where I coach and
associate with groups of children and young people on a weekly basis.
My interest in young people’s experience of the media world began when I
perceived a disparity between the perceptions of adults about young people’s
media consumption and those held by young people themselves. This interest led
to my Honours dissertation, Square Eyes: What children do with Internet
advertising (2001).
The Netkidz Study at the heart of the Square Eyes
dissertation concluded that its participants practiced a critical autonomy towards
their media consumption where they actively used, or disregarded, Internet
advertising according to their own recreational needs (Liley 2001).
I believe it is my open mind and willingness to actively listen to young people
about what they think and feel about their worlds that is at the root of my
theoretical sensitivity in the RidgiDidge Study.
The ethical regard of young people’s views practiced here allows for research
that more accurately reflects their experience and their agency where it relates to
the media technology in their lives. This is not to say that a researcher has
‘license to invent’ concepts, categories nor impose their own ideas on the data.
Instead, as Cutcliffe points out,
Reality is constructed from human perspectives, shared (social)
and individual interactions and meanings of given situations and
phenomena. To strive to attain more credibility according to an
alternative philosophical standpoint appears to be at best
inappropriate and at worst, a distraction from the potential that
creativity can bring (Cutcliffe 2000: 1479).
Nevertheless, Skodol-Wilson and Hutchinson warn against ‘concept importation’
and are wary of overly generic analysis, advocating that the researcher must
143
declare whether they are generating a formal or substantive theory (SkodolWilson and Hutchinson 1996). Glaser and Strauss point out that substantive
theory is based on one particular area and can be taken to apply to that specific
area only. However, the development of a substantive theory can have ‘important
general implications and relevance’ that can become a stepping-stone to the
development of a grounded formal theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 79).
As Goulding points out, the time, expense and high levels of abstraction required
in generating formal theory mean that most researchers prefer to work at the
substantive level. Although this precludes generalisation where there is no data,
the middle range substantive approach is adopted for the RidgiDidge Study. In
this way, the emergent theory can be tested empirically, is likely to be useful and
has a much narrower and more specific scope than grand theories (Streubert and
Carpenter 1995: 147).
In terms of data collection, sources of data can be varied, ranging from
interviews, memos and observation to focus groups and other information
sources including secondary analysis of previously collected data (Glaser and
Strauss 1967: 187).
On this point and in relation to the inclusion of quantitative data gathering in the
RidgiDidge Study, Glaser and Strauss state that the collection of the researcher’s
own survey data is acceptable (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 187).
Strauss and Corbin suggest that rather than the qualitative and quantitative
seeking to simply complement or supplement each other, ‘the qualitative should
direct the quantitative and the quantitative feedback into the qualitative in a
144
circular, but at the same time evolving, process with each method contributing to
the theory in ways that only each can’ (Strauss 1998: 34).
Glaser and Strauss’ position is made clear when they stress that there is no
fundamental clash between either quantitative nor qualitative data sources given
that either is useful and necessary for both generation and verification of theory,
regardless of primacy of emphasis (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 17-18).
This position is supported in the RidgiDidge Study in that the quantitative data
sources anchors and triangulates the qualitative data in terms of providing a
comparative context for the participant responses.
The interpretation of the data and further data collection
The interpretation of the data and further data collection is done simultaneously
according to the constant comparative analysis used in grounded theory
generation.
The purpose of this is so that the interview material gathered alongside ideas and
observations, recorded as memos, is used to ‘reorientate the researcher’ later
(Goulding 2000: 264).
Part of this process is open coding where the data are broken down into distinct
units of meaning. Qualitative software packages such as the NVivo program used
to analyse the RidgiDidge data are useful tools in this process, and the Results
are discussed on page 235.
In terms of the RidgiDidge Study, the consented participant’s media diary and
completed questionnaire forms the basis of a semi-structured interview that is
145
transcribed and coded, bearing in mind the memos made at the time of the
interview and later as part of the constant comparative approach. Specific coding
practices are discussed on page 186 in Data Analysis.
Theoretical Sampling
The principle of theoretical sampling in grounded theory method is ‘not
determined to begin with but is directed by the emerging theory’ (Goulding
2000: 264). Cutcliffe contextualises this type of sampling as non-probability
sampling where there are no limits set on the number of participants or data
sources (Cutcliffe 2000: 1477). In the RidgiDidge Study, potential participants
are sourced from a school community without limitation.
Cutcliffe draws attention to Morse (1991) and Baker et al (1992) and their ideas
that suggest that the sampling process is initiated through significant individuals
who are articulate, have the time to be interviewed and are willing to participate
in the study (Cutcliffe 2000: 1477).
However, based on the responses of such an initial sample, there might be the
need to draw more data and participants into the research.
This type of theoretical sampling is more commonly seen in a contemporary
research context as ‘snowballing’. This sampling technique is commonly used
among concealed populations such as the criminal and the isolated and remains
‘at the margins of research practice’ (Atkinson and Flint 2001: 1).
Vogt (1999) describes snowballing as ‘a technique for finding research subjects.
Snowballing is where one subject gives the researcher the name of another
146
subject, who in turn provides the name of a third, and so on’ (cited in Atkinson
and Flint 2001: 1).
In terms of the RidgiDidge Study, its ethical undertaking meant that only
volunteers from the consenting school could participate, who by the very nature
of their willingness to participate proved themselves to be articulate, willing and
generous with their time over the period of the study.
Nevertheless, the demands of participation in the RidgiDidge Study are already
quite substantial; to expect participants to then recruit other participants for the
research is arguably somewhat impertinent on the part of the researcher
particularly given the thrust of the Special Considerations outlined on page 24.
Indeed, the application of snowballing in the RidgiDidge Study would have
seriously undermined the entire project and its purpose. The usefulness of
pursuing participants outside the sample group is ultimately dubious given that
potential sample groups emerging from the research had already declined to
participate; came from other schools in the area that had in turn declined to
participate, or; potential participants from these external groups were over 18
years of age. As Morse asserts, the selection of an appropriate sample is critical
to the eventual quality of the research (1991: 129).
As the emergent theory of the RidgiDidge Study is framed as one that refers to
the substantive area only, replacing a theoretical sample with purposeful
volunteers makes the results of the RidgiDidge Study more compelling given
that sample groups in substantive theory development must be necessarily
narrow (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Cutcliffe 2000).
147
Although many sampling terms are available to describe participant recruitment,
Morse’s term of the ‘purposeful volunteer’ is the most appropriate to the
RidgiDidge participants. ‘Purposeful’ because participants were sought who
were appropriate to the research. In this way, eligible participants were
Australian High School students with access to new media technology.
Participants were ‘volunteers’ in that they agreed to participate in the research
without inducement and provided informed consent from themselves and their
parents/guardians Defining and controlling the sample in this way is a key factor
in ensuring appropriateness in sample selection whether through primary or
secondary selection (Morse 1991: 135).
In the RidgiDidge Study, such selection is secondary in that the quality of
participant response is not determined until after the first interview. Given that
all participants met the selection criteria of being from a willing High School
population and having access to new media technology in a recreational context,
then all volunteers were considered to be valid and useful to the research.
However Seidman (1998) asks ‘how many participants are enough?’ and makes
reference to the idea of saturation. Seidman is reluctant to establish a specific
number, preferring to err on the side of more rather than less.
‘Enough’ is an interactive reflection of every step of the interview
process and different for each study and each researcher. The
criteria of sufficiency and saturation are useful, but practical
exigencies of time, money and other resources also play a role,
especially in doctoral research (Seidman 1998: 48).
The ethical conduct of the RidgiDidge Study means that ‘enough’ is predicated
on the number of participants who volunteer, their responses and the level of
148
information they choose to divulge. In this way, the RidgiDidge Study results
can only refer to how new media technology figures in the lives of its
participants and hence, a commencing sample of sixteen participants is enough.
To expand and extrapolate the results of this research for entire populations is
clearly beyond the limits of this thesis, although such delimitation does not
preclude others in the research area from drawing on the results of the work here
in looking towards formal theory development. As Goulding points out,
generating a credible grounded theory project requires careful consideration of;
the design of the study, the range of sampling, the clarity of discourse used to
present findings, the relationship between theory and other research and the
identification of areas for further research (Goulding 2002: 70). This last feature
of a credible theory generation directly addresses the substantive and necessarily
narrow nature of the theory generated from the RidgiDidge Study and how this
can supply larger research endeavours.
Constant Comparison, Concept and Category Development
Constant comparison is the fundamental method of data analysis in grounded
theory with its aim being the ‘generation of theoretical constructs that along with
substantive codes and categories and their properties form a theory that
encompasses as much behavioural variation as possible. The proposed structure
is molecular rather than causal or linear’ (Hutchinson 1986: 122).
In practical terms, the presentation of the grounded theory generated from the
RidgiDidge Study has the capacity to be presented as a ‘well-codified set of
149
propositions’ like most theory; or, as a ‘running theoretical discussion, using
conceptual categories and their properties’ (Glaser 1967: 31). In order to do so,
the use of NVivo 2.0 software was used in the RidgiDidge Study to capture,
collate and facilitate the analysis of data. NVivo’s capacity to address these
research demands lends itself well to grounded theory as an iterative process that
features three basic elements; concepts, categories and propositions. Concepts
are derived from a conceptualisation of the raw data; categories group those
derived concepts, and propositions describe the ‘relationship between a category
and its concepts, and between discrete categories’ (Pandit 1996: 1). As Pandit
notes, the process of grounded theory building features five analytic phases;
research design, data collection, data ordering, data analysis and literature
comparison.
Within these phases there are nine sequential activities ranging from the initial
research design to comparisons between the emergent theory and the extant
literature (see page 150). At each point in the process as a whole, Pandit
recommends four research quality criteria; construct validity, internal validity,
external validity and reliability (Pandit 1996: 2).
150
Figure 4: Research Design Stages of the RidgiDidge Study
(Adapted from Pandit 1996)
Stage
Initial research
Task
Rationale
Isolate a relatively unknown area
of interest
Complete a tentative literature
review
Formulate a broad research
question
Define research area, approach
and methodology
Design instrument and
associated administration
Gain Ethics Clearance
Address and explore research
deficits
Establish a research area
Fieldwork/Data Collection
(Application becomes more
project specific)
Gain School Authority Clearance
Gain Parental/participant
Consent
Distribution of Media Diaries
Refine interview questions
based on returned Media Diaries
Conduct Interviews
Obtain a ‘synergistic’ view of the
evidence
Persistent memo collection
Opportunistic data collection
Data Ordering (Concerned with
Stage I only - grand scale Data
Ordering not appropriate until
after stage III)
Data Analysis
Quantitative research informs
Qualitative research (Glaser’s
‘feedback’ system)
Thought process memos
Open Coding
Concepts, categories and
properties
Axial Coding
Relationship between category
and its sub-categories?
‘Integrate categories to build
theoretical framework’ (Pandit
1996: 2)
Research and Instrument
Design
Selective Coding
Theoretical Saturation
Literature Comparison Phase
Situates Research
Defines theoretically Useful
sample
Theoretical saturation
Look for category replication
across participant responses
Compare emergent theory with
focused literature review
Fortifies internal and external
validity
In this way, grounded theory method offers a way of tracking, checking and
validating a research project.
151
Indeed, as Goulding points out, grounded theory methodology was a timely
development given that until the 1960’s, qualitative research was considered
‘subjective, unsystematic and, above all, unscientific and as such unworthy of
serious recognition’ (Goulding 2002: 41).
Figure 3: Research Design Stages on page 151 shows in table form the basic
stages of this RidgiDidge grounded theory research project.
Theoretical Saturation, Closure and How much is enough?
‘How much is enough?’ is a question qualitative researchers must address when
gathering data. Theoretical saturation is the term used in grounded theory method
to describe the point at which ‘no additional data are being found whereby the
sociologist can develop properties of the category’ (Glaser and Strauss 1968: 61).
Theoretical saturation is reached when theoretical sampling leads the researcher
to incorporate further individuals and situations to their research ‘in order to
strengthen findings’ (Goulding 2002: 67). This aspect of theoretical sampling is
problematic in achieving this context of saturation given the ethical limitations of
researching young people in the RidgiDidge Study as discussed in the section on
Theoretical Sampling on page 146 and the section on The Strengths and
Limitations of the RidgiDidge Study on page 15.
Glaser and Strauss could not have predicted the application of their methodology
to groups of young people in a society where the protection of young people is a
prominent issue. Without the specific address of juvenile protection, there are no
concessions or allowances in Glaser and Strauss’ 1968 blueprint for grounded
152
theory method. This translates to the modification of theoretical sampling
procedures in the RidgiDidge Study that account for constraints that arguably
consolidate the results of the RidgiDidge Study.
Nevertheless, Dey points out that the term ‘saturation’ has a metaphorical
resonance to researchers that suggests ‘completion’, ‘soaking’ and ‘excess’ (Dey
1999: 116-117). Dey argues that ‘saturation’ is misleading given that
‘sufficiency’ is a more accurate term.
Dey bases this assertion on Glaser and Strauss’ demand that ‘we should be
systematic in the procedures we use to generate categories (and their properties),
rather than systematic in the accumulation of evidence in their support’ (Dey
1999: 117). In keeping with due regard to how much gathered data will be
enough to generate theory introduced at the beginning of this section, theory can
be said to occur when theoretical saturation is reached. Hutchinson defines
theoretical saturation as the point at which ‘all the data fit into established
categories, interactional and organisational patterns are visible, behavioural
variation is described, and behaviour can be predicted. The researcher, by
repeatedly checking and asking questions of the data, ultimately achieves a sense
of closure’ (Hutchinson 1986: 204-205). In terms of the RidgiDidge Study,
given the practical and ethical limitations that prevent true theoretical
(snowballing) sampling, saturation and closure is achieved when the gathered
data are exhausted and the core category emerges.
153
As Glaser himself notes as part of his sustained, well published and vitriolic
criticism of Strauss’ work6 on qualitative research methodology published after
1968, an insistence on strict theoretical sampling procedures lest the emerging
theory be conceptually inadequate, is nothing more than a meaningless threat
(Glaser 1992: 104).
What is inadequate? In grounded theory one simply generates a
theory that will account for as much variation as possible in a
dependent variable, within the limits of the research and its
resources. What else? Empty threats? Grounded theory sampling is
far simpler and more direct. By letting it guide the generation of
theory, the analyst goes to the limits of his data and data collection
resources, and what is relevant emerges is relevant as far as he can
go and show. He gets to the relevant point with far less trepidation
and far faster and more meaning (Glaser: 1992: 104).
In terms of the RidgiDidge Study, this meant exhausting and trusting the
gathered data and achieving saturation with the data rather than numbers of
participants.
Evaluating Grounded Theory
As discussed earlier, the nature of grounded theory is such that it differs greatly
from verificational research methods and this extends to the criteria for
evaluating grounded theory research.
6
Glaser points out that he is opposed to Strauss’ presentation of ‘full conceptual description’ as
grounded theory in the Basics of Qualitative Research with Juliet Corbin (1998) although he
stresses that Anselm ‘loves me’ (Glaser 1992: 124) and that they ‘are still very close’ (Glaser
1992: 124). Glaser’s issue with Strauss’ work post-Discovery of Grounded Theory (1968)
appears to be the issue of grounded theory method as intellectual property and the intimation that
Juliet Corbin was a co-originator of Grounded Theory Methodology as suggested by her coauthorship of Basics of Qualitative Research. Anselm Strauss died in September 1996 and
Corbin was left to complete Basics of Qualitative Research alone.
154
Given that Glaser and Strauss’ The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967)
remains as the touchstone for the implementation of grounded theory method,
Glaser and Strauss’ evaluation criteria form a set of core evaluation principles.
However, these principles have been modified over time, particularly in Nursing
applications, to include rigid and arbitrary rules that amount to little more than
‘cooked up’ translations of the original method and work (Skodol-Wilson and
Ambler-Hutchinson 1996: 123). Glaser points out in Theoretical Sensitivity
(1978), that ideas contained in The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967) were
just ‘for openers’ and that others could take the method in any direction they
wished (Glaser 1978: 158).
However, Skodol-Wilson and Ambler-Hutchinson argue that the importation of
rigid rules is counterproductive and stifles the creativity involved in grounded
theory generation (1996: 123).
Locke argues that in Management research, grounded theory method is slowly
being rewritten through methodological muddling or the absence of key aspects
of method (1996: 244). With this in mind, Locke echoes Stern’s (1994: 219)
demand that researchers are clear about how they have pursued their research.
Lock asserts that readers need to be able to evaluate research based on ‘the
presence, or absence, of the full methodological report’ (1996: 244).
It is not enough for a researcher to say that they conducted their research
according to The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967), rather they must be
clear about operational indicators or modifications to practice, avoiding the
pitfalls of grounded theory method such as those discussed on page 136. Morse
155
and Field’s demand is that the evaluation of qualitative results, particularly in
relation to their application in a real setting ‘does not involve the ritualistic and
structured application of a specific protocol but, rather, thoughtful reflection’
(Morse and Field 1987: 158). Pidgeon and Henwood argue for the need to
evaluate research on its own terms, recognising that personal and social forms of
subjectivity are always present in research (1997: 269). Nevertheless, even with
a full methodological report and thoughtful reflection, the need to evaluate
grounded theory remains.
So, given a wariness over ‘cooked up’ and arbitrary evaluation criteria,
assessment of the emergent theory from RidgiDidge Study is based on Glaser
and Strauss’ original evaluation criteria in The Discovery of Grounded Theory
(1967: 237-250).
These criteria are:
1. The theory should fit the everyday realities of the substantive area to
which it is applied.
2. If a grounded theory fits its substantive area then it should be
understandable to the people working in the substantive area, sharpening
their sensitivity to the problems of the substantive area.
3. The theory should display a generality where categories are ‘not so
abstract as to lose their sensitizing aspect, but yet must be abstract
enough to make theory a general guide to multi-conditional ever
changing daily situations’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 242).
4. The user of substantive theory should be able to exercise a degree of
control in everyday situations to make its application worth trying.
Pidgeon and Henwood’s criteria for evaluating grounded theory method build on
Glaser and Strauss’ criteria to include reflexivity, integration of theory at diverse
156
levels of abstraction, theoretical sampling and negative case analysis, and
respondent validation. Although Pidgeon and Henwood’s criteria are useful
extensions to Glaser and Strauss’ evaluation criteria, negative case analysis in
particular is debatable as a useful evaluation criterion. Glaser and Strauss’ assert
that a codified procedure such as negative case analysis will ‘leave a reader at a
loss, since these analytical procedures are not linked specifically with the
procedures for using qualitative data’ (1967: 230). With that, Glaser and Strauss
reaffirm that the constant comparative method is an appropriate analytic
procedure for ‘using the data systematically’ (1967: 230).
Pidgeon and Henwood’s criterion of reflexivity as noted above is especially
pertinent in evaluating the RidgiDidge Study. Both Glaser and Glaser and
Strauss tend to present reflexivity as an assumed factor in generating grounded
theory without including it in their own evaluation of their methodology despite
the capacity for reflexivity to form an integral part of a transparent research
approach. As Pidgeon and Henwood point out , to bring researcher subjectivities
to light ‘tells a more complete account of the research process than is to be found
on the customary sanitised versions of scientific report writing (Pidgeon and
Henwood 1997; 270) a point echoed by several writers (Cutcliffe 2000; Morse
1994; Stern 1994; Lincoln and Guba 1985; Turner 1981).
For this reason, an outline of my own reflexivity is included on page 141 in
Identification of Research Area and Data Collection.
Thus, the fifth criterion for evaluating the RidgiDidge Study is,
157
5. Reflexivity in terms of the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity and role
in the research process should play a part in the evaluation of the
research.
These criteria are addressed in Evaluating Grounded Theory Method Post
Research on page 327.
Research Design
Research design is,
The overall configuration of a piece of research: what kind of
evidence is gathered from where, and how such evidence is
interpreted in order to provide good answers to the basic research
question [s] (Easterby-Smith 1991: 21).
The design of the RidgiDidge Study is configured to discover how new media
figures in the lives of young people. Grounded theory method presents itself as
an appropriate methodology to use in researching young people given its
flexibility and the demand that the gathered data disciplines the emergent theory.
Research Boundaries
The use of Glaserian grounded theory method limits the results of the
RidgiDidge Study to the emergence of a substantive theory. Glaser and Strauss
describe substantive theory as one grounded on a substantive area that does not
attempt to explain anything outside of the area of research (Glaser and Strauss
1967:79). However, as a conceptual level theory, Glaser and Strauss point out
that it has important ‘general implications and relevance’ becoming a
springboard to formal theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 79).
158
Given the substantive7 aspect of the emergent theory the results of the
RidgiDidge Study can be said to apply to the group of research participants and
their media technology consumption.
Data Collection
The notion of using a variety of data gathering techniques to generate grounded
theory is well documented (Glaser 1967; Dey 1999: Strauss 1998), although
grounded theory is usually synonymous with qualitative methods of data
collection. Reticence on the part of some researchers to use of quantitative
methods stems from the avoidance of any ‘pre-conceptualisation of the data’
(Dey 1999: 6), although handled correctly, qualitative and quantitative methods
can feed back into each other in a circular, yet evolving way (Strauss 1998: 34).
Eisenhardt notes, ‘the combination of data types can be highly synergistic’ (in
Pandit 1996: 5). Pandit extends this notion by pointing out that,
Quantitative data can indicate directly observable relationships and
corroborate the findings from qualitative data. Qualitative data can
help understand the rationale of theory and underlying
relationships (Pandit 1996: 5).
The decision to combine both qualitative and quantitative techniques of data
collection in the RidgiDidge study serves three purposes. Firstly, the inclusion of
quantitative research stems from a desire to create a ‘talking snapshot’ of
7
As discussed previously, the term ‘substantive’ is used in a grounded theory context to denote a
theory that applies directly to the area from which it emerges. In other words, the theory
describes the range of participants and their new media technology use and not all young people
across other likely contexts.
159
Australian children’s new media use. For example, the quantitative data from the
media diary acts as the ‘snapshot’ of the participant’s static details such as the
ownership and location of new media technologies in the home, family make-up
and weekly media use. The ‘snapshot’s’ capacity to ‘talk’ comes from the semistructured interview process where participant attitudes towards their new media
technology are revealed.
Just as photos in a family album can show how much family members change
and grow over time, so too the longitudinal nature of the RidgiDidge study
allows the opportunity to see how or if the participants’ attitudes to new media
technology change. These ‘snapshots’ of each participant are useful for the
purposes of ‘illustration and imagery’ of how theory is generated in the
RidgiDidge Study, and work to reveal the conceptual style of the analysis rather
than simply describing a scene (Glaser 1978: 133-135).
Secondly, the ethical and practical aspects of establishing basic information
about the RidgiDidge study participants over three separate encounters is such
that self-reporting through the questionnaire and media diary are the most
efficient modes of research. Thus, as interviews begin, participants are already
familiar with the researcher, the research plan and as such, the subsequent
interviews are conducted without significantly affecting the participants time
during school hours.
Thirdly, the combination of different types of data allows participant responses
to be cross referenced ensuring research rigour. In this way, a participant's
160
perception of their media technology consumption, when reported verbally, can
be matched with their written responses in their media diaries.
Data Ordering
As Yin points out,
The arraying of events into a chronology permits the investigator to
determine causal events over time, because the basic sequence of cause and
effect cannot be temporally inverted (in Pandit 1996: 6).
In terms of the RidgiDidge study, the form of data ordering is predetermined by
the longitudinal nature of the research.
In looking at the intersection between new media technology and Australian
childhood, it is necessary to look at ‘real time’ changes in participant attitudes
towards, and uses of new media technology. In this way, the data collection,
ordering and analysis phases are repeated at Field Research Stages II and III over
the research period, while the research design and literature comparison phases
are once only activities.
Data Analysis
In grounded theory, data analysis begins with a process of microanalysis. This is
where the collected data, such as interview material, videos, and the researcher’s
memos, are analysed for initial categories ‘line-by-line’. In this way, a process of
coding generates concepts. As Strauss and Corbin discuss (Strauss 1998), there is
a magnitude of information in even the simplest participant responses, and
coding procedures allow the researcher to make the most of the information
161
gathered. However, as Strauss and Corbin caution, the freedom and creativity of
microanalysis must be tempered by a ‘series of analytic tools in the form of
procedures and techniques’ (Strauss 1998: 71). The first of which is ‘open
coding’ where the data components are closely examined and compared for
similarities and differences. Events, happenings, objects, actions/interactions that
are found to be conceptually similar in nature or related in meaning are grouped
under more abstract concepts termed ‘categories’. This flexible technique allows
the researcher to discover concepts or phenomena that enables aspects of the data
to be grouped accordingly.
As an initial form of coding, open coding is the practice of ‘coding the data
everyway possible’ (Glaser 1978: 56), free of preconceptions. During this
process, Glaser suggests employing several rules that aid in theoretical
sensitivity. The first rule is to ask a set of questions, beginning with the most
fundamental of, ‘what is this data the study of?’ (Glaser 1978: 56). Combined
with the questions ‘What category or property of a category, or what part of the
emerging theory, does this incident indicate?’ and ‘What is actually happening in
the data?’ (Glaser 1978: 57), Glaser asserts that a core category is revealed.
However, Glaser is at pains to point out that by the very time consuming and
intimate nature of microanalysis, it is crucial for the researcher to do their own
coding. The reasons are varied but at the heart of the activity is the idea of
category emergence and saturation during microanalysis. At these points in the
process, Glaser asserts the importance of the rule ‘always interrupt coding to
memo the idea’ (Glaser 1978: 58).
162
The next step in the data analysis phase is ‘axial coding’ where categories are
related to sub categories along the lines of their properties and dimensions
(Strauss 1998: 124).
In this way, axial codes emerge in answer to the questions ‘why’, ‘how’,
‘where’, ‘when’ and with ‘what results’. As Strauss and Corbin note, answers to
these questions allow the analyst to relate structure with process. Thus, structure
is seen as a framework within which events occur and process refers to how
entities act or interact in response to such events.
If one studies structure only, then one learns why but not certain
events occur. If one studies process only, then one understands
how persons act/interact, but not why. One must study both
structure and process to capture the dynamic and evolving nature
of events (Strauss 1998: 127).
Selective coding is a further refinement to the coding process where categories
are developed to form the theoretical framework.
As mentioned previously on page 149, management of the raw data during the
coding process was executed using NVivo 2.0 software. During open coding, the
text was ‘fractured’ or opened up allowing words and statements to be coded
using the participants’ own words such as ‘texting’, ‘drinking’ or ‘piercing’.
Other easily recognisable codes were also employed such as ‘new media
technology’, ‘consideration to family’ and ‘parental control’ as a means of
simply describing what the participant was saying. Given the process involved in
coding to generate a grounded theory (see Figure 7: Grounded theory method
terminology and process on page 190), NVivo 2.0 was invaluable in managing
163
and manipulating the volume of data gathered over the course of the field work
of the RidgiDidge Study.
Literature Comparison
At this stage of using a grounded theory methodology, the researcher identifies
the similarities and differences between the emerged theory and the extant
literature, and the possible factors that might account for those similarities and
differences.
Design Rationale and Applied Ethical Considerations
In order to gather data about how new media technology intersects with
Australian childhood, both quantitative and qualitative longitudinal field research
was gathered from a sample group of young people from Wynnum High School
in South East Queensland. Given that the RidgiDidge Study involves the
participation of young people, the research is governed by the ethical guidelines
set down and approved by the Griffith University Ethics Committee. Under the
Griffith University Guide for Research Involving Human Participation, to which
the RidgiDidge Study is bound, there is a predetermined set of protocols with
which potential researchers must comply if they are to solicit human
participation in their research.
These protocols include the assurance of voluntary participation and informed
consent as well as ensuring potential participants and their families are aware of
their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.
Accommodation of such protocols was crucial to the ethical clearance of this
164
research project under the basic ethical principles of respect for persons,
beneficence and justice (HREC 1996: 43). Given the voluntary nature of research
participation under these ethical protocols, all care was taken in the preparation
of the initial information and consent forms, research instruments and both
written and verbal communication between the researcher and participant. This
translated to the appropriate marketing of study participation to the potential
sample and their gatekeepers.
To illustrate, given that potential participants were high school students and
under 18 years of age, it was necessary for the RidgiDidge Study to gain Ethics
Committee clearance as well as school authority, parental and participant
consents. This meant that the RidgiDidge Study’s graphic profile, written design
and usability had to appeal to a wide audience.
The potential appeal to such a wide audience is predicated on respect for persons
in terms of minimising the effort required by school authority, school teaching
and administrative staff, parents and the potential participants themselves in
consenting to, and completing the study.
As this research design rationale illustrates, basic ethical principles apply across
the board to both young person and adult research participants, although the
design and marketing of research participation will inevitably be different for
young people given the addition of school authority and parental gate keeping
and the ethical treatment of young study participants as a special case.
The initial sample consists of consented volunteers from Wynnum High School
who completed a media diary and participated in an interview on three separate
165
occasions over a three month period. Stage I commenced in May 2003, Stage II
in September 2003 and Stage III in May 2004, with approval to continue the
research being sought at each stage from participants and their families.
The survey represented the quantitative aspect of the research, taking the form of
a questionnaire and media journal to be completed at home by the participants
over a 7-day period at each research stage (see Appendix: Media Diary on page
408). The form of the journal was designed to elicit both demographic
information as well as the participant’s media consumption within specific
environmental contexts.
The qualitative research was to consist of an individually structured and
administered interview during school hours on school premises. The questions
featured in both the media journal and the individual interviews were to remain
relatively constant for each research stage in the interests of ascertaining any
patterns of change in subject perception. However, the type of questions asked
during the interview fell into two groups.
The first group was designed to clarify responses recorded in the questionnaire
and media diary where the participant was asked to elaborate on their responses
where necessary. The second group was concerned with the subject’s perception
and attitude towards the new media technology available to them and required
more than a simple yes or no answer.
From these initial questions, the interview becomes more of a conversation that
follows a natural flow between participant and researcher. In the interests of
166
accurately recording verbal and non-verbal subject responses, each interview is
video recorded.
The successful submission to the Ethics Committee is below.
Table 1: Overview of Ethics Proposal
Ethics Committee Question
Participants
Expected Age
Response
School Children
Children (under 14)
Research Procedure
Young People (14-18)
Identifiable questionnaires and surveys
Observation
Research Area
Description of Project (in terms easily understood by
the lay reader, using simple and non-technical
language)
Interviews (structured or unstructured)
Qualitative Research
The comparatively rapid adoption of digital
media technologies by children means that
established normative theories about
communication and childhood are challenged.
The objective of the field research component
of this PhD thesis is find out how digital media
such as the Internet and computer gaming
figures in the lives of a group of Australian
children over a three year period.
Aims of the project: List the specific aims and potential
significance of the problems to be addressed in the
research project.
It is expected that the results of this field
research will assist in the development of
theories of communication and childhood under
digitisation, as well as addressing the problem
of inherent obsolescence in digital research
issues.
It is widely acknowledged in the academic
community that there is a paucity of research
about children’s digital media issues. Given the
rapid adoption of new digital technologies and
the perceived fickleness of the children’s digital
market, research quickly loses validity in the
face of popular trends in technology and
content.
The significance of this problem is that without
methods of articulating how digital media and
content works within society, society loses its
means of discussing the possible socio-cultural
outcomes under digitisation.
Participants: Please provide details of the participants
of the study, from what target group(s) will they be
167
Therefore, this research project’s objective of
developing digital communication models
useful to long term academic discourse will be
met through the aims of quantitative, qualitative
and academic work.
Australian High School children will form the
research group for this project because they
Ethics Committee Question
drawn, how many participants will be involved in the
project, what is their age range, and do they have any
common characteristics
Response
have grown up with new technologies and form
the basis of future Australian society.
Please state how potential participants will be
approached initially and informed about the research
project and the means by which subjects will be
screened.
Participants will be approached through their
teachers (pending school authority approval)
and informed about the project’s objectives and
aims through distributed Information and
Consent forms.
Are any of the participants in this research project
minors under the age of 18 years of age?
Consent: Please indicate how you intend to obtain the
consent of the parent/carer of the child participant and
indicate if any school approval will be sought.
Payment of participants: Is there any payment of
participants proposed? If so, what form will the
payment take and for what purpose?
Location at which the project is to be conducted:
Please state the location at which the study involving
human participants will be conducted
Research plan/methodology: The research plan should:
describe the nature of the research, including the
scope and limitations of the project; and provide details
of the procedures to be used which involve the
participants in terms easily understood by the lay
reader. Please provide copies of any non-standard
questionnaires or survey instruments that are to be
used in the project
Individual interviewees will be selected based
on their access to digital content.
Project Participants will be drawn from Year 8
(12-13 years), Year 9 (13-14 years) and Year
10 (14-15 years). The same participants will be
approached on a further two occasions (August
2003 and July 2004) pending re-confirmation of
parental and participant consent.
Written consent from the appropriate school
authority will be obtained prior to seeking
parental/guardian’s consent for children’s
participation through the distribution of
Information and Consent forms (see page 405).
No inducement to participate in the research is
anticipated.
Media Diaries (see page 408) will be filled in by
participants at home over a 7-day period.
Individual interviews will be conducted on
school premises and during school hours,
pending school authority consent.
In order to ascertain how digital media figures
in the lives of Australian children, both
quantitative and qualitative longitudinal
research will be undertaken.
The same group of high school children will be
surveyed and interviewed at approximately 11month intervals with ‘Field Research Stage I’
commencing in September 2002, ‘Stage II’ in
August 2003 and ‘Stage III’ in July 2004.The
quantitative aspect of the research will take the
form of a media journal to be completed at
home by the participants over a 7-day period at
each research stage. The form of the journal is
designed to elicit both demographic information
as well as the participant’s digital media
consumption.
The qualitative research will consist of an
individual structured interview during school
hours on school premises, pending school
authority consent. The questions featured in
both the media journal and the individual
interview will remain constant for each research
stage (see attached).
The scope and limitations of this research are
168
Ethics Committee Question
Response
governed by the time, budget and the
associated constraints of a single researcher
as well as the objective of maximising the
convenience of participation to prospective
participants.
Inclusion of a short Literature Review
Potential Risks: Please indicate if you consider there
are any potential risks associated with the proposed
procedures:
If it is believed that there are no potential risks please
state why.
If it is considered that there may be any risk(s) to the
subject, in what respect do the potential benefits to the
subject or contributions to the general body of
knowledge outweigh the risks?
Consent: Please indicate how informed consent will be
obtained.
Physical Risks
No
Social Risks
No
Legal Risks
No
Psychological Risks
No
Any other Risks
No
Participants will not be undertaking any
activities that are generally considered unusual
under normal day-to-day circumstances.
There are no foreseeable risks to research
participants.
Initial consent to conduct research on school
premises will be sought from the relevant
school authority. Parental/Guardian’s consent
will be obtained in writing.
See attached Information and Consent Forms
for details (See page 405).
Is it anticipated that all participants will have the
capacity to consent to their participation in the research
project? If you answered NO, please explain why and
explain how substitute consent will be obtained from
the person and/or carer with legal authority to consent
on behalf of the participants. Also indicate what will be
said if a verbal description of the project will be given.
Confidentiality: Describe the procedures that are to be
adopted to ensure confidentiality during the study and
in the publication of results?
169
As study participants are children under 18years of age, written consent will be sought
from their parents/guardians on provision of a
detailed Information and Consent form.
Children with parental consent will be furnished
with a detailed Information sheet that will be
explained if and where necessary to
participants. The content and spirit of any
verbal communication will be in keeping with
Section 18.0 of the University’s Guide for
Research Involving Humans
The researcher and Principal PhD supervisor
will have sole access to participants’ personal
details and therefore, hold the identity and any
personal details of participants and their
families in the strictest confidence.
Ethics Committee Question
Response
The purpose of recording the personal details
of participants is for research administration
purposes only. Self-nominated screen names
will be used over real names where reference
to participant responses is appropriate in the
reporting of results.
The viewing of raw data by other researchers
subsequent to the completion of the PhD thesis
will be subject to, and in accordance with, the
Australian Standard on personal privacy
protection. Any other protocols for the
protection of privacy and confidentiality
generated by Griffith University or the School of
Film, Media and Culture* will be strictly
observed during and after the recommended
period of data retention and storage.
Will any part of the procedures described be placed on
audio-tape, filmstrip, movie film or videotape? For what
purposes will the audiotape, film or videotape be used?
For what audience(s) will the film/tape be exhibited?
Audience (continued).
Data Storage: How and where will the collected data be
stored securely during the study and the NHMRC
requisite five years after the completion of the research
project?
Will the participants be de-briefed after completion of
the study?
Videotape will be used for the purpose of
generating an accurate transcript of individual
interviews.
Videotaped material will not be available for
general exhibition. Viewing by other
researchers during the mandatory period of
data storage and retention will be subject to
School and University protocols ensuring the
confidentiality of viewed material.
The raw data generated by the proposed
research study will be stored at, and retained
by, the school of Film, Media and Culture* at
Griffith University, Nathan Campus.
Yes
* The School of Film, Media and Culture merged with the Humanities
Department at Griffith University in 2003 and are now referred to as the School
of Arts, Media and Culture.
170
4. Analysis of Data
The previous chapter detailed Glaserian grounded theory methodology and how
this method is applied to the research design and the research procedures
required in handling the data generated by the RidgiDidge Study. In the interests
of transparency, the Analysis of Data reveals how categories emerge from the
information gathered during the field research.
The sampling procedure employed by the RidgiDidge Study and the
modification of the theoretical sampling outlined by Glaser and Strauss (1968)
given the ethical constraints of working with young people and the exigencies of
doctoral research are discussed in this chapter. This modified sampling
procedure is shows how the results of the RidgiDidge Study are made more
compelling and specific to the participant group.
The discussion in this chapter proceeds to detail the semi-structured interview
approach as well as providing the rationale for the questions asked in the media
diary. The constant comparison of data gathered from the diary and the
participants are essential to the rigour of the emergent grounded theory, but the
establishment of the rapport between me and the participants is also an equally
important factor in data gathering and its analysis. The development of rapport is
presented in this chapter as part of the narrative of the RidgiDidge Study and its
inception at Wynnum Senior High School. Nevertheless, in keeping with the
increasingly detailed discussion of the data analysis, this chapter presents a
practical description of the open, axial and selective coding procedures, making
171
use of a diagram to contextualise the process of analysis as well as defining
grounded theory-specific terms such as ‘concept’ and ‘category’ (see Figure 7:
Grounded theory method terminology and process on page 190). The discussion
in this chapter then addresses the level of research participation by the volunteers
before presenting each participant’s profile and an outline of their media
consumption over the course of their participation in the study.
In preparation for the Results section of the RidgiDidge Study, this chapter on
data analysis outlines the development of the categories of media technology,
domestication, agency and social praxis. The emergent theory generated by the
RidgiDidge Study data is discussed in the next chapter on page 235 although the
emergence of agency as the core category is briefly addressed in concluding this
chapter on data analysis.
Applied Theoretical Sampling
The recruitment of participants to the RidgiDidge Study is governed by the
research protocols in dealing with young people, as approved by the Griffith
University Ethics Committee and by the High School itself. These research
protocols present themselves as an unusual constraint to grounded theory method
generally in that there are no concessions or allowances for the protection of
young people in Glaser and Strauss’ 1968 blueprint for grounded theory method.
172
Given Ambert’s8 assertion that there was a near absence of studies on young
people in mainstream sociology until 1986 (Corsaro 1997: 7), Glaser and Strauss
could not have reasonably foreseen the application of their methodology to this
social group in a contemporary society where the protection of young people is a
high profile issue. For this reason, there is no specific allowance made in Glaser
and Strauss’ vision for the high levels of ethical conduct in dealing with young
people demanded by contemporary research standards. This translates to the
modification of theoretical sampling procedures that account for contemporary
ethical constraints and the exigencies of doctoral research, although
paradoxically, such constraints ultimately make the findings of the RidgiDidge
Study more compelling. This is particularly so given that the results of the
RidgiDidge Study concern a group of ‘purposeful volunteers’; young volunteers
with access to new media technologies, supported by their school community in
their research participation. As discussed in Theoretical Sampling on page 146,
the sampling method proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1968) is more commonly
described in a contemporary context as ‘snowballing’.
Vogt (1999) describes snowballing as ‘a technique for finding research subjects
where one subject gives the researcher the name of another subject, who in turn
8
In Ambert, A. (1995) ‘Sociology of sociology: The place of children in North
American sociology’, in Sociological Studies of Child Development, Vol. 1, P. &
P. Adler (Eds.). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1986.
173
provides the name of another potential participant (Atkinson and Flint 2001). To
employ the technique of ‘snowballing’ has its own set of problems given its
predominant use among hidden, isolated or criminal populations, the problem of
representativeness and the possibility of hostility given a chain of referral
(Atkinson and Flint 2001).
Similarly, to seek out other research participants based on initial sample
responses is also problematic based on the ethical problems.
In grounded theory method, sampling is theoretical in that:
Groups are chosen when they are needed rather than before the
research. Initially, the researcher will go to the most obvious
places and find the most likely informants in search of
information. However, as concepts are identified and the theory
starts to develop, further individuals may need to be incorporated
in order to strengthen the findings (Goulding 2002: 66) [emphasis
added].
Given the ethical constraints of voluntary research participation, mediated access
to potential participants given the High School’s duty of care and respect for
participants, the option of extending the sample group as concepts emerge is
unrealistic. However, the longitudinal nature of the RidgiDidge Study allows for
theoretical saturation by revisiting participants over a period of time, asking a
range of questions and gathering data about participant responses.
In this way, participant interview responses in the RidgiDidge Study are mined
and exhausted for information rather than seeking to exhaust an infinite supply of
young people with access to new media technology in order to strengthen
findings. Thus, the emergent theory remains focused on one group of participants
who share local cultural capital. With such a necessarily narrow field with which
174
to generate a substantive theory, the emergent theory is illustrative of what is
going on at the intersection between young people and new media technology
rather than representative so that it is ‘relevant to the world from which it
emerges’ (Hutchinson 1986: 184).
With the parameters of applying the research firmly contextualised by ethical
considerations, the field work of The RidgiDidge Study began at Wynnum
Senior High School, Wynnum, Queensland with Stage 1, commencing in May
2003. Stage 2 was conducted in November 2003 and Stage 3 finalised the field
research in May 2004. Data collection in the RidgiDidge Study consisted of
participants completing a media diary and a short individual interview over three
research stages across three school terms.
Data Collection
Semi-Structured Interviews
The use of interview material has been at the heart of research involving human
beings for at least half a century, with ‘few signs that social researchers have
made improvements in their ways’ (Foddy 1993: x).
Foddy’s comment draws attention to criticism that highlights the inadequacy of
interview question construction in eliciting accurate responses from research
participants.
Foddy highlights several key problems in question construction (Foddy 1993: 110) and these problems are summarised below.
!
Factual questions sometimes elicit invalid answers.
175
!
The relationship between what respondents say they do and what they
actually do is not always very strong.
!
Respondents’ attitudes, beliefs, opinions, habits, interests often seem
to be extraordinarily unstable small changes in wording sometimes
produce major changes in the distribution of responses.
!
Respondents commonly misinterpret questions.
!
Answers to earlier questions can affect respondents’ answers to earlier
questions.
!
Changing the order in which response options are presented
sometimes affects respondents’ answers.
!
Respondents’ answers are sometimes affected by the question format
per se.
!
Respondents’ often answer questions even when it appears that they
know very little about the topic
!
The cultural context in which a question is presented often has an
impact on the way respondents interpret and answer questions.
Despite these problems, and given that verbal data cannot, nor should be
dismissed, critics have devoted their energies towards improving rather than
demolishing current methodological practices (Foddy 1993: 10).
Such improvements include, but are not restricted to, knowledge of the sample
group in terms of social dynamic; the use of videotape so that interactions can be
reviewed, and; accounting for social psychological factors such as status
differences between respondents and interviewers.
176
Foddy distils the work of Cicourel (1982), Briggs (1986) and Phillips (1971) in
pointing out that question and answer events are more complex than generally
assumed and that such events should be ‘understood in relation not only to one
another but also to the social contexts in which they operate’ (Foddy 1993: 11).
This relates to the notion of ‘positioning’ (Graue and Walsh 1998: 99), or how a
rapport might be established between the researcher and the research
participants.
The first step in establishing a rapport between myself as the researcher and
potential participants came with the distribution of Information and Consent
forms during Drama, Media and Music classes at Wynnum High School, before
the RidgiDidge Study began. These events presented the opportunity for
potential participants to ask questions about the RidgiDidge Study and the
context of participation.
The research persona I present to potential participants at this early stage of field
work is ‘true to myself’ in that I make no attempt to appear as something I am
not in terms of power relations (being neither a teacher, nor a parent) or peer
group (being at least 21 years older than the eldest participant).
In keeping with the ethical standards of the RidgiDidge Study, my approach in
developing a rapport with participants is to nurture a respectful working
relationship with the participants where I am learning about my research area
from them.
In this way, using a semi-structured interview approach allows me to keep the
interaction between the participant and myself ‘on track’, while affording the
177
participant the freedom to discuss or raise any issues themselves. The efficacy of
this approach is indicated by the increasingly voluble and relaxed responses of
participants over the course of the RidgiDidge Study. Nevertheless, although
interview data, and field memos are the main elements in generating theory in
the RidgiDidge Study, the use of the Media Diary as a quantitative instrument
anchors and triangulates the qualitative data.
What follows presents a description of the purpose behind each survey question
and the diary format. However, it is important to bear in mind that grounded
theory method avoids a priori assumptions although a tentative literature review
reveals key areas with which to establish the ecological contexts of media
consumption. The media diary is included in the appendices on page 408.
Media Diaries
The Front Cover
The cover design is part of the overall project identity of the RidgiDidge Study.
A description of the RidgiDidge Study, iconic graphics and new media
technologies presented in a bold font makes a clear statement about the Media
Diary itself and the field research as a whole. Participants and their gatekeepers
were introduced to the project identity from the initial Information Pack and the
Information and Consent form.
Page 1
This page is offers participants a short re-iteration of the purposes of the study as
well as a stating that the RidgiDidge Study is not ‘a test’ and that participant
178
confidentiality is maintained. The purpose of this page is to support participant
ideas of being useful in developing a picture of young people’s media
consumption in the local area.
Page 2
This page is included for the purposes of registering participants contact details.
The inclusion of Alternative Contact details was included to maximise the
opportunity for study subjects to continue to participate in the study in the event
of any changes to their personal circumstances.
Those persons nominated by study participants as Alternative Contacts were sent
a letter informing them of their status (a copy of the letter is included in the
appendices on page 405).
Page 3 - About Your Media Technology
This section is designed to ascertain which media technologies participants had
access to in their home and in their rooms. The assumption here is that the
location of media technologies would form the basis of subsequent interview
questions about the study subject’s attitudes between the uses of technology in
the ‘public’ and ‘private’ spaces of their home. Questions about the possible use
of media technologies elsewhere, such as library Internet services or using a
friend’s games system at their home were reserved for the interview where
necessary.
179
Page 4 - About Your Family and Household Rules
Question 3 is included to develop a profile of the participant’s home environment
in terms of family. It was assumed that that some households might show a
correlation between family composition and the purchase of media technologies.
Questions about number and age of siblings were reserved for the interview
process, including whether these family members shared media technologies
such as a family computer, mobile phone or games system where necessary.
The inclusion of Question 4 Do your parents/guardians use a computer at work?
develops an indication of whether participants were first or second generation
technology users in the household. The assumption here is that parents/guardians
who use a computer at work were more likely to be receptive to having new
technology within the home and would perhaps use the technology with the
participants. Answers to subsequent questions about parental/guardian rules
might indicate the level of supervision afforded participants if at all. Questions
about how participants perceived the level of supervision were reserved for the
interview process.
Page 5 - About Your Internet Use
This set of questions is included in the media diary to gauge the role the internet
has in participant’s lives. The response to questions about preferred websites
indicates the type of recreational pursuit participant’s preferred online.
180
Page 6 - About Your Game Playing
This set of questions is concerned with those participants who use computer
games and/or games systems. These responses relate to the consumption of
games and games systems. Any voluntary elaboration on the point of pirate
software was reserved for the first interview.
Page 7 - About Your News and Information
This section gauges the participant’s perceived proportion between the
recreational and educational use of new media and the informational use of new
media technology. Four types of receptive use of new technology can be
classified by user purpose; recreational, informational, educational and
subliminal. The inclusion of a question about news and information in
comparison to other uses was clarified during the interview process.
This question also indicates whether participants have an interest in their wider
ecology beyond their friends and immediate family. Questions about mobile
phone use in the survey form the basis of Stage 1 interview questions that look at
whether the type of mobile phone use is predicated on cost, household rules or
ownership.
Page 8 - About Your Recreation
Participant responses here contextualise new media technology use in relation to
other activities given perennial community concern about the displacement of
traditional activities by new media technology use.
181
Media Diary Pages 9-24
What type of media did you use today?
Where were you when you used your media?
Was anyone with you when you used your media?
Were you doing anything else at the same time?
This section contextualises participant media use in relation to their everyday life
as well as cross referencing interview responses. The use of this form of cross
referencing presents the possible difference between verbally reported participant
perception about media use and the diarised media use that takes place.
In recording media use this way, media use in relation to everyday life is better
contextualised in that; a participant who watches a science video at school with
their classmates is exercising a different type of media use to one who watches
cartoons on Foxtel while holding a conversation with someone else at home.
Analysis of the responses to this set of quantitative data shows the social context
of media use such as recreational, informational, educational and subliminal
uses.
The Sample
The RidgiDidge Study looks at how new media technology figures in the lives
of young people at Wynnum State High School over three school terms between
May 2003 and May 2004.
Wynnum State High School was selected to participate in the RidgiDidge Study
for several reasons. Firstly, as a State High School in a Brisbane suburb,
182
attendance is not predicated on the socio-economic status of the family.
Secondly, all research proposals must go through Education Queensland if they
are to concern more than one school. Developing the research for one location
only greatly reduced the number of gatekeepers through which the research
proposal had to pass. Dealing with one school only also ensured that the final
number of participants would be realistically manageable by a sole researcher.
On a less tangible basis, research in one school ensured a more singular range of
social capital given anecdotal differences between schools in terms of microcultures (Cotton 1996; Solberg 1996).
Thirdly, there is an existing professional relationship between the School’s
Sports Coordinator, Chris Friendship, and myself in my capacity as a Martial
Arts teacher in Ju Jitsu and self-defence.
This association was particularly
fortuitous given the difficulties in actually getting the initial research proposal to
a member of High School staff with the power to consent to the research in the
school community.
A host school was sought in Cleveland in the Redlands Shire, before extending
the search to Brisbane Shire and Wynnum and despite efforts to market the
research as having minimal impact on the day-to-day activities of students and
staff, all but one school approached did not respond to a follow up telephone call.
Schools were initially contacted with a telephone call, a personal visit and
delivery of an Information Pack that consisted of sample instrument, Information
and Consent details and a covering letter (see RidgiDidge Information Form on
page 405 and Covering Letter on page 407). One High School eventually
183
responded but later declined to participate as the staff member willing to
participate was due to go on long service leave and would be unable to see out
the research.
Despite exhausting the High Schools in my local area, I was reticent to approach
Wynnum High School based on the desire not to exploit my existing relationship
to the school. This reticence was later shown to be ill-founded given Mrs
Friendship’s assistance and Bernard’s 1988 assertion that ‘there is no reason to
select a site that is difficult to enter when equally good sites are available that are
easy to enter’ (Graue and Walsh 1988: 98).
In keeping with the full and transparent methodological report, establishing the
RidgiDidge Study at Wynnum Senior High School occurred under the following
circumstances. In the course of conducting and administrating the self-defence
courses for the school through the Queensland Police, Citizen’s and Youth
Clubs, Mrs Friendship would often ask how my studies were going and on one
occasion, I mentioned my frustration at getting my research into a local school.
Mrs Friendship immediately suggested that I utilise my relationship with the
school and volunteered to assist me 'from the inside'. Within a week, the head of
the Media department of the School, Gabriel Trabuco, had organised School
Authority consent and RidgiDidge Information and Consent Forms were
distributed among Wynnum students during their Drama, Media and Music
classes (see Information and Consent forms on page 405).
184
The Information and Consent forms highlight that student participation in the
RidgiDidge Study is entirely voluntary and that participants can withdraw from
the research at any time without penalty.
As discussed on page 146, the theoretical sampling procedures in the RidgiDidge
Study are non-probability sampling where there are no limits set on the number
of participants or data sources (Cutcliffe 2000: 1477) within the school context.
Nevertheless, once the initial group of Wynnum students volunteered and were
consented, no other students came forward to participate.
The volunteering RidgiDidge Study participants came from across the high
school community from Years 8 to 12.
This indicated that there was likely to be maximum diversity across the sample
pool in keeping with the demands of grounded theory method.
A total of 33 interviews were conducted, with 15 in Stage 1, 12 in Stage 2 and 6
interviews in Stage 6. The table below shows which Stages of the RidgiDidge
Study the participants completed.
185
Figure 5: Participant Log
Participant
9
Code
School
Year
Stage 1
Interview
F1
F2
F3
F4
F6
F7
F8
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
9
8/9
10/11
8/9
9/10
8
9
10/11
10/11
8/9
10/11
8
9
9
9/10
9/10
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Stage 2
Diary
Complete
d
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Interview
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Stage 3
Diary
Complete
d
#
#
#
#
#
#
Interview
Diary
Complete
d
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Participant age was not considered particularly important to the RidgiDidge
Study given that grouping persons according to shared cultural capital rather than
age is more appropriate where an activity is not necessarily predicated on age
(Solberg 1996).
This approach allowed for the likely differences in human development between
genders and age groups given differing levels of physical and mental maturity.
Data Analysis
The RidgiDidge Study followed grounded theory method and this section
outlines the data analysis in terms of the process of handling the developing and
incoming data. This entails the use of constant comparison between data, which
9
‘M’ denotes a male participant and ‘F’ denotes a female participant. The numbers indicate their
place on the original interview schedule.
186
leads to the emergence of categories. From an initial open coding stage once data
gathering has begun, coding becomes more selective leading to the development
of a core category that emerges in relation to its interaction with other categories
and their properties.
Coding – Open, Axial and Selective
In the context of grounded theory method, coding refers to the process of
‘breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualising and categorising data’
(Strauss and Corbin 1990 in Dey 1999: 97). In open coding, this translates to
reviewing a full transcript of an interview and identifying, line by line, data that
belongs to, represents or is an example of a ‘general phenomenon’ (Goulding
2002: 76). This step is followed by axial coding or ‘a set of procedures whereby
data are put back together in new ways after open coding by making connections
between categories’ (Strauss and Corbin 1990 in Dey 1999: 97). Selective coding
is the stage in the analytical process where the core category emerges. Strauss
and Corbin describe this type of coding as ‘the integration of concepts around a
core category and the filling in of categories in need of further development and
refinement’ (Strauss and Corbin 1998: 237). Figure 7: Grounded theory method
terminology and process on page 190 provides a map of the coding practices and
terms in use in the RidgiDidge Study.
In terms of managing the data grounded theory method generates, NVivo 2.0
Qualitative software is useful (Richards 2005).
However, the use of this
qualitative software in the RidgiDidge Study is tempered by an awareness of an
187
overly mechanistic approach. As Dey points out, without a necessarily solid
understanding of the processes of grounded theory as a methodology, there is a
danger of focussing on codable data and how this data fits with the software
application at the expense of other possibilities for theory generation that are
implicit, rather than explicit (Dey 1999: 273; Goulding 2002 : 93-94). In this
way, NVivo is used as a tool rather than dictating how categories should emerge.
As Goulding points out, ‘theory construction is a mental activity’ (Goulding
2002: 94 [emphasis added]) and should remain so, so that computer assisted
coding never overshadows the generation of theory. The data analysis process is
outlined below with a diagrammatical outline of the grounded theory
methodology and process to follow on page 190 based on Strauss and Corbin’s
discussion (1998: 101-163).
188
Figure 6: Data Analysis Process
Research
Stage
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Post
Fieldwork
Process
Participants consented $ Diaries distributed and returned $ Individual and
general questions developed
Individual Interviews held and taped $ videotape review and transcription $
memos $ open coding
Participants consented $ Diaries distributed and returned $ General questions
developed
Individual interviews held and taped $ videotape review and transcription $
memos $ open coding
Participants consented $ Diaries distributed and returned $ General questions
developed
Individual interviews held and taped $ videotape review and transcription $
memos $ open coding
Review of concepts through axial, then selective coding.
Transcripts selectively re-coded to ensure that the emergent categories fitted all
participant responses
Selective coding reveals core category of agency.
189
Figure 7: Grounded theory method terminology and process
OPEN CODING
Fractures and opens up the text.
CONCEPTS
CONCEPTS are an abstract representation of
an event, object, interaction, action or phenomena.
Comparison between CONCEPTS leads to PROPOSITIONS or
how phenomena might be inter-related.
PROPERTIES
General/specific
attributes of a
category
CONCEPTS are grouped as
CATEGORIES
Categories stand for phenomena that answer the
question
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
DIMENSIONS
The location of a
property on a
continuum
SUBCATEGORIES
The ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘why’ and ‘how’ of phenomena
AXIAL CODING
Reassembles the data fractured during
OPEN CODING
SELECTIVE CODING
Process of integrating and refining CATEGORIES
Resulting in a CORE CATEGORY
Or main theme of research
CORE CATEGORY (from Dey 1999: 111)
It is central if it is related to many other categories and accounts for a large proportion of variation in
the data.
It is stable if it can be seen as a recurrent pattern in the data.
It is sufficiently complex if it takes more time to saturate (identify its properties) than other categories.
It is incisive if it has clear implications for more formal theory.
It is powerful if its explanatory power helps the analyst to ‘carry through’ to a successful conclusion.
It is highly variable if it is sensitive to variations in conditions in terms of degree, dimension, and type.
190
With the grounded theory process and its terminology clarified, what follows is a
short profile of each participant based on memos in the field, interviews, media
diaries and the media diary questionnaire. This establishes a rounded perspective
of the research acquaintance and the level of the ensuing rapport which is built
on in the Results section on page 235. Although there is likely to be some
variation or misreporting in the media diaries, all written and spoken responses
are taken as accurate and truthful. Not all elements of the transcripts are included
here either; rather short excerpts that contextualise how participant media
technology appears to figure in their lives. Participant profiles appear in order of
participation from the highest level of participation to the least.
Participant responses to the questionnaire are summarised in the Data Tables on
page 389.
Participant Profiles
The following participant profiles feature the participant code used throughout
the RidgiDidge Study. ‘M’ denotes a male participant and ‘F’ denotes a female
participant. The numbers indicate their place on the original interview schedule.
M8
M8 was in Years 9 and 10 during the study and participated in all research
stages. A micro level analysis of M8’s responses is published as Getting Real:
Lessons from RidgiDidge (Liley 2004) in the peer reviewed Conference
Proceedings of The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) (Richmond
2004). This paper focuses on the problems of researching young people and how
191
the imbrication of Cultural Studies and Sociology is an appropriate way of
ameliorating some of the fundamental problems of young people’s media
research.
The peer review and subsequent publication of this paper confirms and justifies
the approach adopted in the RidgiDidge Study as the field work component of a
PhD dissertation given that the conclusion of the microanalysis indicated that,
The imbrication of Cultural Studies and Sociology creates a
synergistic relationship between disciplines that allows a much
more useful approach towards understanding young people's media
consumption, particularly when it is their views that discipline the
research (Liley 2004).
M8’s interview responses across all stages of the RidgiDidge Study formed the
raw data for micro analysis and indicated that that the domestication of media
technologies (Silverstone 1992; Hutchby 2001; Haddon 2003; Ling 2004) is a
more useful perspective in understanding an individual’s media consumption
than affordance, social determinism, or technical determinism might allow for.
This is where domestication takes on the trajectory where an individual becomes
aware of a technology, sees how it can be of use, associates a sense of identity
with the technology, making it part of life before the individual finally becomes
identified with that technology.
Nevertheless, M8’s domestication of technology is only one way of describing a
small facet of how new media technology figures in his life given the wider
context of the RidgiDidge Study itself and its generation of a grounded theory.
Indeed, drawing attention to domestication as a grounded theory concept
192
illustrates that the substantive grounded theory generated by the RidgiDidge
Study is greater than simply the sum of its parts.
In terms of M8’s personal media technology, he has a radio, a CD Walkman
acquired in Stage 2, a television, a DVD player, a computer with no internet
connection, a PlayStation2 and a mobile phone acquired in Stage 3.
M8’s household technologies include a CD player, cable television, a VCR, a
DVD player and a computer with an internet connection.
M8 lives at home with his Mother and her partner and two brothers, 16 and 19
years respectively and a younger sister.
He perceives no rules about his media consumption and uses the internet for
email, games, school research and chat rooms. He has no favourite website but
noted Google as being important to him for information. M8 bought his own
PlayStation 2.
Although he favours ‘shoot ‘em up’ games, M8 listed Final Fantasy X (2001),
Red Faction 2 (2001) and Vampire Night (2001) as favourite games.
M8 uses pirate software, pointing out in Stage 1 in response to the question of
whether he had ever used pirate software that,
M8: Lots! Yeah my friend's brother, he plays computer a lot, well
my friend’s brother wrote his, he's in year 12. I go 'oh that's a
pretty rad game', I go over to his house one time and 'could you
burn that for me', 'yeah, OK' so we burned the CD, put it my
computer and started playing it. I get it off my friends.
KL: Do you think it hurts anyone to burn CD's?
M8: Not really, we just share it around our friends.
KL: So you're not burning like 50 of them?
193
M8: No, we don't really sell them. Its like he's got four computers
at home, he's got a hub so you hook them up and you can play
LAN with each other at home.
M8’s statement suggests that when software is pirated, it is done so with a view
to increased social inclusion rather than commercial gain. In this context, M8’s
emphasis in his statement is on play instead of profit.
M8 gets his news on most days from television and perceives that he spends
most of his time playing sport, using a computer and catching up with friends.
The order in which he perceives these activities in terms of time spent fluctuates
between research stages. M8 explains in Stage 1 that,
M8: In school, I play tennis just for fun; just down there [indicates
school courts].
KL: What about outside of school?
M8: I play AFL football for Wynnum Vikings. Recently, I was the
captain for the Under-14s.
KL: How often do you think you might spend playing games per
week?
M8: It depends really. A week it'd probably be every now and
then, here and there after school.
In Stage 3 M8 said,
M8: I'm booked out a lot lately. I've got Tuesday night football,
Thursday football, Saturday I've got football and Sunday I've got
football. So yeah, I'm a bit booked out.
KL: Is this playing through the school or club?
M8: Club.
In terms of a weekly routine, M8 occasionally watches television in the morning
before school, and plays a computer game alone when he gets home from school.
He noted that by late afternoon he is often in the car listening to the radio with
his family, spending time later in the evening watching television with is family.
194
Most of M8’s time alone at home is spent on the computer with no indication
that his family is present in the house.
M8’s weekend routine is to spread his use of the internet, cable television and
games system over the course of the day, socialising with a friend and his family.
M1
M1 was in Years 10 and 11 during the RidgiDidge Study and participated in
every stage, submitting a media diary each time.
His personal media technologies located in his room included a television, radio,
CD player, CD Walkman, a games system and digital organiser. A new VCR
was added to his personal technologies by Stage 2 of the RidgiDidge Study.
A computer with an internet connection and CD Burner was located in the family
space of the home as were a DVD player, VCR, television and CD player and
Walkman. However, CD Burners at the time of the RidgiDidge Study were not a
standard feature on most computers.
The latest games system was a family purchase used by M1 and his older brother
occasionally, but not his parents. Both his parents use a computer at work but
according to M1, are ‘no good’ at playing computer games at home.
M1’s use of the internet revolves around research on school work and hobbies,
soccer website fifa.com being listed as a favourite, and; search engines and email
ninemsn and Hotmail. M1 listed MP3 downloading, surfing the net, email and
information gathering as other web based activities. Alongside new media
technology, M1 read newspapers and watched public television for news reports
195
everyday as well as using the internet to for news gathering. M1 occasionally
uses a mobile phone, but this is not his personal technology.
M1 estimates that he spends most of his time outside of school playing sport,
catching up with friends and watching television. In Stage 3 he said that he
continued to be involved with the local soccer club.
In terms of how M1 keeps in contact with his friends, M1 responded in Stage 2;
M1: I use the internet a bit and call them myself and I see people
out at soccer.
M1’s weekly routine in Stage 1 as reported in his Media Diary outside school
hours shows that he spends time before school watching television, being in the
company of his family, talking at home and in the car. M1 talks to a classmate on
the way home from school in the car before eating, watching television, doing
homework on the computer in the family room, and talking to his parents and
brother. This pattern is repeated on week days with the use of the computer being
closely related to homework activity.
On Saturday, M1 is alone in his room watching television until mid-morning
before doing homework, using the computer and talking to his family. No media
is indicated during the afternoon, but watching television and a video with his
family during the evening and through dinner is a routine practice.
M1’s household rhythm on Sunday is similar with social television watching
being the main activity and use of media.
Although no game playing is indicated in Stage 1, M1 lists Grand Theft Auto 3
GTA3) (2001), Red Faction 2 (2001) and Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2 (2001)
as favourite games. Tekken 4 (2002) and GTA Vice City (2003) emerge as
196
favourite games along side GTA 3 in Stage 2 with GTA Vice City featuring in
Stage 3 alongside Need for Speed: Underground (2003) and V8 Supercars 2.
M1’s Media Diaries indicate that it is not uncommon for him to engage in
co-media activities such as talking to his brother while playing a game, or
listening to music, talking and completing homework tasks on the family
computer.
Selected interview responses over every stage of the RidgiDidge Study indicate
that M1 is an articulate and personable person and that he has a close and
respectful relationship with his family. This perception is evidenced by his
compliance with family rules. When asked whether he perceived parental control
over media consumption and whether permission was conditional on the
completion of chores, M1 responded ‘Not really, they're [chores] usually done
anyway’. On asked whether he played games with his parents, he responded ‘No,
they're no good [laughs]’.
M2
M2 was in Years 10 and 11 during the RidgiDidge Study and participated in
every stage, submitting a media diary each time. His personal media
technologies located in his room included a radio, CD player and Walkman.
His games system and his mobile phone, listed in Stage 1 as personal
technologies were redesignated as household technologies in Stages 2 and 3 A
television, VCR, DVD player, radio and CD player, Walkman and a computer
with an internet connection were located in the family space of the home.
197
M2 is an only child living with his Mother. His Mother bought his pre-paid
phone for him so that he can keep in contact with his father who does not live
with M2. M2 plays games on his phone and downloads and composes different
ring tones. M2 prefers using the mobile phone over a landline as his service
carrier OPTUS allows free 20 minute phone calls after 9pm.
Over the course of the RidgiDidge Study, it readily apparent that M2 is very
aware of his family’s household rules about his television, computer and internet
use, as indicated in his interview responses. He does not, however, always
observe those rules, and this resulted in an excessive internet bill and his Mother
cancelling the family internet subscription.
However, M2 still perceives that his Mother gives him a reasonable amount of
freedom.
M2 uses the internet at home for email, school research, ‘net surfing, MP3 files,
chat rooms and games such as those found on freearcade.com. The indicated
downloading of ring tones and music might have been a factor in his Mother’s
decision to stop home internet access.
M2 has 3 games systems, the latest of which he bought himself. Unreal
Tournament (2000)features in his favourite games selection in Stage 1 and Stage
2, Tekken Tag Tournament (2000) is listed in Stage 2 and GTA 3 (2001) and
Time Splitters 2 (2002) are listed in Stage 1. In stage 1, M2
M2 gets his news from public television most days with internet and newspaper
news sources being noted in Stage 3. His favourite activities are going to the
198
cinema, playing sport and catching up with friends. M2 indicates that he spends
most of his time on developing his social relationships.
In Stage 2, M2’s socialising had been partly replaced by reading and using a
computer with an identical perception of the way he spends his time being
reported in Stage 3.
M2’s weekly routine on weekdays is to watch television, and listen to the radio
in the morning before school. Breakfast is eaten and there is conversation
between himself, his mother and a friend in the car on the way to school. M2 is
often alone after school, during which time he watches television or a video and
does his homework. His evenings are spent eating a meal and switching between
computer and television in the family space of the household. In Stage 2, M2
stopped using any media in the morning, but was focused on the internet or
television in the family space in the evening in the company of his Mother. A
similar pattern emerged in Stage 3.
M2’s weekend routine is very social, catching up with friends at their houses,
playing games and talking. Weekend evenings are occupied with television or
the internet in the family space of the home, with M2 reporting that he is often
alone.
M2 is a highly articulate participant although his body language suggested that
he was not comfortable being interviewed although he said that this was more
about being around adults.
199
F3 and F4
F3 and F4 are sisters with F3 being in Years 10 and 11 over the duration of the
RidgiDidge Study and F4 being in Years 8 and 9. Both girls participated in all
stages of the RidgiDidge Study apart from the final interview. Their joint profile
here extends to the location of their household and personal technologies,
although their individual media use bifurcates in many aspects. The girls live at
home with their Mother and Step-father who both use computers at work.
The household technologies include radio, CD player and Walkman, public
television, VCR, DVD player, internet connection CD burner games system and
a mobile phone. The girls have their own rooms with F3 having a mobile phone,
television and a video recorder as well as a CD player, Walkman and radio. F4
has a CD player, Walkman and radio only.
Rules about media use in the house are the same for both girls with only rules
about time spent on the home computer being perceived by each girl. Typical
computer use for each girl is email and research for school with F3 using chat
rooms and games sites. F4 extends her use of the computer to the msn
messenger. Taste in websites between the girls is different with F3 favouring
functional use of Google and Hotmail and stupid.com. F4 favours neopets.com,
rove.com and bored.com. The girls have a Nintendo games system at home that
was purchased by their Mother. F3 told me that their Mother runs day care from
home, and the games system is used by those children at their house as well.
200
Both girls list The Sims (2002) as a favourite game, but the games listed are
played on their PC.
F3 lists Who wants to be a millionaire and GTA3 as
favourite sites and F4 favours Encarta and Cosmopolitan Virtual Makeover.
In terms of news and information, F3 gets her news everyday from public
television while F4 reads a newspaper, uses the internet and accesses public
television for her news.
Mobile phone use between the girls indicates that F3 uses her phone regularly
while F4 uses the family mobile phone for contacting her parents only.
When asked what technology she would most like to have, F3 responded:
F3: A new mobile phone because my old one didn't work any
more… and… yeah that's probably the best one.
KL: Would you go prepaid?
F3: Prepaid, yeah
Both girls indicated that they spent most of their free time catching up with
friends, reading and playing Netball.
F3’s diarised media usage indicates a typical routine where she watches
television in her room while eating breakfast before school if she uses media at
all. Her evenings are spent with her family watching television when she is not
working at a retail outlet.
On the weekends, F3 activities range between spending a lot of time at a friend’s
house using a computer and talking or being at home alone and reading.
F4’s weekly routine consists of television in the morning in the company of her
family and television with her family in the evening if she is not reading alone.
201
F4’s weekend activities are to consistently read alone during the day, and to
watch television with her family in the evening.
F6
F6 was in Years 9 and 10 during the RidgiDidge Study, and participated in every
research stage as well as submitting three Media Diaries. F6 had attended the
Self-defence course I ran at the school previously but did not initially recognise
me as a ‘researcher’. When she realised that she knew me, rapport was more
quickly established.
F6’s personal technologies were a radio, a CD player and Walkman, a television
and a games system. Her household technologies included a mobile phone, a
computer with an internet connection, a VCR, a DVD player, a television, a
radio and a CD player. She lives with her Mother, her brother and her brother’s
friend. F6’s Mother uses a computer at work. F6 perceives no rules about her
media consumption although,
KL: Do you have to finish your homework or chores before
playing games or getting to watch TV?
F6: My mum doesn't actually do that but at times when I have
homework she tries to not let me watch TV but I normally watch
TV and I’ve one in my room.
F6 uses the internet at home for research, email and games, indicating
neopets.com as a favourite site. She plays on a PlayStation2 at home but she
identifies this as her brother’s.
In Stage 1 she indicated that Age of Empires I (1997) and II (1999) were
favourite games alongside Pinball (1995). In Stage 3, F6 indicated that she no
202
longer had the use of her brother’s games system at home suggesting that her
brother had left the home.
F6 gets her news most days at from television, the internet, newspapers and
magazines and uses her family member’s phones to make and receive calls and
text messages. Her favourite activities are catching up with friends, sleep over
parties, watching television, reading and going to the cinema.
F6’s weekday routine features very little media consumption during the day
outside of listening to the radio in the car. She does however, watch cable
television at her grandparents after school, before multi-tasking homework,
talking to her family, eating and watching television in the evening. F6’s
weekends are family based, talking and listening to music with her extended
family during the day, and watching television in the evenings with them.
In Stage 3 F6 was also spending time playing games with a friend on the
weekend.
M3
M3 was in Year 8 at the beginning of the RidgiDidge Study and participated in
Stages 1 and 2. His personal technologies are restricted to a radio, CD player,
CD Walkman, Tape Walkman, and a Gameboy with a mobile phone being added
in Stage 2. Television, mobile phone, games system, cable TV, DVD player and
a VCR are designated as household technologies in his home.
M3 has one brother and two sisters who are younger than he is and they live with
both parents, who use a computer at work.
203
The family do not have a computer in the home, but M3 uses the internet
facilities at the library, a friend’s house and a relative’s house. His use of the
internet is restricted to research for school and his interests (nrl.com,
stickdeath.com, kingsofchaos.com) as well as chat rooms, games and email.
M3 has four games systems, although his favourite games are PlayStation 2
compatible (Madden 2001, GTA3 (2001), GTA Vice City (2003), Grand Turismo
A-Spec (2001) and Tony Hawks Pro Skater 4 (2002). In Stage 1, M3 said that he
played games socially as well as on his own.
M3 accesses news information everyday using television, cable TV, newspapers
and magazines. M3’s favourite activities are playing sport, catching up with
friends, television, listening to music and playing with his dogs and family.
M3’s media diary in Stages 1 and 2 indicates that M3 listens to music in the
morning before school and watches television and cable TV in the evening with
his family in the family room. He occasionally played a computer game with his
brother and sisters in the evening during Stages 1 and 2. He is rarely on his own,
spending time with his family, including his grandparents, when using media
technology.
M3 uses very little to no media over the weekend apart from family television
viewing through the evening as well as eating a meal while the television is on.
M4
M4 was in Years 10 and 11 during the RidgiDidge Study and participated in all
stages of the RidgiDidge Study although he only submitted a media diary in
204
Stage 3. He lists his personal technologies as a radio, CD player and Walkman, a
computer with an internet connection and a mobile phone.
The household also has a mobile phone, laptop computer, computer with internet
connection, television and a VCR and DVD player.
His interview transcript indicates that he has a PlayStation although this was not
included in his media diary.
M4 lives with his Mother, Step-father and older sister. M4 perceives no rules
about his media consumption but acknowledges that his chores and homework
need to be finished before he can play games.
M4’s guardian’s do not use a computer at work, but M4 uses his computer
mainly for research on school projects, stating that he does not have any
favourite websites.
M4 gets his news from public television most days and has a personal mobile
phone that he uses for receiving calls and sending and receiving text messages.
His favourite activities are catching up with friends which he perceives to take
up most of his free time. He enjoys playing sport and using a computer, but does
not include watching television as a favourite activity.
His weekday routine in Stage 3 is not to use any media during the morning, but
to use his mobile phone to talk to a friend during school hours. He occasionally
watches television with his family during the evening, before retiring to his room
to use the computer alone.
205
On the weekend of Stage 3, he spent most of his time during the day alone in his
room using his computer although he spent the evening with his family and a
friend watching a DVD in the family space of the home.
M9
M9 was in Years 9 and 10 during the RidgiDidge Study and participated in all
stages although his Stage 2 media diary was not submitted. M9 has a clear
phonological disorder that might account for his preference for very short
responses to interview questions. His personal technologies included a radio, CD
player, a television, a Sega games system and his Father bought him an Xbox
games system in Stage 3. M9 mentioned playing on an Xbox at a family
member’s home prior to this acquisition.
His household technologies included a television, a VCR, DVD player and a
computer with an internet connection. M9 lives with his Mother, Father and a
younger sister. Both parents use a computer at work and M9 perceives no
parental rules about his media consumption.
M9 uses the internet for games, email and net surfing favouring Xbox.com and
Google.com. His favourite Xbox games include GTA and V8 Supercars 2 with
Xbox games Halo (2003), Microsoft Flight Simulator 2002 PC (2001) and Mech
Assault (2002). M9 said he uses burned CD games, but that, getting a friend to
burn a CD ‘doesn’t really matter’. M9 reads a newspaper and watches television
on most days to get his news, adding cable television, the internet and magazines
as news sources in Stage 3.
206
M9 lists his favourite activities as playing sport, using a computer watching
television, cinema going and reading.
He perceives that he spends most of his time watching television, reading and
playing sport. M9 did not list catching up with friends at any stage although,
when asked if he sees friends at school he said,
M9: I see them at school, at home.
KL: Do you ever ring them or email them?
M9: No, I just talk to them.
M9’s weekly routine in Stages 1 and 3 follows a similar pattern of morning
television before school, talking to a parent in the car with the radio on the way
home from school and watching television with his family in the family space or
alone in his room during the evening.
M9 also used a computer at the library on some afternoons. However, the
absence of any notation at ‘eating a meal’ in his media diary suggests that M9
was selective in his completion of the diary pages.
M9’s weekend routine was more social, indicating that he will watch a video
with family members during the evening and listen to the radio in a car while
talking with his family.
M5
M5 was in Year 8 during the RidgiDidge Study and participated in Stages 1 and
2 submitting a diary each time. His personal technologies include a radio, CD
player and Walkman, television, a DVD player, and a games system. A Palm
Pilot/Digital Organiser was acquired in Stage 2.
207
His household technologies included a mobile phone, a computer with an
internet connection, cable television, a DVD player and a radio, CD player and
Walkman.
M5 lives with his Mother, Step-father and older brother. Both guardians use a
computer at work and M5 perceives no parental control over his media use. M5
uses the internet to research for school and his hobbies indicating that he has no
favourite websites although ebay.com was listed in Stage 2 as was internet use
for email, online shopping, games and MP3 downloading.
His Mother bought him an Xbox and his favourite games include V8 Super Cars,
Halo (2003), Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 (2002), AFL 2003 and True Crime:
Streets of LA (2003). M5 indicated in Stage 1 that he does not use burned game
CDs but that he has copied music CDs.
Like M8, M5’s pirating activities are done with a view to social participation
rather than commercial gain. M5’s friend gives him CDs rather than selling them
to his friends.
M5 indicated that he gets his news from once each week to a few times each
week from cable television, public television, newspapers and magazines. M5
indicates that his favourite recreational activity is playing sport although he
perceives that he spends over 5 hours each week watching television and
catching up with friends.
M5’s weekly routine consists of watching cable television in the morning in the
company of his family before school. He spends time immediately after school
watching cable television at a relative’s house in the company of another relative
208
before spending the evening talking and watching cable television in the evening
with his family.
M5’s weekend routine sees him using no media during the day, but watching
television or cable television in the evening with his family.
M7
M7 was in Year 9 during the RidgiDidge Study and participated in Stage 1 and
only the interview in Stage 2. M7 lists his personal technologies as a radio, CD
player and Walkman, a television, a computer and a tape player.
His household technologies include a mobile phone, a computer with internet
connection, a television, VCR, and a DVD player.
M7 lives with his Mother who does not use a computer at work, and a
housemate10. He has a half-brother and a half-sister who do not live with him. In
Stage 1 he perceives no rules about his media consumption and uses the internet
in his housemate’s room for games and looking up gaming cheat sheets.
He lists one favourite online game (Teletubbies Mercy Killing) on the 2atoms
website (www.2atoms.com/game/play/teletubbies_mk.htm). He has a Nintendo
games system which his Mother bought, but list his favourite games as Diablo 2
(2000), Soldier of Fortune (2000) and Unreal Tournament (2002) all of which
are in the PC version. M7 gets his news on most days from television and from a
newspaper.
10
A housemate in M7’s home context is the lodger.
209
His favourite activities are watching television and going to the cinema although
he also indicates that he spends over 6 hours reading each week.
M7’s weekly routine is to watch morning television before school and to watch
television or a video in the evening including while eating a meal. These
activities are done while M7 is alone and M7 indicates a similar pattern of media
consumption over the weekend.
However, M7’s survey responses indicate that he is a keen PC gamer although
no gaming is indicated in his diary.
The reported absence of his Mother, other company at home and crossing out in
his diary responses might draw the accuracy of his diary entries into question
despite a presumption of truth and accuracy in participant reporting.
F2
F2 was in Year 8 when she participated in the RidgiDidge Study, submitting a
diary in Stage 1 only and participating in the Stage 2 interview only.
F2’s personal technology includes a mobile phone, a digital organiser, a laptop, a
CD player and a radio. Her household technology includes a television, a
computer and a DVD player. F2 goes to a relative’s house to use the internet.
F2 lives with her mother and has brothers and sisters, but did not elaborate as to
her family configuration. Her Mother uses a computer at work and F2 perceives
no rules about her media consumption.
She uses the internet for school research and for game playing and chat rooms
listing bubblegumclub.com as a favourite internet site.
210
F2 reads magazines but rarely accesses a news service. She plays games on her
phone and uses her phone to send and receive text messages. She lists her
favourite activities as playing sport, catching up with friends and going to the
cinema although she perceives that she would not spend any more than 3 to 4
hours on any of these activities.
F2’s weekly routine is to use her mobile phone in the morning and when she gets
home from school. She spends time talking to her family in the afternoons and
evening, while listening to music and occasionally watches a DVD. During the
time of F2’s participation in the RidgiDidge Study, it transpired that visiting a
relative in hospital was the main social activity for F2 as she visited the hospital
several times for long periods.
F2’s weekend routine was dominated by a hospital visit and a wedding, but
talking to her family, talking on her phone, playing a CD or listening to the radio
in the car were the main forms of communication and media consumption. F2
demonstrated that she was able to multi-task by watching a DVD while talking
on the phone with a sibling.
Appearance was also an important factor for F2, making a special note of
‘getting dressed’ as an ‘other’ activity done while listening to a CD. She
highlighted that her early Christmas present from her family was to have her
belly pierced.
KL: What made you have that done?
F2: I just wanted it done.
KL: Have you got any friends with pierced belly buttons?
F2: No.
211
KL: Or any other piercing? Like tongue, nose, eyebrow?
F2: No.
F2’s answers were generally non-committal when asked about how she uses and
perceives her media consumption, using words like ‘probably’ in response to the
interview questions. F2 had participated in the self-defence course I had
previously taught at the school so there was a degree of familiarity between us.
Based on my personal knowledge of F2, I attribute her lack of articulation about
how media technology figures in her life to not having given very much thought
to something that, for her, is simply a means to an end. Her phone is a way of
making arrangements and keeping in touch with people.
Playing music is also part of her media consumption, but this is always an
activity in the background to something else such as talking with family
members.
M6
M6 was in Year 9 during the RidgiDidge Study and participated in Stage 1 only
submitting a diary and participating in the interview. M6 had also attended the
self-defence course and proved to be a popular and gregarious person so a
rapport was already well established. M6 listed a radio, CD player and Walkman,
a television, a DVD player, a games system and a mobile phone as his personal
technologies.
His household technologies include three computers, one of which has an
internet connection and is kept in the spare room. A radio, a CD player and
212
Walkman, a television, VCR, a DVD player, a CD burner, a mobile phone and a
Palm Pilot/Digital Organiser are also listed as household media technologies.
M6 lives with Mother, Father and younger sister and perceives no rules about his
television watching but does perceive rules ‘sometimes’ about his computer use
and game playing.
He has an older half-brother who does not live with them who bought the
PlayStation2 that M6 uses. His Mother uses a computer at work and his Father
does not.
M6 uses the internet at home, at school and at the library for email, school and
hobbies research, information gathering (horoscopes, weather, news), News
groups, chat rooms, games, net surfing and for downloading ring tones. His
favourite sites are miniclips.com and mrtones.com.au.
M6 has used pirated software.
KL: Have you ever used pirate software or burned CDs?
M6: Oh, Yes.
KL: Do you think that hurts anyone by doing that?
M6: Not unless you're selling it.
KL: So it's just between friends?
M6: Yes only for a computer because we don't have a chipped Play
Station.
The chip M6 is referring to is available to ‘upgrade’ Sony PlayStations so that
they will play copied CD games. The chip itself is pirate product and is not
manufactured by Sony. M6’s favourite games are The Sim’s Deluxe: Hot Date
(2002), GTA: Vice City (2003), and Empire Earth (2001) all of which are PC
Editions.
213
M6 gets his news from public television, the internet, by mobile phone and
magazine on most days.
His mobile phone usage extends to the sending and receiving of text messages
and his favourite activities are catching up with friends, using a computer,
reading and going to the cinema. M6 also indicates playing games, riding and
handball as favourite activities. He perceives that he spends most of his time
watching television, then catching up with friends and reading and using a
computer.
M6’s interest in media technology is wide given that he also plays with computer
hardware.
KL: What are your favourite activities outside of school?
M6: IT and basketball.
KL: How often do you play basketball?
M6: Every second or third afternoon.
KL: In terms of IT what do you mean?
M6: Rebuilding computers, playing with them….
M6 watches television in the family room with his family before school as part
of his weekly routine, spending time with a friend after school listening to music.
He watches television and talks with his family in the evening.
His weekend routine sees M6 in the constant company of a family member or
friend with his media usage flitting between the computer and television or
recorded content.
214
F1
F1 Was in Year 9 during the RidgiDidge Study and participated in Stage 1 only,
submitting a diary and attending the interview. Her personal technologies are
listed as a radio, a CD player and Walkman. Additional household technologies
indicated in her diary included a television, a mobile phone and a VCR. She did
not indicate that she has a mega drive in her room, or that her brother has a
PlayStation. F1 did however indicate that she prefers to play games and use the
internet at her friend’s house. Her main internet activities are email, school
research, chat rooms and net surfing. Her favourite site is Girlfriend.com. and
she says that she will play any game, nominating no favourites and has used
pirated software.
She lives with her Mother and Step-Father but does not know if her Mother uses
a computer at work. She perceives no rules about her media consumption given
that she doesn’t play games at home, nor is a computer available.
Newspapers, magazines and television are her main sources of news everyday
and she uses the family phone to send and receive text messages. Her favourite
activities are playing sport, television, her friends, going to the cinema and
shopping.
She spends most time watching television, catching up with friends and playing
sport (Volleyball). Her weekly routine outside of school hours is to watch
television in the morning before school on her own or with a family member.
After school time is spent in the company of her family at home watching
215
television. Her weekend routine is similar although she spends time playing her
keyboard.
F7
F7 was in Year 8 during her participation in the RidgiDidge Study and
participated in Stage 1 only, submitting a diary and attending an interview. F7
also attended the self-defence course and was familiar with me, quickly reestablishing a rapport. F7’s personal technologies were restricted to a CD
Walkman. Her household technologies included a radio, CD player and
Walkman, a television, cable service, VCR, DVD player, computer with internet
connection, games system and mobile phone.
F7 lives with her Mother and her older brother and her Mother uses a computer
at work. F7 perceives rules about her game playing and internet use, but not
television.
Although F7 uses the internet at home, she also uses it at a friend’s house, the
library and at another relative’s house.
She uses it for email, research, net surfing, and for viewing music clips. She cites
bubblegumclub.com as a favourite site as well as the ninemsn and hotmail sites.
F7 uses a Nintendo 64 games system and indicates Mario kart (1997), Zelda
Ocarno of Time, Gran Turismo 2 (2001) and Tekken 3 (1998) as favourite
games. She gets her news everyday from television and her favourite activities
are catching up with friends, watching television and using a computer.
216
F7’s weekly routine is to listen to music in the car on the way to school with her
family. Her evenings are spent mostly with her family listening to music and
watching television alternately. On the weekend, she is rarely alone, spending
time with her family watching television, cable service or a DVD. She plays
games late at night; presumably once family television viewing has finished for
the evening.
F8
F8 was in Year 9 during the RidgiDidge Study and participated in Stage 1 only,
submitting a media diary and attending an interview.
Her personal technologies include a radio, a CD player, a television, a mobile
phone, and a Palm Pilot/Digital Organiser, a DVD player and a computer with an
internet connection. Her household technologies include Palm Pilot/Digital
Organiser, a cable service, a VCR, DVD player, computer with an internet
connection, and a mobile phone. She lives with her Mother, Step-Father and
sister and perceives rules about her media consumption. She uses the internet for
email, school and hobby research, chat rooms, games and MP3’s. Her favourite
websites are neopets.com, ninemsn.com/dolly and girlfriend.com.au.
F8 does not play on a games system but neopets.com is primarily a games site
where neopets (‘virtual pets’) are created, fed and cared for as well as offering
arcade style games to the neopet user (Liley 2001).
F8 gets her news from a newspaper, magazine and television everyday.
217
She uses her mobile phone fully for sending and receiving calls and text
messages as well as using it as an address book for storing numbers.
Her favourite activities are shopping, playing sport, going to the cinema,
watching television and catching up with friends.
F8 perceives that she spends most time catching up with friends spending less
time watching videos and going to the cinema.
F8’s weekly routine is to occasionally listen to music alone in her room before
school. Homework is done after school to a CD playing and she spends a little
time in the evening with her family watching television.
F8’s weekend routine features a lot of time with her friends and family, talking
or watching cable television.
As Table 2: Typical Weekly Media Routine on page 219 shows, the contours of
the recreational lives of the RidgiDidge Study participants are quite clear in that
television use is patterned according to family social practice. This is evidenced
by most participants and their families preferring to watch television, a DVD or
video or cable television together for at least part of the weekday evening.
218
Table 2: Typical Weekly Media Routine
WEEKDAYS
WEEKEND
F1
BEFORE
SCHOOL
Television
AFTER
SCHOOL
Individual
screening
Phone
EVENING
DAY
EVENING
Family
screening
Family
screening
Social Activities
Family screening
F2
Phone
Social Activities
Family screening
Listens to Music
F3
Television
Individual
Screening
Family
screening
Reading and
Listens to
music
Gaming
Family screening,
Internet and reading
F4
Morning
Television
No media
Family
screening
F6
Car Radio
Family
Screening
Family
screening
Social Activities
Family screening
F7
Car Radio
Family
screening and
computer use
Assorted media
use over the
day
Family screening
F8
Listens to
music
Listens to
music
Family
screening and
late evening
gaming
Family
screening
Family screening
M1
Television
M2
Television and
radio
M3
Listens to
Music
Homework and
Internet and
computer use
Individual
screening and
homework
Family
Screening
Social activities
and listens to
music
Gaming
M4
No media
Individual
screening
M5
Television
M6
Television
M7
Television
Social
Screening
(with relatives)
Social
Activities
Music
Individual
screening
M8
Television
M9
Television
Family
screening
Family screening,
Internet and reading
Family screening
Family
Screening and
Internet use
Family
screening
Computer use
Family screening
(but often alone)
Social
Screening
Family screening
Family
screening and
computer use
Family
Screening
Computer use
and social
activities
Gaming or
Family
Screening
Social Activities
Family screening
Family
Screening
Family Screening
Family Screening
Individual
Screening
Individual
Screening
Individual Screening
Car Radio
Gaming
Family
Screening
Family Screening
Computer and
Internet use
Individual
screening
Social Activities
Assorted media
use
Assorted media
use over the
day
Individual screening
Table 2: Typical Weekly Media Routine on page 219 presents a general outline
of the participant’s weekly media routine and is by no means a definitive picture
219
of media use given changes to scheduling and activities. In the context of the
table above, family screening is any screen media (cable, public television, a
DVD or a video) viewed in the company of immediate family. Social activities
and screening are those activities done in the company of friends or extended
family. Individual screening denotes viewing screen media while the participant
is alone.
Radical fluctuations in media routine from research stage to stage in those
participants who attended all three interviews and submitted all three diaries
suggest that other factors dictate their media consumption. For example, F2’s
usual media routine is significantly altered by her family visits to the hospital
during the week to attend a sick relative, and the weekend attendance of a
wedding.
Other impediments to media consumption are apparent from a broken mobile
phone (F7), a stolen phone (F8), parental changes to household rules as
punishment (M7), fluctuating social arrangements, sports commitments (M8)
and work (M4).
Development of the Categories
A total of sixty nine (69) key concepts emerged from the open coding of
transcripts and these concepts were grouped into the categories of social praxis,
media technology, domestication and agency during axial coding. Table 3:
Concepts and their emergent on page 221 shows the emergent concepts
generated from the interview transcripts as well as the categories into which they
220
are grouped. A table of Concept Definitions is included in the Appendix on page
384.
Table 3: Concepts and their emergent categories
Piercing
Pleasure
Research difficulties
Self-Reflexivity
Social Conscience
Sole Parental Practice
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Talk
Technology location
Texting
TV
Young person’s life world
!
!
!
Social Praxis
Agency
!
!
!
!
!
!
Perceived influences
Perceptions of NMT
Phones
!
Planning
Ratings
Self-management
Smarts
Social Responsibility
Sport and Recreation
!
Teaching Skills
Technological
knowledge
Travel
Work
Domestication
Concepts
Advertising
Alone
Barriers to socialisation
Burned Game CD's
Change
Co-media activity
Competition
Consumption
Criticism
Displacement
Drinking
Education
Family
Friends
Game Playing
Happiness
Internet
Media
Media Literacy
Music CD's
Outside friends
Media
technology
!
Social Praxis
!
Categories
Agency
Domestication
Concepts
Adult Community
Agency
Attitude to School
Books
Cable
Cinema
Communication
Consideration to family
Cooperation
Digital Piracy
Downloaded Music
DVD's
Environment
Fluid Tastes
Game CD's
Games
Human Interaction
LAN-MUD Games
Media Influence
Media Production
NMT (New Media
Technology)
Parental Control
Perceptions of Childhood
Personal Economics
Media
technology
Categories
!
!
!
‘!’denotes where a category is not apparent
These concepts emerge directly from the participant interviews and are an
abstract representation of an event, object, interaction, action or phenomena. The
221
categories generated by the data indicate a wide variety of issues that concern the
participant sample in response to the interview themes of new media technology
consumption and individual life worlds.
Figure 7: Grounded theory method terminology and process on page 190 shows
how contexts and categories inter-relate in a grounded theory context.
In grounded theory method, comparison between concepts leads to propositions
or how phenomena might be inter-related. In the case of the RidgiDidge Study,
the concepts generated indicate that these concepts are inter-related in terms of
technology-specific groupings such as type and ownership of technology and
social groupings such as family, friends, self-management and social
responsibility. Closely related to this social grouping is the indication of the
domestication of technology where consumption is indicated by desire and taste.
Agency also emerges as significant category in that it suffuses concepts such as
change, human interaction, perceptive reasoning and beyond.
Media Technology
This category includes the ownership of traditional media technologies such as
radio and television as well as the new media technologies of the games system,
mobile phone, the internet and computer. However, this category also
encompasses the participant ‘buzz’ about a technology, where participants either
desire to have, or upgrade to, a piece of technology.
KL: Have you ever discussed buying new pieces of technology
like a DVD or software with friends?
M8: X has a DVD. I just go my friends and we talk about it. See
my friend, he bought like a game on a PS system but he got bored
222
with it so he got an Xbox for Christmas and, pretty lucky hey, and
pretty much everybody wants an Xbox and it comes with the one
game Halo. It's a really big seller game, like 3 million copies sold.
It came out mid last year.
And,
KL: Are you going to upgrade to the next generation of phone?
M6: I already have a 7250, yes, the New Nokia.
Nevertheless, this category also includes where participants point out that they
no longer use a technology as much as they did when they first started.
KL: How often do you think you spend on the Xbox?
M9: About an hour. After school
KL: How long have you had your Xbox?
M9: Since May
KL: Do you think you play it as often as you would when you first
got it?
M9: Not as much.
In the case of a games system, while the latest hardware is consistently favoured
across the game players in the group, this is more so in the system’s capacity to
play newer games given most game players preference for games titles released
post-2000.
This category also subsumes gendered responses to different media technologies
and the flexibility and negotiation participants engage between media technology
and other aspects of their lives.
Domestication
The term ‘domestication’ was originally used in British studies on Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the home and the interactions
between household members. In this respect, knowledge of domestication is part
223
of the theoretical sensitivity of the RidgiDidge Study. Although the
domestication cycle was apparent in the early micro analysis of M8’s responses
discussed on page 191, domestication was not necessarily expected to emerge as
a clear category in keeping with the grounded theory method demand that data
disciplines theory. Domestication is the term given to a cycle of adoption that
features
'imagination,
appropriation,
objectification
incorporation
and
conversion' (Ling 2004: 28) in relation to technology. This process is explained
as a point where an individual becomes aware of a technology, sees how it can
be of use, associates a sense of identity with the technology, makes it part of
their life before finally becoming identified with use of the technology. Ling
makes clear that domestication is more likely to be readily apparent on a small
scale, rather than a technologically deterministic macro-scale. In this way,
domestication can be seen as linear in terms of the consumption process, but can
also keep pace with the capriciousness of the individual.
As Ling points out 'people seem quite agile in the ability to mentally objectify
items long before the actual purchase has taken place' (Ling 2004: 30).
As Haddon points out, domestication is 'a package of understandings' (Haddon
2003: 45).
Firstly, there is an emphasis on consumption rather than simply use and Haddon
draws attention to the need to see both the individual and household strategies in
managing technology in the context of their personal aspirations and selfidentity. Haddon takes this further in highlighting the need to see aspects of
224
consumption ‘such as how technologies are talked about and displayed’ (Haddon
2003: 45).
Secondly, the adoption of technology is seen as a process rather than an event in
that early perceptions about a technology or service inform the process of
acquiring a technology or not as the case may be. Experimentation with a new
technology leads to the 'routinisation' of its consumption. In this way,
routinisation leads to domestication where technologies are taken from 'the
public domain but then made personal, or, in these early studies in the domestic
context, made to be part of the home' (Haddon 2003: 46). Haddon also highlights
‘that attention must be paid to individuals in context', a theme that acknowledges
the role of gatekeepers, communal household practices and the idea that
individuals can also exhibit ambivalence towards any given technology.
KL: So what sort of media technology do you want for your
birthday?
F7: Just a mobile phone and soon we are getting an Xbox. Like a
family present.
KL: Do you think your parents would play on it? With you?
F7: Mum would play DVDs on it, she might play games with us
and play music but that's all.
The identification of domestication as a category is appropriate given that it
answers the question of ‘what is going on here?’ across many concepts, although
it does not present itself as constituting the core category.
225
Agency
The term agency has persistently escaped categorical definition in social thought
and significant attempts to theorise agency has ‘neglected crucial aspects of the
problem’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998).
Emirbayer and Mische identify that even the most well known proponents of
agency such as Bourdieu and Giddens offer only a one-sided view of agency
where agency is seen as habitual, repetitive and taken for granted. This
perspective fails to distinguish agency as an ‘analytical category in its own right
- with distinctive theoretical dimensions and temporally variable social
manifestations’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998). In this way, Emirbayer and
Mische stress that even the important dimensions of agency such as routine,
purpose and judgement, fail to capture its complexity. In turn, such a focus fails
to articulate the dynamic interplay between dimensions and agency’s variation
‘within different structural contexts of action’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998).
In reconceptualising agency as an internally complex temporal dynamic,
Emirbayer and Mische reveal a new perspective on free will and determinism.
Thus human agency is seen as,
A temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed
by the past (in its habitual aspect), but also oriented toward the
future (as a capacity to imagine alternative possibilities) and
toward the present (as a capacity to contextualise past habits and
future projects within the contingencies of the moment)
(Emirbayer and Mische 1998).
As M1 demonstrates in a discussion about the future,
KL: Are you planning to go to uni?
M1: I probably will go to university.
226
KL: What do you think you might do?
M1: I don't know yet.
KL: Are you more kind of Arts or more Science?
M1: Not really Science. Oh, maybe maths. Something like
business or IT or something.
KL: So obviously you'll need to use a computer in your job?
M1: Yeah.
This direct demonstration of agency is recognisable in Emirbayer and Mische’s
terms in that M1 has apparently thought about going to University in the past,
perhaps in discussion with parents, friends and teachers about his future. M1 has
considered alternate possibilities for his future career path such as not science,
maybe maths, business or IT. Finally, M1 has managed to articulate this agency
on a moment’s notice with in the context of a response to an ostensibly simple
question.
In this way social actors are embedded in many different temporalities
simultaneously although orientation towards one or another temporality can
occur within any one given emergent situation (Emirbayer and Mische 1998).
The key to grasping the dynamic possibilities of human agency is
to view it as composed of variable and changing orientations
within the flow of time. Only then will it be clear how the
structural environments of action are both dynamically sustained
by and also altered through human agency - by actors capable of
formulating projects for the future and realising them, even if only
in small part, and with unforseen outcomes, in the present
(Emirbayer and Mische 1998).
Social Praxis
Cohen draws attention to the idea that accounts of social behaviour are
‘simplifications designed to facilitate studies of social organisation while
227
bracketing the complications that dedicated theorists of action must address’
(Cohen 1996: 73). Such simplification and the downplaying of random action
means those sociologically significant patterns of action are found in one of two
dimensions of social conduct (Cohen 1999: 73).
Specifically, Cohen differentiates between theories of action and theories of
praxis where action theories stress subjective meaning to the actor or actors in
question; and theories of praxis that are performative in stressing enacted
processes.
Smith draws attention to Aristotle’s three-fold classification of disciplines as
being theoretical, productive or practical as of use in clarifying this distinction in
the purpose each serves (Smith 1999).
To elaborate, the theoretical discipline is concerned with the search for
knowledge for its own sake, while the productive disciplines produce artefacts
and are creative and artisanal in nature. Carr and Kemmis illustrate this
differentiation in terms of productive and practical disciplines by pointing out
that a potter will have some imagined idea of what is to be created in clay
(productive discipline). This plan restricts the outcome of the activity, despite
creative modifications to the original idea of the pot and the finished product.
The practical discipline has no such restriction or concrete origin. Practical
disciplines’ are those that deal with ‘ethical and political life, their telos
[purpose] is practical wisdom and knowledge’ (Carr and Kemmis, 1986: 32). In
practical disciplines, an idea or event presents itself and the actor will consider
the idea or event in terms of what is good or best generally, than in particular.
228
The mark of a prudent man [is] to be able to deliberate rightly
about what is good and what is advantageous to himself; not in
particular respects, e.g. what is good for the health or physical
strength, but what is conducive to the good life generally (Aristotle
1976: 209 in Smith 1999).
From this perspective, praxis emerges as action that embodies specific properties
such as ‘a commitment to human well-being’ and ‘respect for others’ and is the
‘action of people who are free and able to act for themselves’ (Smith 1999).
Nevertheless, as Smith points out, praxis is also risky given the presupposition
that action will be prudent.
Cohen (1989) draws attention to the common sense that,
All social life is generated in and through social praxis; where
social praxis is defined to include the nature, conditions, and
consequences of historically and spatio-temporally situated
activities and interactions produced through the agency of social
actors (Cohen 1989: 2).
Cohen argues, based on his exegetical position in relation to the work of
Giddens, that praxis is synonymous with the constitution of social life.
Such a position refers to both the manner in which social conduct, conduct and
relations are generated, and the conditions that shape and facilitate these
processes. Cohen points out that, conditions are not only intrinsic to the
production of social life, but are sustained 'only in so far as the production of
social life continues to occur'.
This view of praxis is equally relevant to the constitution of action
and the constitution of collectivities, because both aspects of social
life are generated and reproduced or altered in and through social
praxis itself (Cohen 1998: 12).
In this way, if category development in grounded theory method produces the
answer to the question ‘what is going on here?’ (See Figure 7: Grounded theory
229
method terminology and process on page 190), then praxis as a category
generated from the RidgiDidge Study describes what is going on where
participants and both their immediate and wider social context intersect.
Consider the following excerpt from M5.
KL: You mentioned using media outside home. If you use media
outside of school and home where would this be?
M5: My Grandma’s.
KL: How often would you spend playing games each week?
M5: 5 or 6 hours.
KL: Is that mainly on the weekend?
M5: [Nods]
KL: Was your games system a family purchase or did you buy it?
M5: A family purchase.
KL: Do you play with other members of your family?
M5: Yes, my brother.
KL: Is he much older than you?
M5: Yup, 3 years
KL: Are you good at playing games?
M5: Yeah, I'm all right
KL: Do you think you play as much as when you first got the
game?
M5: No.
KL: Do you ever encounter any problems when you share playing
a game
M5: No.
KL: Do you play in competition with your brother?
M5: Yes.
KL: Do you ever play on the same team
M5: No.
KL: Do you ever go over to friend’s houses to play games or have
them come over?
230
M5: Yep, both.
KL: Why do you play?
M5: Fun.
This excerpt from M5’s Stage 1 transcript illustrates how a conceptual approach
to a range of participant responses reveals the category of social praxis. Here,
concepts such as friends, pleasure, sharing, family, games, media technology
location, competition, self reflexivity, motivation, parental control and agency
are apparent in an open coding context. When the question ‘what is going on
here?’ is asked of the data in developing categories, thinking conceptually
generates the term social praxis to describe what is going on for this participant.
In the context of the RidgiDidge Study participant social praxis is related to
agency given the negotiation of the structuring influences in young people’s
lifeworlds. Thus, M5’s desire to have fun and socialise with his friends and
family produces opportunities for social interaction, at his home or at their
homes.
In an Aristotelian sense, the praxis illustrated by M5’s response indicates a
‘moral disposition to act truly and rightly; a concern to further human well being
and the good life’ (Smith 1999). This desire is the enactment of M5’s agency
where he wants to socially interact by playing a game, because it is a popular
social practice among his friends and family, and one with a reciprocal flow
between M5’s house and his friends’ homes.
In this context, such agency presents a temporal dimension in terms of
remembered pleasure such as the idea that its fun to play against my brother and
friends; that the practice continues over his weekend recreational time, and; is
231
likely to continue in the future, for the short term at least, given the pleasure M5
indicates towards his game playing and preference for playing with someone
else.
The preceding discussion illustrates the transition from the collection of raw data
in the field, its handling and analysis, to the development of the four categories
of agency, domestication, social praxis and media technology. These categories
are comfortably applied to new data from the later stages of the RidgiDidge
Study in terms of memos and the recognition of social contexts as well as being
pertinent to the process of recoding the transcripts for fit and working capacity.
The repeated emergence of these four categories across the data and their
relationships to each other heralded that theoretical saturation was possible given
the approach to sampling and analysis discussed in this chapter. The resulting
saturation of the RidgiDidge Study data is confirmed in consideration that ‘no
new evidence emerges which can inform or underpin the development of a
theoretical point’ (Goulding 2002: 70).
In refining the four categories during theoretical coding, the core category of
agency emerged as a pervading factor in participant media technology use.
Its emergence as the core category is established given Dey’s elaboration of the
criteria for a core category (Dey 1999: 111).
!
It is central if it is related to many other categories and accounts for a
large proportion of variation in the data.
!
It is stable if it can be seen as a recurrent pattern in the data.
232
!
It is sufficiently complex if it takes more time to saturate (identify its
properties) than other categories.
!
It is incisive if it has clear implications for more formal theory.
!
It is powerful if its explanatory power helps the analyst to ‘carry
through’ to a successful conclusion.
!
It is highly variable if it is sensitive to variations in conditions in terms
of degree, dimension, and type.
The emergent theory generated by the RidgiDidge Study and the categories
generated by the data analysis are discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
Particular attention is paid to the core category of agency and how this permeates
the other generated categories and with the contexts that surround the
RidgiDidge participants.
233
234
5. Results
This chapter on the results of the RidgiDidge Study presents a comprehensive
view of the analysis revealing the core category of agency and how this relates to
other categories. In particular, the role of agency within the participants’ ecology
in terms of their public and private life worlds is discussed, articulating the
negotiation undertaken by research participants within the ecological systems
such as peer group, home and school. This concept of young people’s ecology is
discussed in terms of the ecological model developed from Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecology of Human Development on page 42.
The raw data, comprising of media diaries, field notes and videotaped interviews,
are not presented with or within this thesis in keeping with an assurance of strict
confidentiality to participants and their families. However, this material can be
made available to the examiners on request subject to, and in accordance with,
the Australian Standard on personal privacy protection, the research agreement
with the Griffith University Ethics Committee and any other protocols for the
protection of privacy and confidentiality generated by or the School of Arts,
Media and Culture (See Table 1: Overview of Ethics Proposal on page 167).
Nevertheless, the presentation of the results of the RidgiDidge Study includes
transcript excerpts and participant profiles. As discussed previously in Data
Collection on page 159, these transcript excerpts and profiles act as ‘snapshots’
of each participant are included for the purposes of ‘illustration and imagery’ of
how theory is generated in the RidgiDidge Study, working to reveal the
235
conceptual style of the analysis rather than simply describing a scene (Glaser
1978: 133-135).
In the interests of accuracy, a transcript excerpt is presented were necessary,
rather than the use of paraphrasing participant responses, so that speech
idiosyncrasies’ and participant nuances are presented as part of the data context.
Body language and demeanour noted in the field notes are included where
pertinent. As noted previously, and in keeping with participant confidentiality,
participant quotes and information are attributed by the participant’s personal
code. For example, ‘M’ means that the participant is male, ‘F’ that the participant
is female, and the number allocated indicated the participants place on the
interview schedule.
Participant F5 is not included in these results as she did not submit a media diary
at any time, nor did she appear for her first interview although she had consented
to participate. In keeping with the voluntary nature of participation in the
RidgiDidge Study, no participants were pursued for their reasons why they
choose not to continue participation after commencing the RidgiDidge Study.
The Alternative Contact requested in the Media Diary (see page 408) is used for
reporting back to the participants in the event of a change in address. Reporting
back to the participants is scheduled on completion of the RidgiDidge Study and
the thesis examination in the interests of contextualising the results through the
examiners opinion so that the extent of the participants’ contribution to the field
as a whole is appropriately framed.
236
Interpreting the Results
As the RidgiDidge Study draws on the views of the sixteen high school students
who volunteered to participate in the RidgiDidge Study, the results can only be
said to be true for those high school students who participated in the research in
keeping with the middle range and substantive nature of the research11. In this
way, the results presented here can only be described as illustrative of a group of
High School students rather than representative of all Australian High School
students. Such illustrative research has the capacity ‘produce regularities,
patterns of repetition which are indicative of the ‘hardness’, the resistance, of
social fact; and they have the capacity, crucial to empirical research, to take
11
Glaser and Strauss define a middle range substantive theory in the following
way. Comparative analysis such as that used in grounded theory generation can
produce both formal and substantive theory. Substantive theory is developed for
an empirical area of sociological enquiry, while formal theory addresses the
conceptual areas of sociological enquiry. Both types of theory can be thought of
a ‘middle range’ in that either can fall between the ‘minor working hypotheses’
of everyday life and the all inclusive ‘grand theories’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967:
33). Nevertheless, Glaser and Strauss point out that each type of theory ‘can
shade at points into the other’ and the analyst should ‘focus clearly on one level
or on another or on a specific combination’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 33).
237
[one] by surprise’ (Bennett 1999: 15). However, the emergent theory is useful in
identifying the contours of how new media figures in the lives of the RidgiDidge
participants and high school students generally.
All participant responses are assumed to be truthful and accurate although
comparison between verbal responses and quantitative data was engaged for the
purpose of clarification between verbal responses during the interview and the
completed quantitative instrument. Comparison between data forms are also used
to situate responses in participant context. For example, M7 asked to be
reminded of his diary entry so he could contextualise his verbal response.
KL: Does your mum or housemate know how to play the games?
M7: No - what did I put down? [Indicating his diary]
KL: You play Diablo 2 …which you play on the Internet
M7: I could, but I can play it as a single player too.
As discussed previously in the Development of the Categories on page 220, a
total of sixty-nine (69) key concepts emerged from the open coding of transcripts
and these concepts were grouped into the categories of social praxis, media
technology, domestication and agency during axial coding. Table 3: Concepts
and their emergent on page 221 shows the emergent concepts generated from the
interview transcripts as well as the categories into which they are grouped. The
rationale behind how concepts are grouped is clearly articulated by Glaser and
Strauss in terms of the defining rule of constant comparative method that states
that while coding an incident for a category; it is necessary to compare it with
previous incidents in the same and different groups coded in the same category
238
(Glaser and Strauss 1967: 106). Such an approach begins to generate the
theoretical properties of the category or its general and specific attributes.
The analyst starts thinking in terms of the full range and types or
continua of the category, its dimensions, the conditions under
which it is pronounced or minimized, its major consequences its
relationship to other categories and its other properties (Glaser and
Strauss 1967: 106).
As discussed previously, NVivo 2.0 software was used in the RidgiDidge Study
to code the raw data (interview transcripts and memos). During open coding, the
text was ‘fractured’ or opened up allowing words and statements to be coded
using the participants’ own words such as ‘texting’, ‘drinking’ or ‘piercing’.
Other easily recognisable codes were also employed such as ‘new media
technology’, ‘consideration to family’ and ‘parental control’ as a means of
simply describing what the participant was saying. Given the process involved in
coding to generate a grounded theory (see Figure 7: Grounded theory method
terminology and process on page 190), NVivo 2.0 was invaluable in managing
the volume of data gathered over the course of the field work of the RidgiDidge
Study.
New Media Technology
Participant responses to the quantitative instrument are used here to build a
picture of participant access to, and perception of, the media technologies in their
lives in the family space of the home, and the private space of their rooms. This
outline reveals the participants' general views about new media technology
before extending this discussion towards specific technologies such as the
internet, games systems and the mobile phone.
239
As the Data Tables on page 389 show, most of the RidgiDidge participants lived
in a household that had radio, television, a CD player, a Walkman, a VCR, a
DVD player, a computer with an internet connection, a games system and a
mobile phone. Very few participants had access to cable/pay television such as
Foxtel, a CD burner, a laptop and no participant had access to HDTV.
In terms of personal technologies, most participants had a radio and a CD player
and Walkman in their rooms. A few participants had a television, a VCR or a
DVD player and a personal mobile phone with only one participant having the
use of a laptop in their room. Only one participant has an internet connection in
their room.
In the context of the results of the RidgiDidge Study, participants did not appear
to make a conscious delineation between ‘old’ and ‘new’ technologies such as
radio or television and the Internet or mobile phone. The assumption that there is
delineation between ‘old’ and ‘new’ technologies can categorised as a
specifically adult assumption.
Rather, participants appear to absorb new technologies into their pre-existing and
personalised technoscapes creating consequences for previously ‘new’
technologies (Livingstone 2002: 43).
Livingstone refers to Neuman's 1991 account of Rogers’ (1962) Diffusion of
Innovations Theory where Neuman’s focus is on the 'sequencing in the uses of
one medium over time, rather than following Rogers' segmentation of the
population' (Livingstone 2002: 43). In this way, innovations have a three phase
history through the early adopter, the mass market and specialisation. Television
240
as a technology has gone from being an elite medium for early adopters, to its
proliferation in the mass market.
With the adoption of new technologies such as the personal computer, television
has become specialised with the growth of cable services, community television,
and more than one set can be found in many households. As Livingstone points
out, 'few innovations drop out of circulation altogether and consequently the
dominant trend is towards the accumulation of available media' [emphasis
added] (Livingstone 2002: 43). In this way and as the RidgiDidge participant
diary pages show, television is still an integral household technology despite the
presence and use of other newer technology. Such a position is evidenced by the
majority of participants indicating habitual family viewing of television during
the evening on both weekdays and the weekend (see Table 2: Typical Weekly
Media Routine on page 219).
Indeed, rather than a delineation between 'old' and 'new' technologies, the
RidgiDidge Study participants were aware of what was the latest technology in
terms of its ability to deliver content and functionality.
This is supported by the listed ownership of up to three games systems by
participants but a preference for playing only the latest purchased or burned
game on the latest model of games system. M8, who plays only on a PlayStation
2 system, appreciates the peripheral items associated with improved functionality
in game playing.
KL: A couple of questions about PS2 games. Do you have a
memory card for PS2 as well as PS1 games?
M8: Yeah.
241
KL: So you play both games?
M8: Yeah.
KL: What are you playing at the moment?
M8: I bought Medal of Honour Frontline [(2002)]. That was
platinum, for like $32 or something. And SOCOM II Navy SEALs
[(2003)]. That's one where you have a headset and you talk to them
over the headset. You can give them special commands like 'move
in' and 'ambush' and 'fall back' or something. So that's pretty cool.
You've got your own special team.
M8’s ownership of a PS1 memory card means that he can play PS1 games on his
PlayStation 2. However, unless chipped to play PS2 games, a PlayStation 1
cannot play PS2 games. In M8’s case, he has indicated that he prefers the latest
games rather than continuing to play PS1 games.
F6 contextualises her preference for later games in terms of them being more
challenging than her older games.
In Stage 1 she indicated that Age of Empires I (1997) and II (1999) were
favourite games alongside Pinball (1995).
KL: Do you think you play as much as when you first got [your
PS2]?
F6: I don't really play as often but when I get time to play one hour
or two non stop.
KL: How do you feel when you play? Are you competing against
yourself? Do you feel challenged?
F6: It depends what game I have, like I got one that was Buffy the
Vampire Slayer [(2003)] and I feel challenged …when I've 5 other
vampires. Other ones I've got Like I got a couple of Pokemon
ones I've got, they are easy and don't make me feel challenged
because I feel like I'm just walking around and it's easy. Like the
wild Pokemon.
The absence of HDTV as an accessible technology and the absence of
knowledge about HDTV further supports the idea that access to the latest
technological content and functionality supersedes the desire for the latest
242
technology simply for the sake of technology being 'new'. For example, M2
points out when asked if he was keen to upgrade to the new generation phone
that ‘Yeah I'm looking at those phones with the movie camera, you know the
video phones, and stuff like that’.
M8 refers to a desire for technology functionality in that,
M8: I haven't got a DVD player. Well in a sense I do, it's my
PlayStation 2, but it's not really downstairs with the TV for
everyone to enjoy….But that's upstairs in my room, and our TV is
like this big at the moment [gestures]. We have to get a new one,
because we've recently moved to Chandler, on [deleted] Road at
the white house, and our old TV is still at our old house and it's
fairly big. It hasn't been fixed. We've intended to get that fixed but
we'll have to get it fixed one day.
KL: So is the size of the screen important?
M8: It really depends because it's a bit annoying when watching
movies and they've got writing up on the screen and it goes over
half the screen. Its like, "I can't read that". Some people reckon it is
but I don't reckon it is really.
In this way, media technology is a conduit that must deliver the best functionality
in presenting content. For example, M2 has a good range of recent games such as
Time Splitters (2002) and a new games system (PlayStation 2). However, when
asked,
KL: What motivates your game playing? Is it "oh I'm bored I'll
play"?
M2: I suppose like it's… I mainly play when I have friends over.
And,
KL: The people you play games with, are they friends from
school?
M2: Yeah or like half of my friends, a quarter of them are from
like primary school, old friends and stuff, [they] go to a different
243
high school so I only see them on the weekends. I invite them
round and we play games and stuff.
And,
KL: Do you think you would play your games more on your own
or more with other people?
M4: Oh I guess with other people because it's like something to do.
People just come over and play
Similarly, M8 expresses that the technology that dictates the mode of game
playing, and thus the social aspects.
KL: Would you play with other people you knew from school?
M8: Yeah, a few people I know from school and football, lots of
other things, yeah.
KL: Would you use your games system more on your own than
with other people?
M8: Yeah probably - I've only got one controller so I can't play
many two-player games at home. I haven't got any two-player
games. I've this game, Vampire Night and you can use light guns
so you shoot at vampires and stuff, so you point at the screen and
shoot 'em. So I borrowed a gun off my friend so I had two and I
played with my brother and my friend. Go round the levels
shooting stuff [laughs].
This borrowing of equipment indicates a keen desire to circumvent the dictates
of single-player gaming, for social interaction, highlighting the pro-activeness of
social gaming rather than performing a simple re-action to the presence of new
media technology. In this way, media technology fulfils its imagined capabilities
in terms of being a catalyst of, and a facilitator to, social relations.
Having established that participants do not consciously delineate their
technologies as either old or new, the technology in the family and private spaces
of the home becomes part of the technological milieu. In the case of M6, access
244
to news content such as the daily headlines, sport weather and horoscopes are
readily accessible through his media choices.
KL: Where do you get your news from?
M6: PocketNews, the internet and TV.
KL: How often would you look at the news?
M6: Every night.
Here M6 uses PocketNews, Telstra's SMS based news service, the internet and
television to source news content. The use of this variety of technologies to
source one type of content, suggests that the type of technology is not necessarily
relevant if it has functionality to purpose and the ability to deliver desired
content. In this way the technology facilitates M6's access to news content, but
M6 needs to have actively set up this relationship in the first place.
Consumption is an integral part of the new media technology category in its role
as part of the engine that drives the social relations between the participant and
their peer group.
KL: Have you ever discussed buying a Game or a DVD with your
friends?
M4: Oh yeah , if you don't know what sort of game to get you'd
ask your friends, like what people like, you'd get the game if that's
what people like as well.
However, as F3 points out, consumption can also be a site of resistance.
KL: Have you ever discussed buying technology with your
friends?
F3: Yeah, Sometimes. With some people it can be a competition. It
can be a bit uncomfortable.
Similarly, when asked if they felt as though advertising had an effect on their
personal consumption of media technology, not all participants perceived that
they paid much attention to advertising.
245
KL: How do you see advertising on films, television and the net do you think you're affected by the advertising you might see?
M4: Oh not really. I just sort of ignore it because it's boring.
Sometimes if I see something good I might think about it
KL: Have you made any purchases lately based on any advertising
you've seen?
M4: No.
KL: Or said to your Mum can you get Pepsi instead of Coke or
something like that?
M4: Oh not really. I'm not too fussy.
M8’s response to the same question also indicates agency in terms of actively
engaging with and manipulating consumer culture to his own purposes.
M8: Yeah I went [inaudible] brochure and you get 2 games for
$65, saving like $80 I think. So that was pretty good, I got them. It
was like in a brochure thing for K-Mart, so I thought that was
good.
In looking at the contours of participants’ general new media technology access,
several themes emerge.
The participants’ relationship to, and with new media technology is proactive,
rather than reactive, in that they tend to utilise and make do with the technology
that they have access to. In this way, participants accumulate old and new media
technologies, but not those technologies that are so new that they are cutting
edge.
For example, although High Definition Television (HDTV) has been mandated
for the Australian Television Industry, no participant had access to the
technology for viewing it. Similarly, access to new technologies such as the Mp3
player were not in evidence, although downloading Mp3 files was reported so
246
that the file could be burned to disc, occasionally shared and played on a CD
Walkman or in a CD Player.
This speaks to functionality in that, the use of several technologies to access
similar content, participants appear to put more emphasis on what they want,
rather than how they get it. In this way, a news service can be accessed ‘on the
go’ by mobile phone just as well as watching the news on television in a social
context (M6).
Music can be shared with others who have the same technology such as CD
Players, and this social compatibility of technology appears to be a key factor in
resisting the early adoption of technology. This is not to say that early adopters
of new technologies do not exist; rather, they are not in clear evidence in the
RidgiDidge Study results.
Thus, the nature of participant use emerging from this research indicates that the
relationship to and with new media technology concern functionality and the
social compatibility of technology among the participants’ microsystems. This
indicates a high level of agency in negotiation with the structuring influences of
the family and peer group microsystems.
Digital Piracy
The issue of digital piracy is addressed in the RidgiDidge interviews. Most
participants indicated that they had used pirated software or had shared burned
music CDs with friends. In the context of the RidgiDidge Study, pirated software
247
and CDs were perceived by the participants as those copied or burned by friends
rather than the mass produced pirated discs that flood overseas markets.
The general consensus among the participants is that burning CD copies of
games and music CDs is a generally accepted practice among the participants'
peer group. However, M5's response indicates acceptance of the practice
although a degree of reticence in actually burning discs himself.
KL: Do you think it's wrong to use pirate software?
M5: Yeah
KL: Do you ever use it?
M5: No, er...only on my stereo
KL: So you burn CDs?
M5: Yeah my friend does
KL: Do you think it hurts anyone to use pirate software?
M5: No
Only a few participants indicated ownership of CD Burners, and M5's
technologies do not include a CD burner which might account for his use and
benefit from his friends equipment.
The consensus among participants is to acknowledge that digital piracy is a
crime, particularly if many discs are burned. However, the admission by most
participants that they have used and or copied discs themselves indicates their
conscious and informed decision to consider the Australian law on digital piracy
not applicable to them, providing that the copying of discs and games is small
scale and serves the social purpose of being ‘just between friends’.
248
The participants’ openness in admitting their practices in this regard is an
indication that they consider this small scale digital piracy to be a victimless
crime.
The Internet
All of the RidgiDidge Study participants have access to the internet with F2
using the internet at a relative’s house and F1 using the internet at a friend’s
house. M3 uses the internet at the library and at a friend’s house.
KL: You don't have a computer with internet connection at home is there any particular reason?
M3: Mum and Dad just haven't bought one yet.
M3 noted in his questionnaire that both parents use a computer at work and M7,
F8 and M8 have parents who do not use a computer at work but do have the
internet at home.
The rest of the participants have access to the internet at home with only M4
reporting that he has an internet connection in his room. The location of the
computer with an internet connection was in the family space of the house such
as the spare room or the family room.
Most participants indicated that they had favourite websites, using the internet
for email, school research and online gaming.
KL: What new media technology do you think you couldn't live
without?
M4: I use my computer a lot so I probably couldn't do without that.
M8 also ‘can’t live without’ the internet, but for different reasons.
KL: What piece of technology could you absolutely not live
without?
249
M8: Probably the computer. You know with all the games that are
coming out these days. All my friends saying "Oh have you tried
this one?” Yeah, probably the computer.
and,
KL: So what sorts of things are you using the internet for?
M8: A lot more for research. Sometimes I play games, if you're
bored, you know, and just talking. That's pretty much it.
KL: So are you finding that you're able to do a lot more
schoolwork?
M8: Oh yeah. Get higher grades. Sometimes I download music
too. It's pretty fun.
Impatience with the speed of the internet is echoed by F6.
F6: The internet - I think it's a bit of both. If you want to get
information you have to log on, go connect everything… Well
with school you don't have to do that. Then you have to go to a
search site, type it in. Normally you don't get the thing that you
really want. You have to go searching through all these different
sites, but when you get somewhere you have to wait for each page
to load up. I've been doing TBT, that's business technology, and
we're doing share stuff. I'm sort of actually starting to understand
it, but lately my work has been right so I must be doing the right
thing. But we had to do two different things with questions about
shares - one on the internet and one on the newspaper. The
newspaper was easier because it was right there but the internet
you just had to wait for each page to load on and then you don't
understand what they're saying and everything. But I guess now
that you can buy stuff and get cheaper things and be able to
connect with other people, and all this other stuff that in a way it's
convenient but in another way it's just time-consuming.
Such frustration is accounted for by the prevalence of dial-up internet
connections rather than broadband connection at the time of the study.
As M2 points out in Stage 3,
M2: Up until now my Mum has just recently cut the phone line off
because I've been going over the internet, like the bill. I've just
been going on it heaps. I used to just stay on the internet and now
and then I'd jump off that and go and watch TV for a few seconds,
get a drink, and go back on the internet. But now that it's off I
suppose I'm going to be watching the TV a fair bit more.
250
Several participants used the internet as a news source but internet surfing was
also a popular use of the internet.
In terms of using the internet habitually, email services such as hotmail.com and
the search engine Google featured in participant responses across both genders.
However, gendered responses to favourite websites were of note.
Male participants favoured sporting sites and online amusement sites such as
stickdeath.com, an animated black humour site featuring stick figures that ‘die’
violently. Other ostensibly masculine uses of the internet were gaming on sites
such as miniclips.com, information retrieval and gaming ‘cheat sheets’.
While the female participants enjoyed gaming sites as well, the sites listed as
‘favourites’ are sites such as neopets.com and bubblegumclub.com. Although
such sites have a wide appeal, with Neopets claiming over 30 million members’
world wide, 57% of neopets users are female with male users of neopets
accounting for 43% of site traffic. 39% of users are under 13 years of age and
40% are 13-17 years of age (Neopets 2006). However, the textual codes apparent
in the website graphics and content imply and construct a feminine audience. For
example, Bubblegumclub.com uses a predominantly pink and purple colour
palette and the use of the ‘cute’ figures ‘cool dude’ and ‘groovy chick’.
Similarly, the range of neopets characters are ‘cute’ in that they all feature big
eyes, fur and pretty, vibrant colours. These are essential ingredients to the
branded environments presented to users for their immersion. Stupid.com is
another less subtle in its audience construction in that its 2006 banner headline
reads ‘stupid stuff for girls – no boys allowed’.
251
Although most participants indicated that they were using the internet for email,
school research and online gaming, female participants included traditional teen
girl magazine sites such as Girlfriend and Dolly as well as Hotmail.com.
The inclusion of the popular web-based email service indicates an emphasis on
communication as pleasure for the female participants. This can be inferred from
the male participants’ use of email, but not it’s ranking as a favourite internet
activity.
Indeed, as discussed in on page 261 and in Mobile Phones on page 254, male
participants engaged in and sought out social activity in the context of gaming.
Thus, arrangements to meet for gaming were made by phone, email or in person,
again emphasising the participant’s focus on what technology can do for them
rather than the type of technology itself.
As discussed previously in the Development of the Categories on page 220, a
total of sixty-nine (69) key concepts emerged from the open coding of transcripts
and these concepts were grouped into the categories of social praxis, media
technology, domestication and agency during axial coding. Table 3: Concepts
and their emergent on page 221 shows the emergent concepts generated from the
interview transcripts as well as the categories into which they are grouped. The
rationale behind how concepts are grouped is clearly articulated by Glaser and
Strauss in terms of the defining rule of constant comparative method that states
that while coding an incident for a category; it is necessary to compare it with
previous incidents in the same and different groups coded in the same category
252
(Glaser and Strauss 1967: 106). Such an approach begins to generate the
theoretical properties of the category or its general and specific attributes.
The analyst starts thinking in terms of the full range and types or
continua of the category, its dimensions, the conditions under
which it is pronounced or minimized, its major consequences its
relationship to other categories and its other properties (Glaser and
Strauss 1967: 106).
As discussed previously, NVivo 2.0 software was used in the RidgiDidge Study
to code the raw data (interview transcripts and memos). During open coding, the
text was ‘fractured’ or opened up allowing words and statements to be coded
using the participants’ own words such as ‘texting’, ‘drinking’ or ‘piercing’.
Other easily recognisable codes were also employed such as ‘new media
technology’, ‘consideration to family’ and ‘parental control’ as a means of
simply describing what the participant was saying. Given the process involved in
coding to generate a grounded theory (see Figure 7: Grounded theory method
terminology and process on page 190), NVivo 2.0 was invaluable in managing
the volume of data gathered over the course of the field work of the RidgiDidge
Study.
New Media Technology Group gaming among male participants then becomes
the site for social activity in terms of being with friends and talking.
KL: Do you think you're going to have much time to play games
and socialise with your friends over the holidays?
M8: Umm… Yeah…
KL: Or would it depend on…?
M8: It depends on if like you want to get your act together,
because my friend was going to have a LAN at my other friend's
place on Saturday but I don't think I want to go. They're all into
this one game but I don't have an X-Box so I don't really play that
game much. I might go but I don't know. We'll see. But yeah it
253
really depends if you ring up each other and stuff. And you have to
be [inaudible] because I just moved house to Chandler at the
moment, and that's a fair way away form where these guys are
now. We used to live fairly close, just down the road and stuff.
KL: Would you consider email?
M8: Oh yeah, ring up, whatever. Say "Oh I'll meet you on
Saturday at 12 at school". Say that or something. Yeah.
Female participants appear to be more open than male participants to ‘just
talking’ on the phone, although purposefulness emerges in relation to phone use.
F6 contextualises her phone and media technology use in terms of
purposefulness. As the excerpt below indicates, F6 uses a variety of modes of
communication with her friends.
KL: How do you keep in contact with your friends at the moment do you just see them at school or do you use a phone?
F6: I don't really use email a lot. I did at the beginning of the year
but I haven't been able to get internet access to email. The school
has blocked it, my mum had it taken off and we're trying to get it
back on because of this virus thing that happened, and I've only got
my cousin who has got it and I rarely go over there so I don't use
the internet. I hardly ever use a phone but last night my friend rang
me. Most of the time I just see them at school but most of the time
we always like to arrange a date to get together over the weekend
or the holiday - have a couple of sleepovers or have a shopping
spree or go and see the movies and all of that other stuff. But it's
mostly school really.
Mobile Phones
Social contact and media technology related activity, such as gaming, figure
highly in the participant lives, predominantly in a peer group context.
The personal mobile phone in particular features highly as a desirable technology
in terms of its facilitation of social contact, or its role as a desirable item for
254
those participants who do not have their own phones. As F6 articulates, ‘What do
I really want? A mobile phone’ (F6 Stage 3).
During the third stage of the RidgiDidge Study, MacDonald’s ran a ‘mobile
phone deal’ with Telstra, Australia Post and Coca-Cola (see Interview Aid on
page 420). This promotion entailed the collection of 15 Coca-Cola tokens from
specially marked MacDonald’s or Coca-Cola products, downloading a
redemption form at www.coca-cola.com.au and the payment of $50 at
participating Telstra or Australia Post stores to get a pre-paid Motorola C201
phone, with $10 phone credit.
That MacDonald’s stores were running this promotion during Stage 3 was
serendipitous in that participant response to such an interview aid might offer
some insight into their consumption of media technology in terms of internet use
or interest in acquiring such a phone.
KL: I want to get your opinion on that particular ad campaign.
Does that make you want to drink Coke, go to McDonalds or use a
phone?
M8: Not really. I've already got a phone. It's the C200 and this is
the one up on it.
KL: Do you think that sort of advertising is successful with other
young people who maybe don't have a phone?
M8: I know a few people who have got this already and they've
been drinking a lot of Coke probably, to get the barcodes and
things. Yeah it probably would if they drink Coke…"sweet fiftybuck phone!” But you have to buy fifteen Cokes though. It's like
fifty bucks anyway.
M4 is also aware of the promotion, and has determined whether the deal is a
good one.
KL: What do you see when you see this ad? Have you seen that ad
before?
255
M4: Yep.
KL: Does it make you want to go and drink Coke or buy Macca's
or anything like that? How do you feel about that ad?
M4: Yeah it sort of makes me want to go out and buy some Coke.
Yeah. But I've already got a phone so I'm not really interested in
the deal.
KL: Would you say that's a good deal?
M4: Oh yeah, I suppose so. Because people drink Coke and just by
drinking Coke you can get a phone for 50 dollars. It's pretty good.
M2 says he would like a personal phone and has assessed the value of the deal.
KL: What's your opinion of an ad like that? Does it make you want
to have lots of Maccas’?
M2: It makes me want a phone.
KL: Do you think that's a good deal?
M2: Not really. It kind of is in a way. The phone - I'm not too sure
if it's any good. I haven't checked out the phone or had a look at it
or anything like that. I think it's a little bit over the top, I mean 50
bucks, and 15 tokens. The tokens would be around about two
dollars each to get the actual drink. So that's around 80 dollars. It's
brand new. If you wanted to buy it second hand it would be
cheaper. Yeah it might be good value.
Of the participants excerpted here, M8 had just acquired a mobile phone in Stage
3, M4 did not have one and M2 appears to share a mobile phone with his
Mother, listing the mobile phone as part of his household technology, rather than
his personal technology. As M2 responds in Stage 1, he uses the household
mobile phone ‘to contact my Dad because my parents don't live together’.
Several participants indicate they already have their own personal mobile phone
with most of the participants indicating access to a mobile phone. F2 indicates ‘I
use my Mum's mobile phone and [my] brother's’ suggesting
those other
participants with access to, but not their own phone, make use of another family
members phone where possible and necessary.
256
Only two participants indicate that they play phone games on their phones with
mobile phones being used mainly to make and receive calls and text messages.
However, one participant (M2) indicates that he no longer plays games on his
phone and a few participants indicate that they change their ring tones or
compose their own ring tones; activities that appear to be a form of ‘play’ (M6,
M2). Other uses of mobile phones were as a mobile phone book, as a news
platform and for emergency communication. Using up phone credit before it
expires also created opportunities for use.
F6: What do I really want? A mobile phone. I'm using my Gran's
at the moment. It's just a little cheap one because it's just for
emergencies and that. But there's credit on it that will be expired
when she comes back [from Canada] so she's just given it to me
for emergencies and to use up the credit. Mobile phones are
actually a lot easier I know how to text now. I've been playing with
my friends phones except they don't have any credit so I can't text
anybody if I wanted to.
‘Texting’ appears to be an essential part of mobile phone usage among the
RidgiDidge Study participants with access to a mobile phone in that it offers a
functional mode of communication in keeping with their own structured and
disciplined use of the technology. M2 and M8 indicated the disciplined use of
mobile phones, in response to questions about how they use their phones.
KL: Do you take [your mobile phone] with you everywhere?
M2: Not really I used to take it school, I only got it this year, but
now I'm just limiting myself, so I only take it out on the weekends
and stuff.
And,
KL: What about your mobile phone? Do you like having a mobile
phone or is it a hassle when it rings?
M8: It's alright. I usually only use it mainly for emergencies. Like
the other day me and two other friends had to go to the Gabba to
257
watch the Lions play, and we walked from Coorparoo station and
my friends parent was going to pick us up and we had to use my
phone…and we went to Wet 'n Wild last year and I had to use it
for that. They had to pick us up because it was raining. So that was
good. Not really a hassle. I quite enjoy it really.
The ways in which the phone is used is also quite structured in that concepts of
cost and value for money were important factors in patterns of participant use.
KL: Do you use text messages much?
M2: Yes.
KL: Do you prefer text messages?
M2: Yeah I do I like it.
KL: Do you send text message during the day at school?
M2: Yes, sometimes.
KL: Do you find it more convenient?
M2: It's cheaper like than actually calling someone especially
during the day.
KL: Okay. Who pays your mobile phone bill? Is it prepaid or…?
M2: It's a prepaid so I usually buy credit.
Similarly, M2 also reported the importance of manipulating his phone plan to his
own needs indicating that he will call his friends on his mobile ‘because like on
Optus after 9 o'clock its free for 20 minutes with any other Optus prepaid
mobile’ (M2, Stage 1).
The use of text language to send messages by mobile phone is also an essential
part of phone use and one that occurs in both phone and internet use. This
indicates the popularity of cross-media modes of communication.
KL: Have you played games on the mobile?
F7: Yes. Oh and I play games on my brother's
KL: Do you send text messages?
F7: On my friend's phone I do.
KL: Do you spell out the words or use [abbreviations]?
258
F7: Yeah, like P-L-S for ‘please’ or S-R-Y for ‘sorry’. You use
those sorts of things and you use them on the internet as well.
KL: Do you use smiley faces and stuff too?
F7: Yep
Similarly, M6 favours texting and his phone’s language functionality.
KL: With your phone do you take it everywhere?
M6: Yes.
KL: Who do you mainly speak to on the phone?
M6: No one - I just SMS.
KL: So you are a text person?
M6: Yes.
KL: Do you spell out words or use abbreviations?
M6: I use quick type
KL: Do you ever change your ring tones?
M6: I have a disk of over a million. I use Composer. I get them
from the ring tone site and burn then onto a disk. I used to run up
$40 or $50 worth on the phone at home so I just thought I'd get
them off the internet and burn them to CD.
KL: Do you take your mobile phone with you everywhere?
F8: No not at school because it gets stolen.
KL: Is the theft of mobile phones a problem at school?
F8: Yeah, I got my first mobile stolen on my fourth day at school.
And I bring my other one when I play sport, so I can ring to get
mum to pick me up.
KL: Do you use text messages?
F8: Yes.
KL: Do you use them a lot?
F8: Yes.
KL: Is that between yourself and family and friends?
F8: Friends mostly.
KL: Do you type out the full word or do you use abbreviations?
F8: I use quick tap and slang
KL: Do you use smiley faces?
259
F8: Yep
Do you ever change your ring tone?
F8: Yep
KL: Do you ever download from the net? What would be your ring
tone now?
F8: Yes. You can down load them from the net. You get the
number and just ring up, I got, think I got Dilemma.
However, despite a preference for the text messaging function of a mobile phone,
most participants indicated that they prefer to have face-to-face communication
with their friends and family.
F7 prefers face to face communication in terms of accessing non-verbal language
during her social interaction.
KL: Do you think talking to a friend by phone is just as good as
talking face-to-face?
F7: No.
KL: So you would you rather talk face to face?
F7: Yeah, because you can't tell if they're telling the truth because
you can't see their face, facial features movements and stuff.
Because you can tell if they're sad or something. They could be
going [does phone action] ‘no I’m not mad at you' and you might
not know if they're mad at you.
Male participants appear to have a similar perspective, preferring face to face
contact with their friends.
KL: Do you find talking to your friends over the phone just as
effective as talking to face to face?
M2: I suppose, yes. I discuss more things face to face or
somewhere on the phone than you could vice versa.
KL: So sometimes it works when you are not looking at the
person?
M2: Yeah and the other way round.
KL: Depending on the subject of conversation?
M2: Yeah
260
However, the phone is also an important aspect of his family communication
given his family composition.
KL: How does having a mobile phone help you? Do you need it as
your own personal phone line?
M2: Yeah pretty much like to contact my Dad because my parents
don't live together.
KL: Did he buy the phone for you?
M2: No my Mum did.
Similarly, F2 indicates that she did not use her phone much given her family
visits to the hospital at the time of her Stage 1 diary submission.
Given the semi-structured nature of the interview process and the methodological
protocol that the participants dictate what aspects of technology use they
introduce on the interviews, several key ideas emerge about how mobile phone
and phone communication figure in their lives.
Firstly, in terms of phone use, text messaging is the preferred function of the
mobile phone among the peer group. This is not to say that they prefer text
messaging over other forms of human communication and interaction.
Indeed, face-to-face communication is preferred where possible among the
RidgiDidge Study participants, particularly among the female participants.
Nevertheless, text messaging suits the participants’ purpose in terms of making
social arrangements and supplementing communication threads already started at
school or in a face-to-face context such as plans to meet outside school hours.
Participant preference for texting is closely related to cost and convenience
indicated by an awareness of the cost of sending a text message. For example, at
the time of the RidgiDidge Study, Telstra charged a flat fee of 25¢ per text
261
message with other mobile carriers offering similarly priced services and phone
plans. Similarly, using a mobile to make calls during ‘free time’, such as M2’s
use of his mobile on the Optus network also supports the conclusion that cost is a
significant factor in how young people use their mobile phones. The use of
participants own money to purchase phone credit a likely factor in how text
messaging is the most favoured use of a mobile phone.
KL: Do you send text message during the day at school?
M2: Yes sometimes.
KL: Do you find it more convenient
M2: It's cheaper like than actually calling someone especially
during the day.
KL: Okay. Who pays your mobile phone bill? Is it prepaid or…?
M2: It's a prepaid so I usually buy credit.
The use of quick-tap, emoticons, and abbreviations are common to text
messaging among the participants peer group, although ‘text language’ occurs in
email correspondence as well.
Games and Games Systems
Most participants have a games system at home with only F2 and F8 indicating
they do not own their own system.
However, while F2 does not indicate game playing at all, F8 plays internet
games on Neopets.com indicating that not owning a games system does not
preclude game playing on other media platforms.
Most participants with games systems play games at home with M9 also playing
at a relative’s house and M3, M6 and F1 playing at friends’ houses.
262
The most popular games system among participants is PlayStation 2, with M1,
M2 and M3 owning three generations of game consoles. A preference for the
latest game titles among participants indicates that the latest console model is
their preferred system.
Although a preference for the latest games and game technology relates to
notions of consumption, there is also an indication that shared knowledge among
friends is also a key factor in participant preferences.
KL: Do you think you're going to have much time to play games
and socialise with your friends over the holidays?
M8: Umm… Yeah…
KL: Or would it depend on…?
M8: It depends on if like you want to get your act together,
because my friend was going to have a LAN at my other friend's
place on Saturday but I don't think I want to go. They're all into
this one game but I don't have an X-Box so I don't really play that
game much. I might go but I don't know.
M8’s reticence to engage with unfamiliar technology suggests that social
competence (Schneider 1993; Smart and Sanson 2003) is a key factor in how he
perceives his status among his peers.
As Schneider puts it, ‘one approach in defining social competence or social skills
has been to include all skills and behaviours and traits that are associated with
peer acceptance or effective behaviour in social situations. The range of
behaviours can be quite broad’ (Schneider 1993: 13).
Similarly, M9’s use of his Xbox indicates that ‘skilling up’ is a necessary stage
in acquiring game knowledge before contemplating social gaming.
KL: What books do you like to read?
M9: Xbox books
263
KL: You have got an Xbox?
M9: Just got it.
An appreciation of competent game playing and computer knowledge is certainly
apparent in M8’s view.
KL: Do your parents ever play with you?
M8: Not much, they're not really into computers. They're like
'what's that'? I go 'it’s a monitor!’ 'It's part of the computer'. Other
people's friends are like into the computer and stuff, my parents
don't have anything to do with computers but like my friend’s Dad,
he’s a computer engineer so he knows all about this stuff.
Similarly,
KL: Do you play with other members of your family?
M1: Yeah, my brother sometimes.
KL: So not with your Mum [or Dad]...?
M1: No, they're no good [laughs].
In terms of games system purchase, most systems were a family purchase with
M8 buying his own system.
As family purchases, playing on games systems appears to be related to
nurturing social relationships among the immediate family, with male
participants and their fathers playing together.
KL: Who do you play games with?
M2: My youngest brother, my Dad, and a few friends.
KL: So do you get your friends to play at your house?
M2: Sometimes.
KL: Do you ever go over to friends' house and play as well?
M2: Yes.
KL: Do you play very often with your Dad?
M2: Yeah probably - on the weekends we play a lot.
264
In game playing, the role of teacher is reversed with participants teaching their
parents how to use the technology.
KL: Have you ever taught someone to play a game before?
M4: Well, yeah, my Dad actually did play with me just one time,
he does rarely, and we had two computers connected to each other.
KL: Okay.
M4: We played a multi-player game.
Similarly,
KL: Do you talk with your Dad when you are playing or are you
just focussed on the game?
M3: No, we talk.
KL: Are you good at the games when you play?
M3: Fairly good - you get better with practice.
However, game playing with parents extends to playing between participants and
their mothers.
KL: Was the game system a family purchase?
F7: Yes.
KL: Have you ever played with a parent?
F7: Yes, I verse my mum sometimes, if she’s up to it.
F7 also points out that that the family discussion of a games system purchase has
pre-designated individual uses of the technology according to family needs.
KL: So want sort of media technology do you want for your
birthday?
F7: Just a mobile phone and soon we are getting an Xbox. Like a
family present.
KL: Do you think your parents would play on it? With you?
F7: Mum would play DVDs on it, she might play games with us
and play music but that's all.
In terms of competition, participants appear to be more preoccupied with getting
others to play and participate in gaming. Teaching others as well as the changing
265
of game rules to suit the players are key statements from participants about what
they do with their technology.
KL: Have you ever taught somebody how to use your PlayStation?
M4: Yeah.
KL: Is that like a friend so that you can play with them?
M4: Yeah, like when friends come over if they don't know how to
play I teach them and I also taught my little cousin how to play.
Similarly, M5 indicates that he is flexible in his gaming practice so that his
friends can participate in the game session.
KL: Do you play games outside of school with school friends?
M5: Yep.
KL: Do you ever change the rules the make it harder or easier for
players?
M5: Yep, harder for some, but easier for people new to the game.
KL: Do you find the games challenging?
M5: Yes, some games.
M4 is also similarly inclined to help others participate in a games session.
KL: When you play with someone else, do you feel like you're
competing with them when you play the game?
M4: No - its more of a team effort sort of thing, you want to finish
the game.
KL: Do you ever talk while you're playing as well or are you
concentrating?
M4: If you're not playing you help the other person out by giving
directions or whatever.
Such manipulation displays a great deal of agency in game playing for the
purposes of social interaction. However, social interaction is not the only
purpose of play.
KL: Why do you enjoy playing the games? Do they kill time, stave
off boredom or you just really enjoy them?
M1: Probably all three [laughs]
266
M8 response below indicates that the challenge of some games is to finish them,
completing all the available levels.
KL: Do you think you play it as much as when you first got the
game?
M8: No, you play it a lot more when you first get it, then you slack
off. You might pick it up again but then you slack off again
KL: Is that because it's a challenge, or because you’re bored?
M8: Yeah or because you've finished it. I've got this really long
game; it took me 127 hours to finish. But I don't play non-stop for
one day; I play like an hour each day. So you save where you're at.
As the Data tables on page 389 indicate, the types of games favoured by
participants have a gendered bias. Female participants favoured ‘God games’
like Empire Earth and Age of Empires where players control the fate of
civilisations. Racing games (Gran Turismo) and simulations such as The Sims as
well as quest games such as The Legend of Zelda series being popular choices
among female participants.
As discussed earlier, he inclusion of Tekken 3 and Grand Theft Auto 3 in the
listed choices from the female participants also implies the sharing of games
between siblings such as F7 and her older brother, and F3 and F4’s interaction
with the day care children at their home.
In comparison to the female participants taste in games, the male participants in
the RidgiDidge Study favour multi-player, team-based game play with online
games such as Counter Strike, Red Faction and Medal of Honour.
While the type of content is not necessarily at issue in the RidgiDidge Study,
some content necessitates the use of other game associated technology such as
headsets and light guns.
267
M8: I've only got one controller so I can't play many two-player
games at home. I haven't got any two-player games. I've this game,
Vampire night and you can use light guns so you shoot at vampires
and stuff, so you point at the screen and shoot 'em. So I borrowed a
gun off my friend so I had two and I played with my brother and
my friend. Go round the levels shooting stuff [laughs].
Indeed, the use and manipulation of the technology itself appears to be part of
the gaming experience.
KL: Do you think anything has changed with the way you use
media since we last spoke?
M8: Yeah, probably.
KL: How?
M8: A lot more high-tech, advanced. Like, we recently got a new
computer - its better. I go over my friend's house to have a Local
Area Network, a L-A-N. It's quite fun.
KL: So are you playing games on that? Stuff like Medal of
Honour?
M8: Yeah.
M8 went on to say that,
M8: We all take our computers over someone's house, and hook it
up together and start playing against each other. So it's pretty fun.
KL: Are we talking laptops - something small and portable?
M8: No, just towers, monitors, whatever.
KL: The whole thing?
M8: Yeah.
KL: And the group of people that you join the LAN with, do you
see them socially or is it just to play?
M8: Oh I see them at school. I sit with them. I see them all the
time really - we're mates.
Music
Every participant had some way of playing music at home. At the time of the
RidgiDidge Study, mini-discs, Apple iPods and other MP3 player brands were
268
available, but none of the participants had these items of technology. This was
not to say that participants did not use the internet to download MP3 music files
however. As M6 points out in his response below, he is part of the file sharing
community at Kazaar.com.
KL: Do you have any favourite websites?
M6: Probably just Kazaar but it's not a website, it's like a
downloader.
M2 also stores files on his computer for later access.
KL: Would you say that maybe, if you had more homework, do
you think you might listen to more music, or radio or CDs instead
of watching TV or videos?
M2: Yeah I have been. I listen to music every night now, because I
download it.
KL: OK, so you're doing MP3s?
M2: Yeah.
KL: Have you got like a disc player, mini-disc or MP3 player?
M2: No. I don't have a burner so I just have them on my computer
and I can't really take them off, so yeah.
KL: Have you got any particular favourite artists or media
personalities?
M2: Artists? Linkin Park, Blink 182, Metallica. Yeah, stuff like
that.
KL: So this is what you've been listening to lately?
M2: Yeah
For most participants, listening to music is an activity done in conjunction with
other media technology use.
M4: I like listening to music a lot, but when I'm on the computer I
just listen to music anyway.
KL: What sort of music do you listen to while you're on the
computer?
M4: Like punk rock. Things like that.
KL: So not a kind of soothing music - a bit harder?
269
M4: Yeah.
Listening to music was a common activity for participants as a sole activity and
as a context for other daily activities. Contexts for listening to music included
listening to the radio in the car on the way to school, listening to CDs with
friends as well as listening to music while participants are doing something else
such as getting dressed for a wedding (F2).
However, F6 indicates in her response below that music itself is one of two
media technologies that she cannot live without. Direct reference to a specific
media technology is absent from her response (such as a CD player), with her
focus being on music and its function of ‘[making] me think about other things
while blocking out everything else’. Her focus on content rather than technology
and how she uses that content for the specific purpose of ‘blocking out
everything else’, supports the idea that participant emphasis is on getting what
they want from their technology, rather than the means or media technology they
use to get what they want.
KL: If there is one piece of media technology that you couldn't live
without, what would it be?
F6: One piece?
KL: Yeah. Like what could you absolutely not live without?
F6: I've got two.
KL: OK.
F6: Music and TV, because I always need to watch my programs.
And music just makes me think about other things while blocking
out everything else. I do care about watching things that are
happening around the world but at times I don't think that it's
necessary for me to actually know them, but I do watch it because
it's interesting - the news. I don't think I'll have the internet because
heaps of people have hooked up to the internet before and I don't
270
use it that often. Like, I can get books to look for information. I
love books anyway. Mobile phones, well I'll just write letters out.
The imminent Christmas break after Stage 2 of the RidgiDidge Study was a
source of anticipation for the participants with several of them making plans for
their ‘Christmas money’ or knowing what they would get as a gift for Christmas.
KL: Do you plan to buy any CDs or games?
F2: Probably.
KL: What sort of things do you think you might buy?
F2: CDs.
KL: Like which artists?
F2: Black Eyed Peas. Any really.
A preference for the latest CDs is apparent among participant responses with
popular emo, R&B and hip-hop titles featuring on the participant ‘wish list’.
KL: Do you plan to buy any CDs, games?
M7: Probably. [Inaudible] Christmas because then I get money.
Yeah probably just CDs mostly.
KL: Who are your favourite artists at the moment?
M7: I don't really have a favourite artist. I kind of like, I've always
like, I've never had a favourite one I've always just like changed
over and I've never had a favourite. It's like I'm a bit of a mix.
KL: Is there anything that you're tempted to go out and buy at the
moment?
M7: The Linkin Park Meteora CD and The Black Eyed Peas new
one, Elephunk. Yeah that's about it.
Similarly, M5 plans to buy ‘50 Cent or something’, but was not more specific
suggesting that genre rather than particular artist was a deciding factor.
Similarly, M4’s family trip to the Philippines offered an opportunity for
consumption as well as travel.
KL: Do you plan to buy any CDs or games or that sort of thing
while you're overseas?
271
M4: Yeah, probably. Probably some CDs and stuff, or computer
games I don't know.
The acquisition of the latest CD music or downloaded music appears to be a
significant part of the participants’ consumption of popular culture.
This consumption is part of an active engagement with popular culture where
participants are complicit in their own consumerism. For example, when asked
whether a participant knew why new media such as CDs and DVDs come out at
Christmas, all participants asked this question were clear in their responses such
as M2’s response below,
M2: Yes, that would just be smart marketing I suppose.
Television and Cable/Pay TV
Television itself is not a new technology in comparison to computers and mobile
phones, but its function in delivering new content into the home from free-to-air
broadcasters, videos and DVDs and Pay TV providers such as Foxtel, makes it
an important part of the participants technoscape.
All participants had access to television and could play video and DVD’s at
home. Eight participants have a television in their bedrooms, with three
participants owning a DVD player and two participants owning a video player.
None of the participants were connected to a Cable/Pay TV service in their
bedrooms. Nevertheless, four participants had access to Cable/Pay TV, with F6
and her family acquiring Cable/Pay TV in Stage 3.
No participant had access to HDTV.
272
All participants spent time with their families on most evenings watching
television, with those families with Pay TV access using a combination of freeto-air, recorded content and Pay TV programming.
KL: Now you've got cable as well?
M8: Yeah, Foxtel, I do, but not for the internet. We were thinking
of getting broadband for the internet because it's really slow and
annoying. So yeah I've got Foxtel at the moment.
KL: So would you say that out of all of your TV use, you watch
Foxtel more than public television?
M8: Oh yeah. Yeah, most likely. Because sometimes there's not
much on commercial TV so you watch Foxtel, and just when there
are movies on. Then just commercial for the others. But yeah
probably more Foxtel.
KL: Do you flick between channels?
M8: Yeah. I sit there and go through all of them. "Oh nothing good
there, oh here's a good thing. Let's do it." Yeah, pretty much. I
flick through them. I don't really look up the TV guide because I'm
too lazy. I'm just like "Oh yep. Just watch this quick". You watch
advertisements on TV and it says "this is on at Channel Ten" and
tells you what time.
Although M8 appears to be referring to his personal viewing practices, his media
diary indicates frequent television viewing in the company of his family. The
family interaction during family viewing is one of a communal sensibility where
direct interaction is reserved for he commercial breaks.
KL: Do you ever all watch TV together?
F1: Yes.
KL: Do you talk to each other during the program or during the
ads?
F1: Sometimes during the show but mostly during the ads.
In homes where participants have access to more than one television set,
communal sensibility also entails watching television apart. In this way F6 is an
example of how she actively seeks out her grandparents company, watching what
273
her Grandfather watches, but seeking out her own viewing choice on another set
where necessary.
KL: How do you feel about television - what do you use television
for? Would you go to a TV guide and find what you wanted to
watch or do you just flop down and go "oh what's on?"?
F6: A bit of both. When I come home from school I'm normally
exhausted because I do a bit of walking after the bus because I
need to keep myself fit somehow. Normally my Grandpa has the
TV on, because I always go to my grandparents first, and then at
four o'clock my mum comes home from work, picks me up and
goes home because it's just around the corner. That way I get to see
my grandparents and she gets to see her parents’ everyday. I watch
what they're watching and I do look at the TV Times at times but
more just looking at the TV Times because it's good to see what's
going on because flicking it you don't know what you're watching.
KL: What sort of programs so you like to watch?
F6: Charmed. Charmed is my favourite. When Buffy was on I
liked to watch that but I watched it on Fox 8 - the repeats - because
there were some I hadn't seen, a little bit of Angel, movies, some
cartoons but not any on Channel Two because they seem sort of
kiddy. Yeah I'm not their target audience obviously. I used to
watch Neighbours but I haven't watched Neighbours for ages. At
my grandpa's place, because they've got Fox Classics, he watches
this show called [inaudible]. I find that weird so I don't really
watch it. Then we watch MASH - no, then he watches the news then we watch MASH, which I find enjoyable, then the old series
of Law & Order. If there's something that I want I always go into
the other room to watch, but I haven't really watched a lot on
public television in these past five or so weeks. When I was little I
used to remember me and [my brother] getting home from school
and get the TV Times and actually make a plan of what we were
going to be watching, one show after the other, but we're not like
that anymore. But I do that from six o'clock onwards.
As discussed earlier, Neuman's 1991 account of Rogers’ (1962) Diffusion of
Innovations Theory indicates that new media is accumulated into pre-existing
technoscapes with the use of ‘older’ technology becoming more specialised. For
example, radio is a technology that has become specialised in that it is used by
274
most of the participants in the car on the way to school as indicated by
participant media diary entries.
These results show that new media technology is complex and pervading aspect
of the lives of the RidgiDidge Study participants. Indeed each new technology
discussed here cannot be seen as a discrete unit. Rather, the technologies
participants have access to form the technological milieu that supports the social
practices and structures such as the relations between peer group, family, school
and cultural systems.
Social Ecology
As discussed previously, in culturally specific research such as the RidgiDidge
Study, the idea that ‘context matters’ is essential to bear in mind when looking at
young people as a structural category in society. In this respect, Bronfenbrenner's
model (see page 42 and 47) of the ecology of human development is a useful
framework in conceptualising the contexts of the RidgiDidge Study participants
in terms of their life worlds.
This framework comprises of:
!
Macrosystem refers to consistencies that exist at a sub cultural and
cultural level and their supporting ideology.
275
!
Exosystem refers to one or more settings that do not involve the
developing person but affect the developing person like the parental
workplace setting12.
!
Mesosystem comprises the interrelations among two or more settings
such as the school, home or peer group microsystems.
!
Microsystems of school, home and peer group. These microsystems
feature patterns of activities, roles and interpersonal relations.
!
The chronosystem encompasses the dimension of time as it relates to a
child’s environments. Elements within this system can be either
external, such as the timing of a parent’s death, or internal, such as the
physiological changes that occur with the aging of a child.
Bronfenbrenner's model can apply universally in a generic sense although it
leaves a space for the recognition of differences from macrosystem to
macrosystem based on cultural specificities. In this way an ecological
perspective goes beyond the linear 'cause-effect' relation between social variables
'to a broader conception of the interrelation among systems' (Durkin 1995: 31).
As Thomas points out, such a systematic approach to human development holds
considerable promise in 'guiding child rearing, educational practices, social
work, and child therapy' (Thomas 2000: 413).
12
Given the parameters of the RidgiDidge Study, the exosystem is not explored given that it
extends beyond how participants’ think and feel about new media technology and the role in their
lives.
276
In the context of Australian research practice, the ecological perspective appears
to have taken hold given its capacity to account for rapid changes in family
structure (Wise 2003). In terms of the RidgiDidge Study, this framework is
useful in giving structure to a discussion of the complexities of young people’s
everyday contexts, particularly where new media technology is concerned.
Nevertheless, although Bronfenbrenner’s model concerns a holistic approach to
the ecology of human development, the focus of the RidgiDidge Study and its
ethical constraints prevent the full discussion of the exosystem, for the reason
that significant others in the lives of the participants’ are not the focus of the
research here although the inclusion of participant perceptions of the mesosystem
is useful for context.
The Home Microsystem
The home microsystem features patterns of activities, roles and interpersonal
relations. In the context of the RidgiDidge Study, discussion of this microsystem
focuses on how new media technology features in the lives of participants as
well as how the home is situated in relation to the mesosystem or the
interrelation between two or more settings such as the peer group or school.
However, as the school microsystem falls outside the scope of the RidgiDidge
Study and its focus on the recreational use of new media technology, its
inclusion here accounts for its impact on the peer and home microsystems.
In terms of household makeup, participants came from six single-parent families,
four families were both parents were present and six blended families made up of
277
the participant’s mother and step-father. Several siblings were a common aspect
of the participants’ families. Most participants’ parents used a computer at work,
with only one participant commenting that they did not know whether their
parents did or not.
Most participants perceived that there were ‘no rules’ as such to their media
consumption, although the interviews indicated that there was a provision that
chores and homework needed to be completed before recreational consumption
of media, particularly the use of the internet for gaming and gaming itself. As
M7’s response in Stage 1 illustrates:
KL: Does your Mum have any rules about your game playing or
when you watch TV?
M7: No, One rule is that I have to do my jobs - empty the bins
sometimes to wash up but when I am done I can do what I want
basically.
Perception of rules in game playing often took on a financial aspect in terms of
the cost of internet use.
KL: Do you think your mum has rules about using the computer
and watching TV?
F7: Because it costs a lot of money to use the computers because
we often download a lot of things and with games, she says we
shouldn't play games because games are for weekends or else we'd
be glued to the TV.
And,
M2: My Mum has just recently cut the phone line off because I've
been going over the internet, like the bill. I've just been going on it
heaps. I used to just stay on the internet and now and then I'd jump
off that and go and watch TV for a few seconds, get a drink, and
go back on the internet. But now that it's off I suppose I'm going to
be watching the TV a fair bit more.
278
Indeed, the relationship between participants, their parents and their new media
technology can be described as structuring.
In this context, the use of media technology is structured according to family
priorities such as schoolwork, family events and communal sensibility in terms
of running the household and sharing technology with other family members.
In terms of prioritising school work, M7 was clear in relating how his parents
perceive how media technology use adversely affects his performance at school.
KL: Do you think you've changed your media consumption since
your last media diary [Stage 1]?
M7: Yes, definitely. Unfortunately.
KL: How?
M7: The TV. I've been grounded. Not very good grades. I've been
grounded from the TV, so I'm not staying awake for very long
watching TV all night so that's a bit of a bummer.
M6 also presents a view of home life where media technology use is structured
around chores and the running of the household.
KL: Do you think there is ever any parental control over what you
watch?
M6: We have to be in bed by 9.30. That pretty much limits us.
KL: Do you have to finish chores?
M6: Yes, before we watch TV.
However, within these limits, M6 perceives that there are ‘no rules’ about how
much he can use the technology available to him.
KL: Do you have rules about how much TV you watch?
M6: No.
KL: How much time you spend playing games?
M6: No.
KL: How much time you spend on the home computer?
M6: I use that every day.
279
Indeed, although the time spent using media technology was of concern to
parents as indicated by the participants, content issues were not.
KL: Do you ever think there's any parental control over your game
playing? When you are playing games?
M2: Yeah I have a lot of restrictions like I'm only allowed to play
games at weekend yeah sometimes I do on weekdays…but I'm
pretty much restricted with everything like with the internet.
KL: Is that because you know you've got stuff like homework and
chores to do?
M2: Yeah.
KL: Or do you think that any restriction may have to do with Mum
and Dad being concerned about the content?
M2: No, not really.
KL: No? It's just you've got to get your homework and chores
done?
M2: Yeah.
KL: Do you think that parental control has diminished over time?
M2: I suppose yeah.
M2 is an articulate young person living in a one-parent family, although he has
free contact with his father. Whether this perception of diminished parental
control over his media technology is related to this family structure is open to
speculation. However, M2 appears to be working in with his family structure in
demonstrating a communal sensibility. This extends to his use of a pre-paid
mobile phone that he uses on Optus free-time as well as his preference for text
messages, making his media use as cost effective as possible.
KL: Do your friends have phones as well?
M2: Not as many as I like. Some do, some don't
KL: So you would contact them on a landline?
280
M2: No, on the mobile because like on Optus after 9 o'clock it’s free for 20
minutes with any other Optus prepaid mobile.
Seven of the RidgiDidge participants also owned a personal mobile phone and
the use of pre-paid schemes appeared to mitigate any financial control or concern
the participants perceived from their parents.
M2’s attitude towards having the internet cut off at home because of the
excessive cost is one of acceptance, commenting that ‘now that it's off I suppose
I'm going to be watching the TV a fair bit more’(M2 Stage 3).
This comment supports a theme in the results that asserts that access to content is
of more importance than simply how content is accessed.
Perceptions of influence were very clear among the participants.
KL: Who would you say has the biggest influence on you at the
moment? Would you say its friends, parents or teachers?
M8: Probably friends. As in, what do you mean by that?
KL: Like, are you kind of more tuned in to what your friends
would say. If you needed to make a decision, who would you ask your friends, parents or teachers?
M8: Oh. Friends or parents. Not so much teachers, but friends or
parents, yeah.
Most other participants indicated that friends were more of an influence,
however in Stage 3, M8 considered his Mother to be more of an influence.
KL: Who do you think has been the biggest influence on you at the
moment - friends, teachers or family?
M8: Probably my Mum.
KL: Do you spend a lot of time with your Mum?
M8: Yeah, every now and then. Just around the house, taking me
to football and all that. Yeah.
In acknowledging his Mother’s influence, particularly in terms of her capacity to
drive him to football, as well as to transport his computer equipment to the LAN
281
events he attends, suggests that M8 sees his Mother as a structuring influence in
his life, even if only because she enables his social life.
In terms of communal sensibility in the running of the household, most
participants indicated that they were expected to do chores.
KL: Do you think there was every any parental control over your
game playing or television watching?
M4: Oh I just have to finish my chores and then after that I can do
whatever I want.
KL: What sort of chores do you do?
M4: Oh clear the rubbish and like do the dishes and stuff.
Knowing what to do or working in with parental expectation is part of communal
sensibility.
KL: Do you think there was ever any parental control? TV? Does a
parent ever say ‘you've got to get your chores done’?
M1: Not really, they're usually done anyway
This extends to participants extended family where indicated. F6 and F2 are two
examples where extended family involvement is a part of their everyday lives.
KL: And how do you feel in relation to adults? Do you feel kind of
like you're part of the adult scene or do you feel like they have a
different scene and you have your own scene?
F2: We've got a really big family so it's all sort of… everyone's
involved.
F2 attended a wedding during the RidgiDidge Study which featured in how she
reported her media use in terms of co-media activity.
This is where she listened to music while dressing for the wedding. F2 also
reported that she didn’t use her mobile so much during Stage 2 because she was
attending a family member in hospital.
KL: Do you think you've changed your media consumption since
your last media diary?
282
F2: Yeah.
KL: How? How do you think it might have changed?
F2: I've stopped using the mobile so much.
KL: How come?
F2: Oh because the last time I was up at the hospital a lot, because
of my family, so there wasn't a lot of time.
This statement suggests that the situation required her to prioritise and focus on
her family given that she makes no mention of the ‘no mobile phone’ rule near
hospital equipment.
Similarly, F6 was very involved with her extended family.
KL: Have there been any changes to your family - I mean apart
from your Mum and Gran going to Canada. Have you got any new
brothers and sisters?
F6: No I've just got the same family but my cousins - my three
cousins and my aunty and uncle - have moved closer. They're just
about 15 minutes walk away now, so I sort of see them more now.
They get off at the same bus stop and I walk past their place now.
Because my Mum and my Gran have gone to Canada, I'm more
closer to my second cousin, Kim, and my Aunt, and my Grandpa.
My older brother, Nathan, because he's older he likes to go out
partying and all that other stuff with his friends, but at times I don't
see him a lot. But unlike how we were when we were kids, we
don't fight and we get along.
In terms of sharing technology with other family members, participants show
consideration to others as part of their communal sensibility.
KL: Now how do you feel in relation to adults? Do you feel like you're part
of their world and you're part of the entire community or do you kind of
have an 'us and them' kind of thing going between your group of friends
and adults.
M8: Yeah I feel like they're a part of us and, you know, you can ask them
questions if you need help and stuff, and all that. And there is a difference
between us because my mum, she doesn't know anything about computers
and stuff. So I'm like [inaudible] but that's alright.
283
M8 also extends consideration to his siblings.
KL: Is there any sort of technology that you haven't got at the moment but
that you would like to get?
M8: I haven't got a DVD player. Well in a sense I do, it's my PlayStation 2,
but it's not really downstairs with the TV for everyone to enjoy.
The Peer Group Microsystem
Like the home microsystem, the peer group microsystem features patterns of
activities, roles and interpersonal relations. Discussion of this microsystem
focuses on how new media technology features in the lives of participants in a
peer group context as well as how the peer group is situated in relation to the
mesosystem or the interrelation between two or more settings such as the home
or school setting.
Again, any detailed discussion of the school microsystem, given its nonrecreational context, falls outside the scope of the RidgiDidge Study and
discussion here occurs only where interrelation exists.
With this awareness in mind, the nurturing of friendships from school, outside of
school are key aspects of the participant’s media technology consumption where
social interaction among the peer group are present.
KL: Do you talk about games at all with your friends at school?
M4: Yeah we just talk about what we're like up to and stuff.
KL: Do you every play with friends at school, like go to each
other's houses and play?
M4: Yeah.
and,
KL: Have you ever taught somebody how to use your PlayStation?
284
M4: Yeah.
KL: Is that like a friend so that you can play with them?
M4: Yeah, like when friends come over if they don't know how to
play I teach them and I also taught my little cousin how to play.
Talk about new media technology in the future also features in talk among the
peer group.
KL: Are you interested in the new phone where you can take
pictures?
F7: Yep, but from what I've seen on the news I'd probably been a
bit worried about other people having them [F7 is referring to a
spate of ‘up skirt’ photographs and the ban on picture phones in
changing rooms and public toilets].
KL: Do your friends have phones?
F7: Um, I think 2 people in our group have phones. The rest of us
are like getting them on our birthdays or Christmas
KL: Do you talk about stuff that you are going to get for birthdays
and Christmas?
F7: Um, we mostly talk about what, um yeah or were getting a
groovy thing for Christmas, blah, blah, blah or something like that.
Sometimes. Or we ask 'when's your birthday?' or they say 'what do
you want for your birthday'? Blah, blah, blah.
Similarly, F6 points out that there are several types of technology she would like
to get.
KL: Is there any technology that you don't have at the moment but
you would like to get?
F6: I wouldn't mind a computer in my room. Well I've got a TV in
my own room - like at my own house, not where I'm staying at the
moment. I wouldn't mind getting a PlayStation 2 in there so I can
play not only DVDs but music and [inaudible] games as well. I
wouldn't mind a VCR in my room also so I can tape some stuff.
I've got a Discman for myself and a CD player.
Male participants are also interested in new technologies to consume. In Stage 1
M2 remarked;
M2: I'm looking at those phones with the movie camera, y'know
the video phones. Stuff like that.
285
KL: Do your friends have phones as well?
M2: Not as many as I like. Some do, some don't
M2 goes on to say that,
KL: Have you ever discussed buying let's say a new DVD or new
game with your friends?
M2: Yeah.
KL: Do you like talk about ‘oh I got this new game’? Or ‘I'm
going to get this new game’.
M2: Yeah
KL: The people you play games with, are they friends from
school?
M2: Yeah or like half of my friends , a quarter of them are from
like primary school, old friends and stuff, go to a different high
school so I only see them on the weekends. I invite them round and
we play games and stuff.
KL: Do your parents or any members of your family play games
with you as well?
M2: No.
This social interaction also extends to teaching others to play or use technology.
KL: Have you ever taught someone to play a game?
M8: A few, my brothers, sisters.
KL: So you'd be telling them how to…
M8: Yeah, I tell them because usually I get the game with my
friends and start playing and stuff.
Indeed, as one of the most voluble participants, M8 is enthusiastic about his
friends and their activities in several contexts.
Such friendships extend from those among the school community, to those
outside.
KL: The people you often play games with or do like watch TV or
video are these friends from school or are they outside school?
286
M4: Oh most of them are from school, but I have friends from old
schools who come over sometimes.
M2 also has a wide circle of friends.
KL: The people you play games with, are they friends from
school?
M2: Yeah or like half of my friends , a quarter of them are from
like primary school, old friends and stuff, go to a different high
school so I only see them on the weekends. I invite them round and
we play games and stuff.
Indeed, M3 actively nurtures his circles of friends.
KL: Do have a lot of school friends [at school]? So it’s an
opportunity to catch up with them?
M3: Yeah, I try not to hang out with just one group of friends I try
and get around.
Female participants appear not to differentiate between school friends and
outside friends in their responses, although family members who are part of the
peer group and friends who do not live locally are included in their peer group.
KL: What do you think of school?
F6: I do like school I like a number of subjects. Like TVT, I like
Business like computers. I sort of like media but I might choose art
because I am not good at filming and making up stories so I am
choosing something different - I am good at maths except I just
don't like [inaudible] but I really like coming to school and seeing
my friends because that's the only time I get to see them, because
one of them lives near Alexandra Hills and one lives near
Tingalpa, near Belmont and that's really handy because Belmont
Village is just down the road. I go down there and I try too get
there every Tuesday because there’s any movie or game for a
dollar and that's really cheap.
and,
KL: Do you like shopping for anything in particular?
F6: No, a lot of times I just go window shopping with my cousin. I
don't really go with my friends a lot because it's a bit hard to get us
all together. But I like to go shopping with my cousins and I sort of
need to go out shopping with my mum because she has better taste
in clothes than I do.
287
In terms of consumption, observing the tastes of the peer group appears to be a
factor in the choice of purchase.
KL: Have you ever discussed buying a Game or a DVD with your
friends?
M4: Oh yeah , if you don't know what sort of game to get you'd
ask your friends, like what people like, you'd get the game if that's
what people like as well.
However, peer group participation also entails some transgressive behaviour.
KL: Do you think you'll have much time to play games and
socialise over the holidays?
M2: Yeah. Well, I suppose because I'm Grade 10, like, we had our
semi a while ago and everyone got drunk. So I suppose I'll be
doing a bit of that over the holidays as well. A little bit of drinking.
I don't know.
Similarly, maintaining friendships outside of school in M7’s case appears to
involve ‘trouble’.
KL: What activities do you plan to do over the Christmas
holidays?
M7: I used to live in Cairns and I was hoping one of my friends is
coming down to Brisbane over the holidays so I'm going to spend
some time with him. I've known him for like 4 years. I met him in
primary school in grade 6 so I was hoping to catch up with him
because we moved down to Brisbane this year so it would be good
to catch up with him and hang around with him.
KL: What sort of things will you do?
M7: We'll probably go to the movies probably a lot. He doesn't
like getting out very much so I'll probably get him out of that habit
of not going anywhere. And then me and Mum will probably take
him down to the beach in the Sunshine Coast. Other than that we'll
probably just go and muck around at the shopping centres and
cause trouble.
While these are disturbing admissions, given the focus of the RidgiDidge Study,
the desire for social interaction, albeit in dubious circumstances indicates a high
level of agency and independence.
288
In terms of perceived influences, the peer group are recognised as key factor by
the participants.
KL: OK. Who do you think has the biggest influence on you at the
moment? Friends, teachers or family?
M1: Probably friends. I don't know.
KL: Do you listen to your friends much? In terms of do you
engage in group activities or is there one person in your group that
is sort of the ideas person?
M1: Probably the whole group.
Indeed ‘friends’ as a perceived influence is the most popular response from
participants, with ‘family’ also featuring among many responses. As M8 puts it,
KL: Who would you say has the biggest influence on you at the
moment? Would you say its friends, parents or teachers?
M8: Probably friends. As in, what do you mean by that?
KL: Like, are you kind of more tuned in to what your friends
would say. If you needed to make a decision, who would you ask
your friends, parents or teachers?
M8: Oh. Friends or parents. Not so much teachers, but friends or
parents, yeah.
Evidence of how and what friends talk about in relation to new media technology
is apparent in F6’s response to the Interview Aid on page 420.
KL: Do you think that's a successful ad for young people? I mean,
does it make you want to get the phone?
F6: I'm not really too sure because me and my friends don't really
want it because we would think that we'd rather get a different type
of phone - a better phone. I prefer Nokia, so [inaudible] same as a
couple of my other friends because they have a Motorola. At the
moment I'm not really that big on Coke. At times I'm big on Coke
or big on chocolate or big on something, but not right now, I'm
not.
The range of responses here best articulates the close interrelation between the
peer group microsystem and those of the school and the home systems in the
context of the mesosystem. Within the mesosystem, it is readily apparent that
289
new media technology figures highly in the peer group microsystem as a catalyst
to, and facilitator of, social interaction.
This occurs in two ways; firstly, new media technology is a catalyst in nurturing
relationships with peer group and family in that it is a benign context for social
interaction. As indicated previously, the use of MSN Messenger, text messaging,
mobile phone use and email are all modes of communication indicated by
participants when face-to-face communication at school is not possible.
Secondly, the participants and their peer group use new media technology to
initiate, conduct or facilitate contact with each other when not physically able to
do so. As a catalyst and facilitator of social interaction, new media technology
emerges as a space where social competence can be displayed. These
competencies take the form of arranging social activities such as gaming or
going to the cinema; teaching others how to play an electronic game or making
the media activity easier to participate in by changing the rules, and; discussing
new media technology in a future context, sharing ideas among the peer group
and thus forming competent social identities based on new media technology
consumption.
The Macrosystem
The macrosystem refers to consistencies that exist at a sub cultural and cultural
level and their supporting ideology. A macrosystem is comprised of cultural
values, customs, and laws which are likely to differ from culture to culture. The
specificity of such cultural norms cascade down to the individual through the
290
other ecological layers described by Bronfenbrenner (see Figure 2: Ecological
Systems on page 47).
This is not to say that the concept of a macrosystem can act as a specific
framework; rather the concept of a macrosystem can be likened to a range of
building materials from which a culturally specific ecology can be described.
For example, given the cultural specificity inherent to the RidgiDidge Study, the
impact of an Australian macrosystem on young people is one that permeates all
layers of their ecology.
Consider the Christian democratic context of Australian federal and state
legislation that protects young people from exploitation and abuse, as well as
ensuring common standards of health and education across all social groups
regardless of ethnic or religious identification. In terms of the exosystem and the
mesosystem, such legislation is supported by welfare, health and education
systems that are designed to assist families and optimise children and young
people’s development.
The impact of the macrosystem can be seen to shape Australian conception of
childhood in terms of its boundaries, dimensions and divisions (Archard 1993).
In an Australian context, the boundary of childhood is 18 years of age although
the age of consent is 16 across all states. In terms of the dimension of childhood,
Archard suggests that the most probable choice of defining dimension will be
one that observes prevailing social priorities. In an Australian context, this means
the protection of children and young people from exploitation and abuse, at least
291
until the completion of the academic education and their subsequent entry to the
work force.
In terms of the division between youth and childhood, nearly all cultures
recognise a period of infancy where the child is most dependent on its parent for
its survival, but the passage into maturity appears to be more a negotiation
between the individual and their mesosystem context among the RidgiDidge
Study participants.
However, such a description of the Australian conception of childhood as
embodied by legislation and macrosystemic institutions leads to a prescription
for what youth and childhood should be (Jamrozic and Sweeney 1996: 33). Such
a prescription does not necessarily gel with individuals or groups, and as such
requires ongoing discussion.
Indeed the participants’ views on childhood itself are of note in terms of how
they perceive their own life world in relation to those of the adult world.
KL: At what age do you think you stop being a child?
M1: Probably never stops. Throughout your life you're always
going to be like a child somewhere. You become more responsible
at a certain age. I don't know. When you start going to high school
you become more responsible.
KL Do you feel like you're still a child or do you feel like you've
gone past that?
M1: Past it
KL: At around about what age do you think you go past it?
M1: Probably starting high school.
F3 suggested that,
F3: Well it all kind of depends on maturity. I think I am still a
child but it's kind of past... It's just in between that's all.
292
When asked, M8 suggested that he was halfway in between childhood and adult
hood and that defining where an individual was in relation to these two life
stages depended on ‘what you're into and stuff’ (M8, Stage 3) .
M8: It depends on like, what you got and stuff. It depends what
you're into. If you're into cars and stuff and you want to get a car at
an early age, you're not really an adult but you're older than other
people because they drive cars and stuff. Some other people I
know, they drive cars around their back yard, and other people are
into computer games, which is kids stuff. That's what they reckon
anyway. You know, it really depends what you're into and stuff.
Such certainty about how to identify where childhood begins and ends was not
always in evidence, although the feeling of being ‘in the middle’ between
childhood and adulthood appears to be a common theme among participants.
KL: At what age do you think you stop being a child? Do you
think you've stopped being a child? How do you feel about that?
M5: When do I think I will stop being a child?
KL: Yeah when do you think you stop being a child?
M5: Umm… 20.
KL: OK. That's quite old. So do you feel like you stopped being a
little kid when you came to high school?
M5: Yeah.
Nevertheless, the idea of what you ‘do’ as a sign of maturity is a theme in
participant responses.
KL: How do you feel in relation to the world of adults at the
moment - do you feel that you're more part of that world than you
aren't, or are you stuck in between?
F6: Well it's sort of difficult because I get in their conversations, I
understand what they're saying, but at times I get left out, they
don't want me to hear particular things. At home it's just my
brother and my Mum. My brother's turning 20 and he's got his
friends. So I think I'm just stuck in the middle really. I mean I have
Scouts but I'm the oldest person there and all these little kids have
come up from Cubs. I'm moving up to [Venturer Scouts] soon. So
I sort of seem stuck in the middle.
293
Although the RidgiDidge Study participants appear to feel ‘stuck in the middle’
between childhood and adulthood, they readily engage with the wider cultural
context.
KL: Are you doing anything outside of school at the moment?
F6: I was doing horse-riding but I haven't done it this term. I've
been doing it for the past couple of years and I'm going to be doing
it next term again - it's just because Mum went away. I'm doing
Scouts at the moment and I'm going to go up to Venturers’ in
August. I've been doing the Leo club - that's originated from the
Lions. I'm the president now this year. The youngest person at the
school who has been {President].
KL: What sort of things does the Leo club do?
F6: Fundraisers - we do anything really to raise money. Like we
sell chocolates, we're going to be doing a sausage sizzle; we've
done raffle tickets [inaudible]. At the moment I'm in the Read-athon. I need to get more sponsors for that actually. Yeah that's it.
Although F6 is not articulating a specific relationship with the macrosystem
itself, such as an involvement with a particular political party or global issues,
she is participating in a wider cultural context beyond her own mesosystem. This
type of positive social participation is beyond the mesosystem, although there is
likely to be expansion of the peer group during this type of social participation.
Similarly, M7 is exposed to people outside his own mesosystem.
KL: Do have much contact with adults outside of your family, like
…?
M7: I talk to a lot of people when I do my paper round, I talk to the
people in the Retirement Home so I talk to people them a fair bit. I
used to live in Cairns and I had a lot of adult friends
F3 also has much to do with adults outside her family.
KL: Do you have much contact with adults outside your family?
Like sporting coaches, neighbours
F3: Sporting people yes, but not so much neighbours.
294
Common to these interactions is structure. In this respect, the sporting club, part
time work or community activity take the participants beyond their own
mesosystems. As Vromen observes, the term ‘community’ is used in periods of
perceived social fragmentation in popular and policy making contexts, and; is
ascribed to a group of people with a common identity or interests by academic
writers. Vromen suggests that this constructs ‘how the world ought to be’ and
fails to address how young people’s community formations can be recognised on
their own terms (Vromen 2003). As Vromen outlines, there are four types of
participation among the 18-36 year olds who participated in her research; activist
participation, which included attending rallies, boycotting products, and being
involved with environmental and human rights organisations. Communitarian
participation, which included being involved in a youth club or a church group
and volunteering time; individualist participation, which included donating
money, volunteering time, and being a member of a sporting group; and, partyoriented participation, which included being a party member, being a union
member, and contacting an MP (Vromen 2003).
As the RidgiDidge Study participant responses indicate, individualist and
communitarian participation in community formation is readily apparent, and is
at odds with a construction of young people as lacking a sense of ‘community’
through new media technology use.
295
The Chronosystem
The chronosystem encompasses the dimension of time as it relates to a young
person’s environments. Berk elaborates noting that new conditions can affect
development. ‘these changes can be imposed externally or arise from within the
organism, since children select, modify, and create many of their own settings
and experiences’ (Berk 2000: 30).
In terms of the RidgiDidge Study participants’ expression of change, key factors
that affect their media technology consumption over time are life priorities like
schoolwork and structures such as parental rules.
KL: Do you think anything has changed in your media
consumption since your last diary?
F4: Probably reading more, and I've started watching less TV.
KL: Have you had more school work to do at home?
F4: Sometimes you get lots of work and then other times it's not
much and then it goes up again. So it changes all the time.
Similarly F6 perceives a change in her media technology consumption by Stage
3.
KL: Has the way you use the internet changed much in the last 12
months? You say that you've had it taken off at home, but when
you do get on it, is it just for, let's say, school research projects or
are you using chat rooms?
F6: I'm not using chat rooms anymore because the school will get
your internet access banned. I did use chat rooms but I wasn't
really all that fond about it. I mostly did it because my friends were
going it at that time. Well the internet sort of has changed a little
bit. It's evolved a little bit I guess. I mostly do it for school but I
also go on there to get images off the computer and all that, like
pictures of stars.
M8 in Stage 3 also expresses the change in his media consumption in terms of
having more schoolwork.
296
KL: Has the way you've used the internet changed much in the last
12 months?
M8: Yeah a fair bit.
KL: So what sorts of things are you using the internet for?
M8: A lot more for research. Sometimes I play games, if you're
bored, you know, and just talking. That's pretty much it.
KL: So are you finding that you're able to do a lot more
schoolwork?
M8: Oh yeah. Get higher grades. Sometimes I download music
too. It's pretty fun.
Similarly, M4 perceives a difference in his internet consumption.
M4: I probably use it for school, like research and things like that.
I don't surf the net much anymore.
Although school work is a key factor in change over time, parental control also
dictated the pace of media consumption.
KL: Do you think you've changed your media consumption since
your last media diary?
M7: Yes, definitely. Unfortunately.
KL: How?
M7: The TV. I've been grounded. Not very good grades. I've been
grounded from the TV, so I'm not staying awake for very long
watching TV all night so that's a bit of a bummer.
Such structuring was also present in terms of parents insisting that chores were
completed before media use or self-management. M8 noted in Stage 2 when
asked if anything had changed in his media consumption.
KL: Do you think anything has changed in your media
consumption since last time we spoke - are you playing more,
playing less?
M8: Yeah there's a lot more games coming out lately, and movies
and stuff, so probably more. But, football this year, we were in the
grand final, so I'm really hoping to do really good next year with
our team and stuff. I was captain this year for the grand final, we
lost it though. So I'll just play some games, get fit, do some
297
football, you know, work it around school work and all that stuff.
Try to get it all done in the afternoon.
M1 also notes a change a change in his consumption over time, but this relates to
the acquisition of a new VCR.
KL: Do you think anything has changed in your media
consumption since your last media diary? Do you think that maybe
you listen to more CDs now or go on the computer more or do you
think it's pretty much the same?
M1: It would be pretty much the same - it wouldn't be too much
more or too much less. Just probably using a different form of it.
KL: Like how so?
M1: Like I probably wouldn't be playing the PlayStation as much
and be watching a bit more TV probably.
KL: Oh OK. Is that because there is good stuff on or you're just
kind of tired at the end of the year?
M1: So far I just haven't had the time to play PlayStation because
of school and I got a VCR.
KL: Is the VCR in your room?
M1: Yeah.
KL: So this is a change for you, having it in your room.
M1: Yep.
KL: Was it a new VCR?
M1: Yeah.
The acquisition of a personal VCR rather than a DVD supports the idea that
functionality rather than the latest technology for the sake of having the latest
technology is more of a concern to the participants given that M1’s household
technologies already include a DVD player and VCR in the public spaces of the
home.
As these responses illustrate, changes to media consumption concern the
acquisition of new media platforms as well as changes to life priorities according
to the structuring influences of home and school in particular. Nevertheless, the
298
discussion so far has shown that there are no significant differences among the
RidgiDidge Study participants in terms of how new media technology figures in
their lives. Rather, any observed differences in the context of the RidgiDidge
Study, are restricted to gendered aspects of communication, the origin of
friendships and taste in games titles.
Differences
Given the vast differences in physical and mental development during the High
School years (Heaven 2001; Lerner and Castellino 1999), the approach used
towards the RidgiDidge Study participants is to incorporate Solberg’s (1996)
idea of seeing young people in terms of what they do rather than what their
physical age dictates they should be. In this way, the idea of seeing a group of
High School students according to their shared cultural capital of school culture,
rather than by their physical development or age is more conducive to the
specific research focus on participant views about the new media technology in
their lives. Indeed, as M8’s comment that maturity ‘really depends what you're
into and stuff’ (M8 Stage 3) is telling in this respect, considering the recreational
practices across the sample as well as sharing a school culture.
Using Solberg’s idea in approaching the sample allowed specific differences to
emerge based on the participant responses rather than imposing a range of
predetermined and adult views about age and gender categories on the sample
299
group. In allowing the data to ‘discipline 13’ the emergent theory, the dominant
difference to emerge among participants in their media technology use is gender.
Female participants appear to include all the people they spend time with as part
of their peer group but differentiate between friends and family.
F6: No a lot of times I just go window shopping with my cousin. I
don't really go with my friends a lot because it's a bit hard to get us
all together. But I like to go shopping with my cousins and I sort of
need to go out shopping with my Mum because she has better taste
in clothes than I do.
Similarly,
KL: Do you see school as an opportunity, of catching up with
friends?
F7: Yes because you can't go out every weekend can you, you
might have other plans
KL: Do you see your friends outside of school?
F7: Yep
KL: Do you have contact with adults outside of your family,
neighbours
F7: Yes, the people across the road - neighbours.
Male participants however appear to categorise their friendships based on
location or origin of friendship.
KL: The people you often play games with or do like watch TV or
video are these friends from school or are they outside school?
M4: Oh most of them are from school but I have friends from old
schools who come over sometimes.
or,
13
The term ‘discipline’ is used here in a grounded theory context. To say data ‘disciplines’
theory means that only the data (rather than academic school of thought, a priori ideas,
assumption or a verificational approach) can dictate emergent theory.
300
M2: Yeah or like half of my friends , a quarter of them are from
like primary school, old friends and stuff, go to a different high
school so I only see them on the weekends. I invite them round and
we play games and stuff.
M8 is quite articulate in categorising his social circle.
KL: Do you have much contact with adults outside of your family,
school, like friends parents of sporting coaches?
M8: Oh yeah, my football coach Mark yeah and my friends Dad,
when I'm at my friend’s house, we talk and stuff. He's cool.
or,
KL: Would you play with other people you knew from school?
M8: Yeah, a few people I know from school and football, lots of
other things, Yeah.
Communication among the peer group in particular featured gendered
differences. Female participants appeared to not need a pretext to communicate
with their friends in the same way as the male participants appeared to.
KL: Now how will you keep in touch with your friends over the
holidays?
F2: Ring them.
KL: OK, so ring them to talk? Or ring them just to make
arrangements or a bit of both?
F2: A bit of both.
Similarly,
KL: How will you keep in touch with [your friends over the
holidays]? Email or call them?
F6: I don't really do email a lot but I have one because the internet
at home got taken off because we had it with my Mum’s work
except they did this new virus thing so it got taken off everyone
else's computers. I might be getting it on soon but I have to go to
my cousin's place if I want to use the internet. But I mainly just
call them all the time, but you can't call mobiles from our phone
because my Mum put a ban on it. It was getting too expensive.
Male participants appear to be more pro-active in their communication uses.
301
KL: Now do you think you're going to have much time to play
games and socialise with your friends over the holidays?
M5: Yeah.
KL: What sort of things do you think you will do with your
friends?
M5: Go riding, go over to their house and play some games. Stuff
like that.
KL: How will you keep in touch with them? How will you contact
them? Email or phone?
M5: Phone.
Nevertheless, text messaging suits the participants’ purpose in terms of making
social arrangements and supplementing communication threads already started at
school or in a face-to-face context such as plans to meet outside school hours.
The choice of games favoured by participants is perhaps the clearest display of a
gendered difference. As previously discussed in Games and Games Systems on
page 262, female participants favoured ‘God games’ like Empire Earth and Age
of Empires where players control the fate of civilisations. Racing games (Gran
Turismo) and simulations such as The Sims are popular with quest games such as
The Legend of Zelda series also being popular choices among female
participants.
The inclusion of Tekken 3 and Grand Theft Auto 3 in the listed choices from the
female participants also implies the sharing of games between siblings such as
F7 and her older brother, and F3 and F4’s interaction with the day care children
at their home. Knowledge of these games also suggests participation in social
relationships between genders.
302
However, as F6’s responses indicate, her tastes in game titles are specific
although she is willing to share a technology that ultimately has appeal to both
genders.
KL: How often would you play games a week? Would you play
regularly?
F6: Not really. At times I play on the computer or on my
Gameboy. Very rarely I play my brothers Play Station because I
don't have any games and he doesn't have any games I like. I have
to ask my brother's permission.
KL: Do you have your own Gameboy - I am assuming you play
that on your own. Was this bought especially for you or did you
buy it yourself?
F6: I got it for Christmas, well actually I got one for Christmas but
my brother, because he didn't hear about them, hogged the game so
I used to share it with him, then he bought his own Gameboy and
he bought me one of those games.
In comparison to the female participants’ taste in games, the male participants in
the RidgiDidge Study favour multi-player, team-based game play with online
games such as Counter Strike, Red Faction and Medal of Honour.
It is reasonable to suggest that such a gendered preference indicates the
association between masculine gaming activity and the maintenance of
friendships. This is particularly evident in that gaming also provides a context for
talk.
KL: Do you talk about games at all with your friends at school?
M4: Yeah we just talk about what we're like up to and stuff.
Female participants however, are much more specific in the detail of their social
interactions as they relate to media technologies.
KL: Have you ever talked about buying a new Game boy, games,
DVDs in conversation with school friends?
303
F6: Yes I have been having conversations about that kind of thing,
like buying a new DVD or what I might get with my birthday
money, and my other friends feel the same. My friend Crystal,
y'know that coke thing that went on, Crystal had to order hers in
from the store. We normally talk about CDs at times At times we
talk about DVDs but that's only when we’re over at each other's
places, like to decide what to watch or what would be cool to own.
Here, F6 is referring to the MacDonald’s ‘Coke Phone’ campaign that is
discussed in the Stage 3 interviews (see Interview Aid on page 420).
Nevertheless, while such differences are of note, in the context of grounded
theory, they are still articulations of the core category, agency.
Core Category: Agency
As discussed previously, a total of sixty-nine (69) concepts emerged in the open
coding of the data from the RidgiDidge Study and these concepts are defined in
Table 4: Concept Definitions on page 384. Title choice for these concepts came
from the participants’ themselves, or were constructed to reflect basic and broad
topics. As Glaser and Strauss highlight, ‘concepts abstracted from the substantive
situation will tend to be the current labels in use for the actual processes and
behaviours that are to be explained, while the concepts constructed by the analyst
will tend to be the explanation’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967: 107).
As Figure 7: Grounded theory method terminology and process on page 190
illustrates, concepts are grouped as categories that answer the question, ‘what is
going on here’ and Table 3: Concepts and their emergent categories on page 221
indicates how concepts were grouped.
In this way, data is ‘distilled’ through categorisation until the core category is
revealed.
304
The criteria for a core category in use in the RidgiDidge Study come from Dey’s
elaboration of grounded theory method (Dey 1999: 111). Here Dey notes the
criteria for a core category:
!
!
!
!
!
!
It is central if it is related to many other categories and
accounts for a large proportion of variation in the data.
It is stable if it can be seen as a recurrent pattern in the data.
It is sufficiently complex if it takes more time to saturate
(identify its properties) than other categories.
It is incisive if it has clear implications for more formal
theory.
It is powerful if its explanatory power helps the analyst to
‘carry through’ to a successful conclusion.
It is highly variable if it is sensitive to variations in
conditions in terms of degree, dimension, and type.
The concept of agency arises in relation to the responses of the RidgiDidge
Study participants as a means of describing their relationship to the media
technology in their lives as expressed through their responses in the study. The
concept of agency meets Dey’s criteria but needs to be expressed in terms of its
role in the duality of structure where young people mobilise agency to positively
negotiate the duality of the structures in their lives that simultaneously constrain
and enable their new media technology use. With this in mind, this discussion
focuses on the theoretical framework with which to explain how agency emerges
as a core category in a grounded theory of young people and new media
technology.
While the complexity of a young person’s response to their world is unlikely to
be accounted for to the extent of predictability, nor should it given grounded
theory’s emphasis on ‘fit’, an interdisciplinary approach addresses the
305
fundamental deficiencies of single disciplines which have misrepresented young
people, particularly their relationship to media (Bryant and Jary 2001: 55;
Gauntlett 1998).
Indeed, in the context of audience research, Nightingale (2003) suggests that it is
time to return to a middle range theorisation that is capable of adding to the
documentary evidence and advocacy of audience research. Theories of this
magnitude go beyond simple description of social phenomena and use specified
ranges of data to occupy the ground between basic empiricism and grand
theory14. As the RidgiDidge Study framework outline indicates, the combination
of the theoretical agility of Cultural Studies and a grounded method of inquiry is
capable of producing middle range substantive theory, producing a cogent
contribution to what is known about the intersection between young people, and
the new media technologies they use within their ecological contexts.
Given the theoretical sensitivity that such an imbrication brings to this research,
the category of agency emerges as a way of talking about what is going on at the
intersection between new media technology and young people, given the
assumption that truly ‘objective’ knowledge can never be attained (Barker 2002:
86). However, the concept of agency has become a source of strain and
confusion in social thought despite its resonance to sociological discussion
(Emirbayer and Mische 1998: 962). The inclusion at this juncture of a short
14
Glaser and Strauss make the same assertion in the Discovery of Grounded Theory, 1963: 33.
306
discussion of agency is pertinent given that the emergence of agency in general
terms during axial and selective coding can thus be more appropriately
contextualised.
Agency is commonly associated with ‘freedom, free will, action, creativity,
originality and the very possibility of change through the actions of free agents’
(Barker 2000: 182). Bronfenbrenner's Ecological model (see pages 47 and 42)
notes the distinction between two types of personal characteristics. These are the
resources and liabilities indexed by 'ability, achievement, temperament and
personality' and the 'developmentally instigative characteristics' indicative of the
human organism as 'an active agent in, and on, its environment' (Bronfenbrenner
1995: 634), an assertion that supports and extends Barker’s idea (2000: 182).
Agency can also be described in a socio-historical context as ‘the quest for the
underlying forces of social dynamics; the operation and transformation of
society’ (Sztompka 1994: 25). Emirbayer and Mische argue that in the struggle
to demonstrate the interpenetration of structure and agency, theorists fail to
distinguish agency as an ‘analytical category in its own right - with distinctive
theoretical dimensions and temporally variable social manifestations’ (Emirbayer
and Mische 1998: 963). In this way, Emirbayer and Mische stress that even the
important dimensions of agency such as routine, purpose and judgement, fail to
capture its complexity. In turn, such a focus fails to articulate the dynamic
interplay between dimensions and agency’s variation ‘within different structural
contexts of action’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998: 963). In reconceptualising
agency as an internally complex temporal dynamic, Emirbayer and Mische
307
reveal a new perspective on free will and determinism where human agency is
seen as a ‘temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the
past (in its habitual aspect), but also oriented toward the future (as a capacity to
imagine alternative possibilities) and toward the present (as a capacity to
contextualise past habits and future projects within the contingencies of the
moment)’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998: 962). Seen in this context, Giddens
structuration theory presents as a similarly wide-angled approach, offering ‘a set
of ‘sensitising concepts’ that might prove of particular use in social analysis
generally and social research in particular’ (Layder 1994: 125).
For Giddens, agency and structure are inexplicably linked. Structure is a
conceptual term meaning rules and resources that are fiction given that they have
no existence beyond the conceptual, with the agent being the visible carrier of
structure. While this might suggest a virtual existence, the agent as visible carrier
of structure, takes structure out of the virtual realm and makes structure manifest
in the situated activities that make up everyday life (Best 2003: 184).
Giddens conception of structure and agency in structuration theory (1984)
focuses on the practices by which ‘agents produce and reproduce social structure
through their own actions’ (Barker 2002: 90). Although structure is not enacted
by individual agents, it is recreated by them when they reproduce the conditions
that make those activities possible. This is the ‘duality of structure’ where social
organisation is not only constraining but also enabling (Barker 2002: 90). It is
Giddens idea of the duality of structure that draws attention to the idea that
people are not victims of circumstance; rather that agency and structure are
308
mutually constituted. As Layder points out, human agency is conditioned by a
dialectic of control where ‘power is always embedded in reciprocal social
relations and this implies the formation of compromises and balances restricting
the ability to impose ones will’ (Layder 1994: 211).
Layder sees this as strength in structuration theory in its capacity to acknowledge
the ‘full force’ of an individual’s ability to ‘make a difference in the social world
while recognising the limitations imposed by the social context’ (Layder 1994:
211).
In terms of the RidgiDidge Study participants, this idea translates to their free
exercise of choice and expression in regard to how media technology figures in
the lives, simultaneously observing the structuring influences of their ecology. In
this way an actor or agent is the ‘locus of decision and action where the action is
in some sense a consequence of the actor’s decisions’ (Hindess in Sibeon 1999:
320).
Just as Orlikowski employs the tenets of structuration theory in developing her
structurational model of technology in organisations (1992), the tenets of
structuration theory emerge as being equally useful and applicable in developing
a grounded theory. As Orlikowski puts it, ‘structuration offers a solution to the
dilemma of choosing between subjective and objective conceptions of
organizations, and allows them to embrace both’ (Orlikowski 1992: 403).
In terms of Dey’s criteria for a core category (Dey 1999: 111), agency is central
to the RidgiDidge Study in that it accounts for a large proportion of variation in
the data. The participants all display a range of uses of technology, technology
309
types, responses to technology, and modes of communication and recreation that
are socially proactive according to the data, although this creativeness is not
necessarily consciously articulated. This agency is constituted within a dialectic
of control where external and internal structure is recreated by the participants
when they reproduce the conditions that make their media consumption possible.
In this way, agency is a stable category in that it recurs through the data, at a
conceptual level, illustrating how new media technology figures in the lives of
the participants and answering Glaser’s demand that the core category address
the question ‘what is going on here?’. Given its conceptual emergence, agency
takes more time to saturate than other categories as it is inextricably linked to
structure in the participants educational, recreational and social contexts.
In The Constitution of Society (1984), Giddens defines structure as rules and
resources. Rules relate to the ‘constitution of meaning and to the sanctioning of
modes of social conduct’ (Giddens 1984: 18) and such rule-making and
following is the central premise of ‘knowledgeability’, constituting the practical
consciousness; an element of agency and self-identity (Best 2003: 186-189).
As Best points out, agency consists of three elements. Firstly, the unconscious, a
Freudian derivation that represents those elements that a person is not in full
control outside immediate intention.
Secondly, the practical consciousness refers to the agent’s ability to make rules
and routines for themselves and to embodies the idea that ‘human action is not
pushed about or determined by forces outside the individual’ (Best 2003: 187).
Finally, the discursive consciousness refers to the individual’s reflection on
310
social action and making sense of such actions. In this way, agency is highly
variable given its range articulated through these elements suggesting sensitivity
to those variations in conditions in terms of degree, dimension, and type.
The manifestation of these elements of agency in the participant responses
indicate the stability of agency as the core category in that ‘all social actors, all
human beings are highly ‘learned’ in respect of knowledge which they possess
and apply in the production and reproduction of day-to-day social encounters’
(Giddens 1984: 22).
As Orlikowski notes, through the regular action of knowledgeable actors
‘patterns of interaction become established as standardized practices in
organisations’ and over time such patterns become structure (Orlikowski 1992:
404). Although Orlikowski’s work refers to organisations specifically, her
application of structuration theory aptly illustrates a bounded range of inquiry
similar to the RidgiDidge Study. In this way, the category of agency has clear
implications for formal theory in terms of adding to the discussion about
subjectivity, cultural identity and regimes of the self. Finally, in terms of
addressing the criteria for the constitution of a core category, agency is
‘powerful’ in that its explanatory power accounts for the processes and themes
and concepts in the data from open coding through to the more selective
methodological process of integrating and refining categories.
Nevertheless, as Dey points out in relation to Glaser’s criteria for selecting a core
category, there is an apparent methodological paradox. In one instance, the core
category is presented as a powerful independent variable that accounts for
311
variation in the data. In the second instance, the same category must be a highly
dependant variable that is much affected by its relationship to other factors (Dey
1999: 112). With this in mind, the validity of agency as the core category
becomes strikingly apparent given its role in the ‘duality of structure’ where
social organisation is not only constraining but also enabling.
The Emergent Theory
As Glaser and Strauss point out, grounded theory may take many forms and
while the process of generating grounded theory is related to its use and cogency,
theory presentation can ‘be different from the process by which it was generated’
(Glaser and Strauss 1967: 31). Although a theory’s form is traditionally thought
of as an integrated set of propositions, Glaser and Strauss make clear that the
form of a theory does not make it a theory; ‘it is a theory because it explains or
predicts something’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 31).
In keeping with this flexibility, indeed arguably the flexibility of the
methodology as a whole, Glaser and Strauss favour presenting theory as a
discussion so that there is a sense that the theory is ‘ever-developing’ allowing it
to be come rich, complex and dense, making ‘fit and relevance easy to
comprehend’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 32). To begin by attempting to present
theory as a codified set of propositions runs the risk of immobilising the theory
making it less rich, complex and dense, yet more ‘laborious to read’ (Glaser and
Strauss 1967: 32). Thus, in approaching theory development as a running
theoretical discussion first, a set of propositions can be presented later to purpose
312
given that ‘the concepts are already related in the discussion’ [emphasis added]
(Glaser and Strauss 1967: 32). The efficacy of a discussional presentation of
theory is well demonstrated in the contemporary examples of Timlin-Scalera et
al (2003) and Bell and Bromnick (2003).
To that end, the focus of this section is the presentation of the grounded theory of
new media and young people as a discussion, which in turn leads to implications
of this theory for future research as indicated in Significance of the RidgiDidge
Study on page 343.
The use of grounded theory in the RidgiDidge Study in addressing the
intersection between young people and new media technology has assigned due
emphasis to the views of young people themselves rather than what is externally
observed by a researcher or the adults in their lives. In this way, the grounded
theory generated by the RidgiDidge Study is one that speaks directly to how new
media figures in the lives of the High School student participants.
The defining characteristics of the participant sample are that they are purposeful
volunteers from one High School in South East Queensland and that they have
access to a range of media technologies, including those technologies considered
‘new’ such as the mobile phone, the internet, computer and games system.
Deviance, gender, socio-economic status or sourcing data from the significant
others in their lives were not necessarily issues in the context of the present study
unless raised by the participants themselves. Indeed, the participant responses are
taken to be accurate and truthful and for these reasons, the emergent theory is
necessarily participant-centric. This focus leads to the emergent theory being
313
illustrative of how this sample of young people think and feel about new media
rather than being representative of all young Australians.
The participant responses indicate that there is more than one experience of
youth or childhood to be lived in relation to media technology, evidenced by the
individual and personal narratives each participant revealed over the course of
the research. These responses when taken in the context of a sample reveal the
general contours and themes of the role played by media technologies in their
lives. As Livingstone points out, only in appreciating the perspectives of young
people ‘can we appreciate their practices and these in turn are central to
understanding how their activities contribute to the construction of daily life’
(Livingstone 1998: 448). In laying down the term ‘new’ media at the very
beginning of the RidgiDidge Study as a means of putting a boundary around the
field of inquiry, there is an implicit assumption of a specific delineation between
traditional forms of point-to-point, or point-to-many, communications media
such as television and radio, and new information and communications
technologies. Such an assumption is unfounded in the context of the RidgiDidge
Study in that the participants themselves do not make this delineation in the same
sense as media writers or researchers do. Instead, accessible media technologies,
even those ‘new’ types such as the mobile phone, internet and games system are
assimilated in to the household milieu, with ‘older’ technologies adopting more
specialised uses, such as the use of the radio only in the context of the family car
on the way to school or as a subliminal ‘co-media activity’ (see Table 4: Concept
Definitions on page 384).
314
As the RidgiDidge participant diary pages show, television is still an integral
household technology despite the presence and use of other newer technology.
Such a position is supported by the majority of participants indicating habitual
family viewing of television during the evening on both weekdays and the
weekend, even though ‘watching television’ might also include the use of
television technology for viewing cable television content, a video or a DVD.
Indeed, rather than a delineation between 'old' and 'new' technologies, the
RidgiDidge Study participants were aware of what was the latest technology in
terms of its ability to deliver content and functionality. Evidence of this
categorisation by participants’ of ‘the latest’ over simply ‘new’ is found in the
listed ownership of up to three games systems by participants. Participants’
clearly indicate preferences for playing only the latest purchased or burned game
on the necessarily latest model of games console.
This fundamental difference between a commonly held perspective on new
media as a field of study, and that to emerge from the participants’ perspectives,
supports the use of a grounded theory approach. Without grounded theory
method’s demand that the data discipline the theory, the difference in
perspectives might have been put down to a lack of experience or knowledge on
the participant’s part, effectively devaluing the participant responses. This
translates to a methodological consideration for further research that demands
that topic boundaries might need to be delineated by research participants, rather
than the researcher, especially where participant views discipline the area of
research. With this in mind, how new media technology figures in the lives of the
315
RidgiDidge participants can be seen in the context of an inclusive milieu of
media technology.
With the relationship between traditional and new technologies situated thus, the
results of the RidgiDidge Study show that new media technology is an intrinsic
aspect of the recreational and social lives of young people in that its presence
performs recreational, informational, educational and subliminal roles and uses.
In this way there are standardised uses of media technology such as; playing a
game to stave off boredom or chatting to friends and family by mobile phone on
a carrier plan like Optus ‘Free Time’ (recreation); looking for information by
phone or internet just for interest or a hobby (informational); using a computer
and the internet for homework (educational), and; listening to music or watching
a DVD as part of a co-media activity (subliminal).
While these activities are part of the designated functions of what the
technologies are designed to do; the changing of gaming rules and the delineated
purpose of items among family members indicates agency, such as the preferred
use of a PlayStation by some participants as a DVD player rather than a games
console.
However, although these activities describe how media technology is used and
consumed, overarching these uses is the active pursuit of social contact. Indeed,
the results of the RidgiDidge Study show that recreational activities in the
company of someone else are preferred. In instances where a participant is alone
and using media technology, ‘skilling up’ on games, watching television, cable
or a DVD, or listening to a CD are part of their development of social
316
competence with a view to prospective social interactions. In this context, social
competence includes ‘all behaviours and traits that are associated with peer
acceptance or effective behaviour in social situations’ (Schneider 1993: 13). The
intrinsic role played by technology in the lives of the RidgiDidge Study
participants is such that it is used for positive purposes such as social connection,
or benefit.
Talking about technology with peers, as indicated in the results, functions as a
constituent of self identity, where participation in media culture equates to
participation in social life. From a theoretical perspective, ‘human acts encode
things with significance while from a methodological point of view it is thingsin-motion that illuminate their human and social context’ (Livingstone 1992:
113; Appadurai 1986: 5).
In this respect, new media technology figures in the lives of the participants as a
catalyst and facilitator of social praxis or that which is conducive to having a
good life. In this context, social praxis is defined to include the nature,
conditions, and consequences of historically and spatio-temporally situated
activities and interactions produced through the agency of social actors (Cohen
1989: 2).
317
Figure 8: The Emergent Theory
NEW
MEDIA
TECHNOLOGY
HOME SCHOOL
AND PEER
GROUP
MICROSYSTEMS
AGENT
SOCIAL
ECOLOGY
(Mesosystem,
Exosystem,
Chronosystem
and
Macrosystem)
SOCIAL PRAXIS
318
As Figure 8: The Emergent Theory on page 318 suggests, the relationship
between the agent/participant and the microsystems of the home, family and peer
group can be likened to cogs in a mechanism where individual contexts like the
home, school or family (microsystems) are simultaneously enabling and
constraining agency. For example, parental rules will dictate the completion of
chores and homework before the use of media technology which is invariably
provided by the family in the first place. Similarly school rules and teacher
expectation will demand the completion of homework by a set day and time,
suggesting the prioritisation of homework over media technology use. Social
participation in the peer group might also dictate the consumption and use of
technology to keep up with perceived peer group expectation. These structures
enable and constrain participant agency in the context of the RidgiDidge Study in
the following ways. If participants enact agency unconsciously, practically and
discursively (Best 2003: 187) then they are essentially in control of their lives.
Participants are free to disobey the rules about school and recreational balance
set down by their parents despite the consequences, to accept a teacher’s
admonishment for not completing homework on time or to suffer the exclusion,
derision or demotion in the context of their peer group. However, such an
enactment of agency is not conducive to a ‘good life’ or social praxis in terms of
getting along with others. This is not to say that isolated occurrences of rebellion
do not appear in the responses of participants, but for the most part, the active
pursuit of a ‘good life’ is readily apparent.
319
As discussed and situated previously, Giddens refers to this process as the
duality of structure and the constraints and enabling mechanisms of structure is
evident in the results of the RidgiDidge Study. Such a relationship occurs in and
over time (chronosystem) and relates to the broader contexts of the exosystem
and macrosystem. For example, in terms of the exosystem where the participant
is not directly involved such as the parent’s work place, the structuring effect is
enabling and constraining in that work hours or salary can both constrain and
enable media technology consumption. The macrosystem is similarly enabling
and constraining through cultural values, customs and laws structuring the
enactment of agency. In the context of the RidgiDidge Study, Australian law is
part of the macrosystem and the participants acknowledge that digital piracy is a
crime. However despite the admission by most participants that they have used
and or copied discs themselves indicates their conscious and informed decision
to consider the Australian law on digital piracy not applicable to them, providing
that the copying of discs and games is small scale and serves the social purpose
of being ‘just between friends’.
While the duality of structure aptly contextualises the relationship between
agency (the enactment of a self-identity comprising of the unconscious, the
practical consciousness, the discursive consciousness) and structure, the addition
of new media technology can be likened to oiling the cogs at the centre of the
ecological contexts. In this way, new media technology helps in the everyday
running of social systems for the participants. For example, it is used as a
bargaining chip by parents to ensure that chores and homework are completed,
320
but also used to facilitate social events like LAN events for male participants or
as a catalyst to social connections for female participants through email and
mobile phones. At this conceptual level such gendered differences are subsumed
given the common purpose of new media technology use and consumption to
facilitate social connections. This is not to say that the gendered differences in
media technology consumption are not of note. Rather, they form an area of for
address by prospective research beyond the concerns of the participants here. As
Turnbull points out, ‘the essentialising of gender differences, particularly with
reference to technology and its uses is fraught with philosophical and practical
problems: it is quite possible to imagine women wanting ‘masculine’ functions
from their technology and vice-versa’ (Turnbull 1996: 11). Given the focus on
participant views on new media technology rather than gender, exploring gender
differences unless indicated by participant response was not of primary concern.
Nevertheless, in the absence of data that suggests that participants dislike their
recreational uses of new media technology, and the presence of data strongly
indicating the communal and social uses of new media technology among friends
and family, the concept of social praxis emerges as a way of emphasising the
pleasure and benefits participants feel through social contact with others in both
personal and mediated contexts. Thus, the role of new media technology in
participants’ lives is not dominant in comparison to the desire for social
connection; its role is one that facilitates social connection such as the shared
experience of playing a game, watching a film on video, DVD or a cable network
program. As a catalyst, new media technology speeds up social interaction
321
through the convenience of mobile telephony and email or instant messaging. In
this context, participants’ do not get together to use a mobile phone or send an
email for the sake of doing so as they would a game or watching a film; rather
they focus on the functionality new media technology affords them.
In applying a commutation test where new media technology is removed from
the emergent theory, it is reasonable to suggest that some other shared interest or
activity that connects individuals to wider social contexts would act as a catalyst
or facilitator of social praxis. Nevertheless, what new media technology as
catalyst and facilitator of social praxis means for the negative mythology about
the Australian conception of youth and childhood is clear. Young people,
particularly High School students in the context of the RidgiDidge Study, cannot
be described as too dependant on technology, nor deviant, nor apathetic
community members (Vromen 2003). Young people use their media technology
for a variety of positive social purposes when they are not otherwise occupied
with non-media related activities like playing sport or spending time with their
families and friends. Participants also emerge as competent research partners and
this competence is particularly important to the RidgiDidge Study given its focus
on participant perceptions about their own media technology use. A perceived
failure to take young peoples’ competency to participate in research is a hallmark
of research about young people and their relationship to media based on
psychological models and methodologies (Gauntlett 1996). As discussed
previously in the methodology (see page 125), the RidgiDidge Study sees young
322
people in terms of what they can do in a research context, in contrast to
perceptions about what they cannot (Alderson 2000).
Nevertheless, the negative mythology about young people and new media
technology contextualises young people as a passive, easily manipulated
audience with their media consumption assumed responsible for a range of
negative health and social issues. These assumptions persist in the public domain
despite any coherent theory or conclusive research in support of such ideas
(Barker and Petley 2001). Recent analysis has shown that Australian political
leaders have contributed to this perspective (Vromen 2004), and public debate of
this tenor in turn perpetuates a negative mythology. As Vromen points out,
Costello, Latham, Tanner, and Cameron have all spoken
extensively in public forums about community cohesion, family
relationships, and the values of volunteering. All assume that we
have lost a sense of community and that we need to reclaim it.
They all exclude the experiences of young people as community
members on their own terms (Vromen 2003).
The oversimplification and misunderstanding of young people's media
consumption and the spheres of influence surrounding their lives colours
concepts of youth and childhood given that any description becomes a
prescription for what and how youth and childhood should be (Jamrozic and
Sweeney 1996: 33). Nevertheless, research conducted in response to community
concerns about young people's media consumption, has acknowledged the active
engagement of young people with their media (Nightingale 2000; Sheldon et al
1994) and highlights the disparity between adult perceptions of young people's
relationship to media and the views of young people themselves. Why a negative
mythology should persist is open to further research and public debate.
323
This suggests that a change in community mindset as part of a new media
inspired paradigm shift
clears a path towards non-judgemental and
intergenerational understandings of young people. This in turn has implications
for social policy, the direction of media literacy and community conceptions of
the ethical treatment of young people.
324
325
6. Conclusions and Implications
The central objective of this research is to generate a grounded theory of young
people and new media technology that will reasonably contribute to a growing
body of Australian research that calls for an intergenerational and nonjudgemental understanding of young people’s media consumption.
The RidgiDidge Study generates a middle range substantive theory that describes
the intersection between new media technology and Australian childhood. Given
the frequent ability for technical change to impact on conceptions of youth and
childhood, a critical view of research on young people’s media technology
consumption suggests the need for the development of appropriate and ethical
methodologies that account for the complexity of young people’s relationship to
their media and pursue an intergenerational and non-judgemental understanding
of young people’s media consumption. The results of such research has the
capacity to challenge the current negative mythology about young people that
portrays young people as passive, undiscriminating media consumers, prone to a
range of social and health problems.
The RidgiDidge Study focuses on how these young people feel and think about
the new media technology in their lives, concepts not readily derived from
deductive methodologies or purely statistical research.
The need to understand the relationship between young people and media
technology is a special case given its functional significance in providing a link
between individuals, households and the rest of the world in complex and often
326
contradictory ways. However, most academic research about young people is
written for an adult audience, and in such research, young peoples’ voices are
either completely absent or mediated through adult understanding. The
application of a grounded theory methodology in the RidgiDidge Study
ameliorates this problem in that the data provided by the participants
‘disciplines’ the emergent theory so that the personal lived experience of the
participants is represented as transparently as possible.
In this way, calls for a non-judgemental and intergenerational understanding of
young people alongside the development of methodologies that account for the
complexities of young people’s relationship to their media technology are met.
Nevertheless, in evaluating how the objectives of this research are met, what
follows is a discussion that presents the evaluation, implications and conclusions
drawn from the results and emergent theory.
Evaluating Grounded Theory Method Post Research
As discussed in Evaluating Grounded Theory on page 154, the nature of
grounded theory is such that it differs greatly from verificational research
methods and this extends to the criteria for evaluating grounded theory research.
Glaser and Strauss’ The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967) remains as the
touchstone for the implementation of grounded theory method, although Glaser
points out in Theoretical Sensitivity (1978), that the ideas contained in The
Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967) were just ‘for openers’ and that others
could take the method in any direction they wished (Glaser 1978: 158).
327
Nevertheless, Stern (1994: 219) demands that researchers are clear about how
they have pursued their research while Lock asserts that readers need to be able
to evaluate research based on ‘the presence, or absence, of the full
methodological report’ (1996: 244).
Morse and Field demand that the evaluation of qualitative results, particularly in
relation to their application in a real setting ‘does not involve the ritualistic and
structured application of a specific protocol but, rather, thoughtful reflection’
(Morse and Field 1987: 158). Pidgeon and Henwood argue for the need to
evaluate research on its own terms, recognising that personal and social forms of
subjectivity are always present in research (1997: 269). With these demands in
mind, evaluating the RidgiDidge Study takes the form of Glaser and Strauss’
original evaluation criteria in The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967: 237250) as well as Pidgeon and Henwood’s fifth criterion on reflexivity (1997: 269).
Thus, the grounded theory generated from the RidgiDidge Study answers the
following criteria:
1. The theory should fit the everyday realities of the substantive area to
which it is applied.
2. If a grounded theory fits its substantive area then it should be
understandable to the people working in the substantive area, sharpening
their sensitivity to the problems of the substantive area.
3. The theory should display a generality where categories are ‘not so
abstract as to lose their sensitizing aspect, but yet must be abstract
enough to make theory a general guide to multi-conditional ever
changing daily situations’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 242).
4. The user of substantive theory should be able to exercise a degree of
control.
328
5. Reflexivity in terms of the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity and role
in the research process should play a part in the evaluation of the
research in everyday situations to make its application worth trying.
The grounded theory generated from the RidgiDidge Study fits the everyday
realities of young people’s media consumption in that it is induced from diverse
data that is faithful and open to the realities of the lived experience of the sample.
The sample is defined only by their high school attendance, a factor common to
all young people between the end of primary school and the beginning of life
after High school. The grounded theory acknowledges the presence of new
media technology in participant homes and its capacity to deliver the latest
content as well as the dominant, ongoing and occasionally specialised use of
traditional or older technologies like television and radio. Other ‘popular’ ideas
about young people based on models of animal research such as categorising
young people by age or size, or as cultural dopes are consciously set aside so that
the focus of research is unsullied by a priori ideas on the part of the researcher.
It is the openness of the research base and the diverse data in generating this
theory that contributes to the fit of the emergent theory in that there is a clear
potential to use the theory among other groups of young people in diverse
contexts, beyond the recreational, such as education, work, the juvenile justice
system or with young people undergoing long term medical care. Given the
growing body of research that recognises the need for a non-judgemental and
intergenerational understanding of young people, the RidgiDidge Study’s
contribution to that body of work is likely to resonate with those working for,
and with, young people.
329
Similarly such a theory is understandable to participants in that there is a
resonance in terms of the acknowledgement of their agency and those structures
they encounter. The grounded theory generated here is non-judgemental in that it
is the participants’ data that disciplines the theory.
The inter-generational understanding presented in this grounded theory is based
on a distinct awareness that young people’s lives and their relationship to
technology cannot be measured by adult perceptions of life in a media saturated
society typical of the developed world. Rather, young people’s lived experiences
must be appreciated on their own terms. That such a grounded theory should
emerge from a challenge to the negative mythology of the substantive area only
serves to further sensitise practioners to the problems addressed in the Literature
Review and Methodology.
In terms of generality, the grounded theory here is general enough so that it maps
the themes and contours of young people’s media consumption. The emergence
of agency as a core category given its centrality to other categories and variation
in the data confirms its role in underpinning theory as a ‘general guide to multiconditional ever changing daily situations’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 242).
As Glaser and Strauss point out, ‘the person who applies theory becomes, in
effect, a generator of theory, and in this instance theory is clearly seen as a
process: an ever developing entity’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 242). In this way, a
grounded substantive theory is flexible enough so that when applied to a
particular area it will account for change but can be reformulated in managing
situational realities (Glaser and Strauss 1967: 242). Like the fit, the generality of
330
the grounded theory generated by the RidgiDidge Study has the potential to
apply to other locations and contexts that feature young people, new media
technology and change in pursuit of more formal theory.
In terms of control, a substantive theory ‘must enable the person who uses it to
have enough control in everyday situations to make its application worth trying’
(Glaser and Strauss 1967: 245). This is achieved through awareness that the
production and control of change is achieved through access variables and
controllable variables.
This can be taken to mean that there is a reasonable amount of control over a
situation such as a teacher’s control over a class of High School students and the
researcher’s reasonable access to that class.
Similar models of access and control can be projected in contexts where there is
a structuring institutional influence within the mesosystem.
The evaluation of the emergent grounded theory in light of Pidgeon and
Henwood’s fifth criterion on reflexivity (1997: 269) requires an appraisal of my
role in the research and my theoretical sensitivity. As Pidgeon and Henwood
point out, the constructivist view of research acknowledges the ways in which
research activity is interdependent with the object of inquiry. They argue that
bringing to light researcher subjectivities ‘tells a more complete account’ of the
research process and thus a stronger sense of objectivity (Pidgeon and Henwood
1997: 270).
Although the benefit of hindsight necessarily dictates that there will be questions
or issues I wish I could have addressed in the context of the RidgiDidge Study,
331
the emergence of such areas serve to support the need for further research with
young people in different contexts and locations and under different
circumstances. Indeed the nature of substantive theory is such that further
research will develop a grounded theory toward more formal iterations.
Nevertheless, there are two key reflexive points to note in the interests of
evaluating this grounded theory that have emerged in reflecting on the
RidgiDidge Study at its conclusion. Firstly, my adoption of a ‘humble posture’
(Graue 1988: 56) and the extension of the same high degree of courtesy and
respect I extend towards adults appears to have been effective with the most
resistant of students. For example, in deciding not to ask further questions of
individual participants at a later date or to ‘hassle’ them about why they would
not be continuing their participation is supported by the continued and relaxed
participation by participants. I see this as a clear indication that maintaining the
respectful and ethical treatment of the participants is conducive to developing
productive research. Similarly and as discussed in the Methodology the decision
not to use theoretical sampling or ‘snowballing’ to establish the sample
ultimately leads to a fundamentally more secure application of the methodology
as well as maintaining the ethical standards agreed to in partnership with the
participants, their gatekeepers and Griffith University.
In this way, restricting the location of the research to the school itself rather than
attempting to conduct research in participant’s homes or at other locations meant
that participant interaction was much more relaxed.
332
The media studio and music room where the interviews were conducted were
neutral yet familiar spaces for the participants.
The absence of pressure to reveal the names and locations of other potential
participants demanded by snowballing also reduced the likely stress of
participating in research.
The second reflexive point concerns the time in my life when I left home in my
early teens, shortly after immigrating to Perth from the UK. My personal
narrative describes this period as going from childhood straight into a selfimposed adulthood, funded by a small government allowance, help from my
parents and being a musician in a band.
While the associated family issues have long since been positively resolved, the
absence of a range of what I perceive to be ‘normal’ experiences such as
finishing High School with class mates, or the comfort of a structured existence
means that I have little personal experience of a traditional Australian youth with
which to gauge the lived experiences of my research participants. It can be
argued that this perspective perhaps accounts for my fascination with youth and
childhood as dimensions of human life.
This lack of experience has perhaps been a productive deficit in using a
grounded theory methodology in that, when asking ‘what is going on here?’ in
the context of young people’s research, my limited experience of Australian
youth and childhood results in a unique appreciation of the experiences of others.
These reflexive points and the special considerations developed at the beginning
of the RidgiDidge Study, serve to confirm the productivity of applying a
333
grounded theory methodology in conjunction with defined ethical standards.
From this perspective, the findings of the RidgiDidge Study can be summarised
in terms of the participants’ uses and views on the media technology available to
them and the social contexts that shape their everyday experiences of media
technology.
Summary of the RidgiDidge Study: Technological Milieu
Most homes had a full complement of technology that included radio, television,
a CD player, a CD Walkman, a VCR, a DVD, a computer, the internet and a
mobile phone. Very few had cable television or a CD Burner and no household
had access to HDTV. Participants commonly had a radio, CD player and CD
walkman with a few participants having a television, and two participants had a
DVD and a VCR. In terms of delineating between old and new technologies,
participants made no distinction with a process of accumulation to a
technological milieu evident across the data.
Functionality is, however, important to the participants in terms of what
technology can do to serve the participant purposes. In this way, the latest
technology was favoured in terms of its ability to deliver the latest content. This
puts an emphasis on what participants want rather than necessarily how they get
it. This is evident in preferences for the latest games and music, the use of
existing technology, the use of several technologies to access similar content
such as news. Any desire for new models of technology such as mobile phones
334
or games systems is predicated on function rather than aesthetic form or the
dictates of commercially provided culture.
Participants are often proactive in their new media technology consumption in
that they will seek out, borrow and make do with what they have, particularly in
gaming among the male participants. Female participants are more likely to get
together to watch a DVD than to engage in gaming together.
In these ways, participants’ consumption of new media technology is part of
their social activity where they can be seen to be actively participating in peer
group culture or where they are seen to be developing their social competence in
a variety of ways from ‘skilling up’ in gaming to being aware of what technology
is available and desirable among the peer group. In this way, the core category of
agency begins to appear in the data with evidence that participants are engaging
with and manipulating consumer culture to their own purposes. Indeed
manipulation of their lifeworlds is illustrated in participant perceptions of digital
piracy. While participants are aware that digital piracy is against the law, most
indicate that they have used pirated material but see no problem with pirated
material such as CD’s so long as it’s ‘just between friends’.
Only one participant does not have the internet at home and three participants’
parents’ do not use the internet at work. All but one family has the internet
available in the communal spaces of the house with the speed of dial up internet
access being a source of frustration. Most participants list favourite internet sites
which feature gendered preferences, but female participants’ included email sites
as favourite websites. This is in keeping with the female participants’ use of the
335
mobile phone to maintain contact with friends and family, or to augment
communication threads that begin in face-to-face contexts.
Male participants use of the mobile phone appeared to be more purposeful in that
it is used to keep in touch with friends and family but in a more deliberately
purposeful way such as making arrangements to meet in person; the transmission
of instructions such as when and where to be picked up; and to make use of free
phone calls between mobile phones on the same pre-paid plan.
Similarly, cost effectiveness and communicative efficiency was a key factor in
the use of text messaging, with the use of abbreviations common among mobile
phone users and the disciplined use of the technology generally. Questions about
the cost and purchase of technology reveals that participants made disciplined
and informed choices about their technology purchases, reading promotional
material or calculating value to seek out the best deal on games titles and mobile
phones.
The disciplined use of technology was evident across the sample in that mobile
phones in particular were a site of family negotiation with family members using
phones interchangeably.
Although game and games systems of various types can be found at most
participants homes, taste in game style and websites is strongly gendered with
‘god games’ being favoured by female participants and combat and sporting
titles featuring among the male participants’. For male participants, game play is
extremely social in terms of talking about gaming with friends or male family
members, and playing at home with friends or going to friend’s houses. This
336
might also entail the setting up of an LAN at a specific location or online gaming
across the internet. Indeed, gaming appears to be part of the male participants’
enactment of social competence, where games skill and knowledge is
appreciated and admired. Female participants are also keen gamers, but this
appears to be a more solitary activity in comparison with male participants,
particularly given preferences for online games sites such as neopets.com.
Changes to gaming and gaming style among male participants were apparent
over time, but these changes were predicated on changing priorities such has
increased amounts of homework, and; a preference for more advanced gaming
such as LAN gaming.
Games systems were often a family purchase across the RidgiDidge Study
sample and the participation of family and friends was of more importance than
winning given rule changing to suit players. Finishing a multi-level game was
also indicated as a desired outcome from gaming.
Ironically, despite the popularity of games and gaming in the verbal responses,
the diary entries through all the research stages indicate very little actual gaming
during the week, a little at the weekends, but much more social television use
across the whole week.
Like gaming, music was part of the participants’ social competence in terms of
knowing what to listen to or being aware of what was popular at the time of the
RidgiDidge Study. This did not necessarily extend to specific songs, with
participants referring to particular artists or to particular genres. For example, at
the time of the RidgiDidge Study, participants’ taste in music included punk,
337
emo, R&B and hip-hop. The new media technology used in conjunction with
music playing was predicated on what participants had access to rather than what
was desired. For example, Mp3 music files were downloaded and listened to on a
computer with no CD burning facility or an Mp3 player. Such matter-of-fact
reporting supports the earlier remark that new media technology consumption is
about what participants want (latest music, ‘hip’ artists and bands) rather than
how they get it (CD player, burned disc or computer sound system will do).
Television presents itself as a ‘new’ media technology given its perennially
dominant role in the participants’ lives as the technology that delivers DVD,
video and pay television content as well as free-to-air content. Watching
television was often done in the company of friends or family in the communal
spaces of the home despite a significant number of participants having a
television in their rooms.
Summary of the RidgiDidge Study: Social Ecology
In terms of structures that surround the participants, the microsystems of the
home and the peer group are the most significant with the role of the school in
the context of the RidgiDidge Study being restricted to its relation to the home
and peer group.
As previously noted, these microsystems feature patterns of activities, roles and
interpersonal relations. In terms of household makeup, participants came from
six single-parent families, four families were both parents were present and six
blended families made up of the participant’s mother and step-father. Several
338
siblings were a common aspect of the participants’ families. Most participants’
parents used a computer at work, with only one participant commenting that they
did not know whether their parents did or not. Most participants’ perceived that
there were ‘no rules’ as such to their media consumption, although the interviews
indicated that there was a provision that chores and homework needed to be
completed before recreational consumption of media, particularly the use of the
internet for gaming and gaming itself.
In this context, the use of media technology is structured according to family
priorities such as schoolwork, family events and communal sensibility in terms
of running the household and sharing technology with other family members.
Indeed, although the time spent using media technology was of concern to
parents as indicated by the participants, content issues were not.
Most participants indicated that friends were a significant influence in their
social lives although significant family influence emerged in the data in terms of
time and activities with other family members. In terms of sharing technology
with other family members, participants show consideration to others as part of
their communal sensibility. Indeed ‘friends’ as a perceived influence is the most
popular response from participants, with ‘family’ also featuring among many
responses.
The nurturing of friendships from school, outside of school are key aspects of the
participant’s media technology consumption where social interaction among the
peer group are present. This social interaction also extends to teaching others to
play or use technology. Male participants differentiate their friends by location,
339
indicating where that they have school friends, gaming friends or friends from
sporting activities who do not necessarily attend the same school. Female
participants appear not to differentiate between school friends and outside friends
in their responses, although family members who are part of the peer group and
friends who do not live locally are included in their peer group. The range of
responses here best articulates the close interrelation between the peer group
microsystem and those of the school and the home systems in the context of the
mesosystem.
Within the mesosystem, it is readily apparent that new media technology figures
highly in the peer group microsystem as a catalyst to, and facilitator of, social
interaction. This occurs in two ways; firstly, the participants and their peer group
use new media technology to initiate and maintain contact with each other when
not physically able to do so.
Secondly, new media technology is a factor in nurturing relationships, including
peer group relationships with family members like brothers, sisters and cousins,
taking new media technology as a catalyst and facilitator of social interaction
into the realm of the mesosystem. These functions take the form of arranging
social activities such as gaming or going to the cinema; teaching others how to
play or making the media activity easier to participate in by changing the rules,
and; discussing new media technology in a future context, sharing ideas among
the peer group and thus forming identities based on new media technology
consumption.
340
The domestication cycle of technology is also apparent in participants’ activities
in that the imagination, appropriation, objectification incorporation and
conversion of technology are apparent in direct relation to how the participants
think and feel about their technology (Ling 2004; Haddon 2003; Silverstone
1992), and what media technology might mean to their lives. In turn, the
macrosystem refers to consistencies that exist at a sub cultural and cultural level
and their supporting ideology (see Figure 2: Ecological Systems on page 47).
However, such a description of the Australian conception of childhood as
embodied by legislation and macrosystemic institutions leads to a prescription
for what youth and childhood should be (Jamrozic and Sweeney 1996: 33). Such
a prescription does not necessarily gel with the participants in that they feel
‘stuck in the middle’ between childhood and adulthood. In terms of the
RidgiDidge Study participant’s expression of change, key factors that affect their
media technology consumption over time are life priorities like schoolwork and
the associated structuring of parental rules. The inclusion of Solberg’s
preferencing of ‘doing’ over ‘being’ means that the RidgiDidge Study
participants are defined by their position as High School students, rather than by
gender, age or size. Indeed M8 concurs with this idea from his perspective on
how his peer group define themselves.
Nevertheless, gendered differences are apparent in terms of communication style
and preference, the categorisation of friendships and taste in games titles and
website content.
341
Although two instances of minor deviant behaviour is mentioned by participants
(underage drinking and ‘causing trouble’; neither of which have a direct relation
to media consumption), the use and consumption of media technology and its
impact in and to social relationships is considered by the participants to be
positive. Indeed, there is no evidence from the RidgiDidge Study to suggest that
new media technology figures in the lives of its participants as anything other
that a positive, pleasurable and social aspect.
In considering the RidgiDidge participants’ perception of how new media
technology figures in their lives using grounded theory method, how those
perceptions challenge a negative mythology surrounding the current conception
of Australian youth and childhood is revealed. The constant comparison of data
and coding of results generates a substantive, middle range grounded theory that
indicates that new media technology is a catalyst and facilitator of social praxis
in the lives of the RidgiDidge Study participants. Given the emergence of the
categories of domestication, media technology, domestication and social praxis;
agency emerges as the core category. This conceptual extension of the concept
and categories generated in the RidgiDidge Study, underpins the participants’
relationship to their social ecology in that it is ‘composed of variable and
changing orientations within the flow of time’ (Emirbayer and Mische 1998), but
that such orientations are invariably directed to the purpose of living the best
lives they can.
Such an outlook challenges the current negative mythology surrounding young
people’s media consumption, showing the RidgiDidge Study participants to be
342
active agents in society, using their media technology for predominantly social
purposes in ways not readily apparent to practitioners or commercially provided
culture.
Significance of the RidgiDidge Study
The key objective of the RidgiDidge Study is to add to a growing body of
culturally specific work that focuses on young people and new media
technology. The significance of the RidgiDidge Study and its grounded theory
emerge by contributing to this body of knowledge in several areas.
Firstly, the findings of this study recognise the paradigm shift 15 between
traditional and new media discourses from the perspective of young people and
this presents a range of practitioners’ new areas to address. Such a shift in
perspective necessitates the need to reassess new media technology in the lives
of young people’s relationship to given its functional significance in linking
individuals to society.
In this way, the strength of the RidgiDidge Study is its interdisciplinary approach
to the research problem. In advocating the imbrication of Cultural Studies and
Sociological approaches, with an awareness of other disciplinary interests such
as Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological model of human development, young people’s
15
As discussed previously, paradigm shift comes from Thomas Kuhn’s the structure of Scientific
Revolutions (1962) and describes a range of change-driven challenges with which a range of
practitioners must contend.
343
media culture can be seen in sharper relief. If it takes a village to raise a young
person, then why not use a village to understand them as well.
Secondly, but perhaps most extensively, the results show that new media
technology is a complex and pervading aspect of the lives of the RidgiDidge
Study participants. New media technology like the games system, the internet
and the mobile phone cannot necessarily be seen as a distinct set of technologies,
separate from traditional technology like television. Rather, the technologies
participants have access to form the technological milieu that supports the social
practices and structures such as the relations between peer group, family, school
and cultural systems. Negative generalisations about young people’s media
consumption are often used as a means of explaining community problems or the
gulf between generations. The emergent theory proposes that new media
technology is a catalyst and facilitator of social praxis in the lives of young
people which challenges the negative mythology about young people in public
discourse.
The elaboration of a culturally specific domestication perspective of technology
consumption speaks to the 'social embeddedness of technology' (Warschauer
2003: 202) in the lives of the participants, making clear the complex and
mutually evolving relationship between this technology and young people. This
relationship is also significant because it is uniquely Australian and follows a
specifically Australian trajectory of domestication under similar circumstances
described by Ling (2004). Nevertheless, such complexity does not have to be
seen negatively or as a threat to the social order given that this relationship can
344
only be couched in terms of specific social contexts, such as the small group of
RidgiDidge participants, rather than applied to young people as an aggregate.
Democratising research such as the RidgiDidge Study might go some way
towards presenting alternative ways of imagining young people in public
discourse that is more productive and beneficial to their well being as a structural
category in society. Ways of challenging and changing intergenerational
mindsets are a valid area of future endeavour.
Thirdly, the methodology and field research conduct is significant in terms of its
specific design and regard for its participants within a grounded theory
methodology.
The
RidgiDidge
Study
required
the
development
and
implementation of a set of special considerations in ethically applying a
grounded theory methodology to a group of young people. This has produced
some useful insights to the research process such as the marketing of the study to
the participant's gatekeepers and to the participant’s themselves as an activity
that does not unduly impinge on their time at school or their schoolwork. Such
attention to detail is necessary given Goulding’s assertion that generating a
credible grounded theory requires careful consideration of; the design of the
study, the range of sampling, the clarity of discourse used to present findings, the
relationship between theory and other research and the identification of areas for
further research (Goulding 2002: 70).
The adaptation of the sampling method used in the application of the
methodology to accommodate the high ethical standards in dealing with
345
participants and their gatekeepers is significant in that ultimately, the emergent
theory is made more compelling by not theoretically sampling.
With this in mind, the presentation of the full methodological report of the
emergent theory is significant in that it is often missing from other grounded
theories as lamented by Stern (1994).
The use of a grounded theory methodology to inductively generate a theory of
young people and new media is not readily apparent in the literature although
Timlin-Scalera et al’s (2003) A Grounded Theory Study of Help Seeking
Behaviours among White Male High School Students and Bell and Bromnick’s
The Social Reality of the Imaginary Audience: A grounded theory approach
(2003) confirms the usefulness of such an approach where young people and
their views ‘discipline’ the research.
Acknowledging young people’s competence is one of the keystones of the new
paradigm of childhood sociology described by James and Prout in 1990. The
adaptation of sampling procedures that address the stringent ethical requirements
in conducting research with young Australians is a significant application of
grounded theory methodology. The criticism that grounded theory method can be
a prone to method slurring, is addressed with the inclusion of the full
methodological report in the body of the thesis. Therefore, as an interdisciplinary
work, the imbrication of Sociology and Cultural Studies in the RidgiDidge Study
offers an interdisciplinary approach that gives weight to the personal experiences
and perceptions of young people about their media consumption in a culturally
specific context.
346
This study therefore addresses the negative mythology about young people, their
media consumption, and puts interdisciplinary work on a firm theoretical footing,
addressing criticism of young people's media research derived from social
psychological models. Indeed, the combination of Cultural Studies theoretical
agility and Sociology’s grounded method of inquiry produces a cogent
contribution to the area of researching young people. In further support of an
interdisciplinary approach, the inclusion of the emergent paradigm of childhood
sociology in the RidgiDidge Study framework encourages a new agenda for the
discussion of young people’s media issues suggesting a synergistic relationship
between disciplines. In this way, young people's media research might enjoy the
best of both worlds by adopting an anti-essentialist approach to the personal and
lived experience of participants (Sociology) as well as connecting this range of
experiences with concepts of difference and subjectivity (Cultural Studies). It is
this acknowledgment of difference and subjectivity that suggests that young
people's media research should be contextualised as illustrative of groups of
young people rather than representative of young people as an aggregate. As
Finch argues, it is more pragmatic to accept this research outlook given that the
relationship between research and social policy and is never direct.
Alongside these interdisciplinary concerns, the emergence of Gidden’s theory of
structuration as a sensitising concept in the relationship between agency and
structure adds to the theoretical discussion in terms of providing a loose
framework that does not seek to provide an overall theory of society.
347
The acknowledgement of Gidden’s structuration theory in the RidgiDidge Study
to describe the relationship between the participants, their agency and the social
structures that surround them is apt given the notion of the duality of structure
that emerges from the research. The inclusion of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
model provides a means of discussing the social structures that surround the
participants as well as accounting for the process, the person and the context over
time. Similarly, the inclusion of ideas from nursing and paediatric medicine on
designing and researching young people also benefits the research framework in
terms of introducing a way of seeing and dealing with young people that
privileges the way they think and feel.
The inclusion of these theoretical perspectives offers access points with which to
articulate the complex processes that occur at the intersection between youth,
childhood and new media technology. Their combination in an interdisciplinary
context produces a synergistic view that applications across a wide range of
disciplines. This approach facilitates a more dynamic examination of
contemporary youth and childhood and its intersection with new media. In this
way, young people are seen as social agents creating and participating in their
own peer cultures and contributing to cultural production and change. This
position acknowledges that while childhood is a temporary period for children, it
is a permanent structural category in society. This approach encourages and
gives weight to young people’s attitudes and experiences, independent of the
perspective and concern of adults (Jenks 1996; James and Prout 1990).
348
In this way, research participants are able to claim ownership of knowledge
about themselves and their media consumption, effectively combating a negative
mythology of community concern that sees young people as apathetic
community members, as deviant, as not conforming to social norms of
behaviour, and suggesting that young people depend too much on technology
(Vromen 2004).
The gulf between generations might be better bridged in terms of a nonjudgemental understanding that sees young people as active agents in society.
Finally, the RidgiDidge Study makes several theoretical contributions to the
growing body of knowledge on young people’s media technology consumption.
As a grounded theory with the necessary requirement that it possess generality,
this grounded theory of new media and young people has a wide application
across a wide range of fields.
Limitations of the RidgiDidge Study
While this research makes several contributions to a growing body of knowledge
on young people and media technology, it is important to acknowledge the
limitations of this research. The RidgiDidge Study has maintained several
features from the outset that have shaped and bound the extent of its research. As
a PhD research project with a grounded theory methodology, the focus of the
current research has needed to be sufficiently narrow in generating a middle level
substantive theory, as well as observing and predicting the practical exigencies of
time, money and other resources that play a role in doctoral research (Seidman
349
1998: 48). In this way, the results of the current research can only be said to be
true for the participant sample, although the emergent theory illustrates the
themes and contours of the intersection between youth and childhood and new
media technology.
Similarly, a focus on the research question formulation of ‘how does new media
technology figure in the lives of Australian High School students’ has directed
the research. Nevertheless the continued dominance of television in the
participants’ technological milieu dictates a difference between how they
delineate between ‘old’ and ‘new’ technologies challenges and the basic working
assumptions required to begin a project such as this.
The maintenance of a high level of ethical research practice demanded by the
Griffith University Ethics Committee also shapes the current research.
This defining factor leaves little doubt that any perceived restrictions or ensuing
method modification based on agreed research protocols is far outweighed by the
benefits of maintaining an ethical position in relation to the participants.
Relevance to Contemporary Debates
As discussed previously, ideas about young people and media in Australia often
publicly emerge within the confines of an ‘effects’ debate. This debate is
characterised by the assumption of a direct relationship between anti-social or
non-normative behaviour and media consumption and features highly in
American psychological traditions. From this perspective, young media
consumers are contextualised as a passive, easily manipulated audience with
350
their media consumption assumed responsible for a range of negative health and
social issues. These assumptions persist in the public domain despite any
coherent theory or conclusive research in support of such ideas (Barker and
Petley 2001; Turnbull 1998). Recent analysis has shown that Australian political
leaders have contributed to this perspective in the public domain, perpetuating
the myths of young people as apathetic community members, as deviant and too
dependant on technology (Vromen 2004).
This perception is encapsulated by the Australian Governor-General Michael
Jeffery in a recent speech where he said that 'prising children away from their
TVs, DVDs and PlayStations would be a good start in combating "diabesity"'
(Jeffery 2004).
Such an oversimplification of the effect of young people's media consumption,
let alone the extent of the health factors associated with diabetes, disregards
those structures that are instrumental in young people’s lives such as their
family, school, peer group and wider cultural contexts over time.
Simplistic characterisations of young people and their media consumption colour
concepts of youth and childhood given that any description tends to become a
prescription for what and how youth and childhood should be (Jamrozic and
Sweeney 1996: 33). In this respect, oversimplifying and ignoring the reality and
dynamics of young people’s lives does little to maintain an open dialogue in
terms of accurately and appropriately investigate those issues that do affect the
ongoing health and well being of young people.
351
If anti-social behaviour, community apathy, deviance, technological dependence
and obesity are of genuine political and public concern in relation to young
people’s media consumption, then the results and the emergent theory of the
RidgiDidge Study has much to offer in terms of supporting a non-judgemental
and intergenerational understanding of young people’s media consumption. This
understanding manifests itself in a number of ways.
To begin with, grounded theory method’s central demand that the data should
‘discipline’ the emergent theory allows the complexities of young people’s
relationship to their media to be realised. Such data, observed first hand from
participants’ responses, is free from the constraints of a priori adult ideas,
although the acceptance, introduction and discussion of the researchers own
theoretical sensitivity realistically appreciates areas of interest and endeavour
from the beginning of the research.
The inclusion of transparent methodological reporting privileges grounded
theory method over verificational research in that the emergent theory is
‘relevant to the area from which it emerges’ (Hutchinson 1986: 184), given its
dynamic from practice to theory; opposed to theory to practice indicated in
verificational research.
Figure 3:
Method
Comparison on page 135
diagrammatically shows the key differences between approaches.
The importance of developing methodologies that deal with young people’s
perspectives on new media technology is that the functional significance of
media has been subsumed into adult processes and contexts with little regard for
the different ways young people relate to technology. As Druin points out, young
352
people’s media technology activities are open-ended and exploratory in a
recreational context while most methodologies are developed to observe and
understand adults as users of technology ‘in a work place environment where
tasks are clearly defined for a required end user product’ (Druin 1999: 51).
With this in mind and given the materialist steadfastness of sociological method
of enquiry, grounded theory is free of the assumptions of the psychological
model that sees young people in terms of their development from childhood to
logical adulthood, and in terms of what they cannot do, rather than what they can
(Gauntlett 1998).
Such a perspective appears to be negative and unethical in the sense that the
responses of young people as research participants might be unduly tempered by
disciplinary ideology.
The adoption of a shift in perspective where young people’s familiarity and
expertise with technology is celebrated, rather than seen as something to be wary
of, results from an ethical outlook and the application of grounded theory
method. From this perspective, responses are appreciated as accurate and truthful
and produce an arguably more realistic view of the area of research given that the
data disciplines the theory. The generation of a middle range substantive theory
that goes beyond the basic representation and reporting of data towards theory
development is particularly useful given the researcher’s familiarity with the data
and constant comparative analysis. The generation of a middle range substantive
theory has implications for more formal theory and the direction of future
research.
353
Thus, in the selection and development of an appropriate methodology that
ethically pursues the area of its research; the emergent theory goes beyond
reporting statistical patterns of usage.
The emergent theory proposes that new media technologies are part of the
participants’ technological milieu and acts as a catalyst for and a facilitator of
social praxis, highlighting the presence of participant agency in ways not
necessarily predicted by adults or commercially provided culture.
Implications
Qualitative research which is part of an ongoing process of the democratisation
of knowledge and research, such as the RidgiDidge Study, takes on the task of
dealing with the complexities of specific cases of human activity that do not
always fit established theories well. The application of psychological theories in
areas such as media effects research on young people is an example of where the
subject of young people’s relationship to new media technology demands new
tools to think with. While this is not to say that the media as technology or
content does not produce ‘effects’ of some kind, it is reasonable to demand that
future and prospective research sees young people as participants in a much more
balanced and ethical light than psychological models have previously allowed.
While Psychology as a discipline still has much to offer the field of research on
young people, its dominance in Education and social policy must be reappraised
given the basic assumption in psychology that young people are on a journey
from irrational childhood to logical adulthood. As Kociumbas (2002) and Factor
354
(1981) suggest, young people rarely write their own histories and so there is a
need to ensure that the historical perspectives of young people are accurate for
future reflection.
Researching the lived and experienced instances of what goes on at the
intersection between new media technology and Australian childhood,
particularly where those instances discipline the results, will produce culturally
specific ideas about youth and childhood that emerge in relation to those
technologies.
In terms of future research, the grounded theory of new media technology and
young people generated here might reasonably be included in research in new
locations and among different groups with a view to generating more formal
theory.
Based on the shift in perspective implied by the grounded theory here, the
generation of a grounded theory of the indigenous experience of youth and
childhood might reasonably be applied to a range of areas not least of which is
addressing the digital divide and social policy.
The new slew of commercially available technologies that have arrived since the
end of the RidgiDidge Study field work such as the iPod, digital camera, and
camera phone are also of interest in terms of theory testing and development in a
rapidly evolving technological environment.
Grounded theory also has uses in looking at how the social aspects of media
technology consumption now, might impact on young people in the future as
they enter the workforce and higher education. How might the open ended and
355
social aspects of the new media use in a recreational context manifest themselves
positively in learning or work contexts? What are the ramifications of
specifically gendered uses of new media technology to those work and education
contexts?
Nevertheless, given the persistence of television in the everyday lives of young
people, the proposed changes to the media sector and the rejuvenation of
television associated with the analogue switchover in 2010 is of interest in an
Australian context.
Discerning young people’s views about the acquisition of new digital
technologies and the diversity of digital content multichannelling, datacasting,
mobile TV and digital radio will be of importance in an increasingly free media
market.
356
357
7. Bibliography
ABA (2000). Children's Views about Media Harm: A collaborative project
between University of Western Sydney and the Australian
Broadcasting Authority. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority.
ABS (1998). 4123.3 Queensland's Young People: ABS.
ABS (1999). Communications and Information Technology: Special Article The Information Society and the Information Economy in Australia
(Year Book Australia, 1999: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
ABS (1999). 8146.0 Strong Growth in Home Use of Information Technology:
ABS.
ABS (2000). 4177.0 Participation in Sport and Physical Activities, Australia:
ABS.
ABS (2001). 4156.0 Sport and Recreation: A Statistical Overview, Australia:
ABS.
Acuff, D. (1997). What Kids Buy and Why: The Psychology of Marketing to
Kids. New York: Free Press.
Aftab, P. (2000). The Parent's Guide to Protecting your Children in
Cyberspace. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Agger, B. (1992). Cultural Studies as Critical Theory. London: Falmer.
Aisbett, K. (2001). The Internet at Home. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting
Authority.
Alasuutari, P. (1999). Rethinking the Media Audience. London: Sage.
Alderson, P. (1995). Listening to Children: Children, Ethics and Social
Research. Barkingside: Barnardo's.
Alderson, P. (2000). Young Children's Rights: Exploring Beliefs, Principles
and Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Ang, I. (1996). Living Room Wars: Rethinking Media Audiences for a
Postmodern World. London: Routledge.
Annan, K. (2003). Student Conference on Human Rights. New York.
Anyanwu, C., J. (2000). 'Wake Up to the Real World: A Case Study of
Cybermedia Project'. In B. H. R. Olover (Ed.), New Millenium, New
Technology, New Worlds of Learning (pp. 2.1 - 2.10). University of
Wollongong: Apple Computer Australia.
Appadurai, A., (1986). ‘Commodities and the politics of value’, in A.
Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural
Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.3-63
Archard, D. (1993). Children: Rights and Childhood. London: Routledge.
Ariès, P. (1962). Centuries of Childhood. New York: Albert Knopf.
Aristotle (1996). The Nicomachean Ethics, translated by Harris Rackham,
Ware: Wordswoth Editions
Atkinson, R., and Flint, J. (2001). ‘Accessing Hidden and Hard to Reach
Populations: Snowball Research Strategies’. Social Research Update.
358
Aune, M. (1996). ‘The Computer in Everyday Life: Patterns of Domestication
of a new technology’. In M. Lie and K. H. Sorensen (Eds.), Making
Technology Our Own?: Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life.
Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Azmitia, M. (2002). ‘Interpretive Reproduction: A Tool for Unpacking the
Sociocultural Dynamics of Development’. Human Development, 45.
Babchuk, W. A. (1997). ‘Glaser or Strauss? Grounded Theory and Adult
Education’, Midwest Research-to-Practice in Adult Continuing and
Community Education Conference. East Lansing: Michigan State
University.
Baert, P. (1996). ‘Realist Philosophy of the Social Sciences and Economics: A
Critique’. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 20, 513-522.
Baker, C., Wuest, J., and Stern, P. N. (1992). ‘Method slurring: the grounded
theory/phenomenology example’. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17,
1355-1360.
Balen, R., Holroyd, C., Mountain, G., and Wood, B. (2000-1). ‘Giving
children a voice: Methodological and practical implications of research
involving Children’. Paediatric Nursing, 12.
Ballard, E. G. (1978). Man and Technology. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University
Press.
Balnaves, M., Caputi, P., and Rawstorne, P., (1998). 'Key Predictors of
Adoption of New Media: The Role of Personality in Diffusions of
Innovations', 1998 Communications Research Forum. Canberra.
Balnaves, M., O'Regan, T., and Sternberg, J. (2002). Mobilising the Audience.
St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Balnaves, M., & Varan, D. (2002). ‘Beyond Exposure: Interactive Television
and the New Media Currency’. Media International Australia
incorporating Culture and Policy, 105.
Barker, C. (2000). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage.
Barker, C.(2002). Making Sense of Cultural Studies: Central Problems and
Critical Debates, London: Sage Publications
Barker, M., & Petley, J. (2001). Ill Effects: the Media /Violence Debate.
London: Routledge.
Barker, M. (2001). ‘The Newson Report: a case study in 'common sense'’. In
M. Barker & J. Petley (Eds.), Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate.
London: Routledge.
Barker, M. (2001). ‘On the problems of being a 'trendy travesty'’, Ill Effects:
The Media/Violence Debate. London: Routledge.
Barr, T. (2000). newmedia.com: The Changing Face of Australia's Media and
Communications. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Barthes, R. (1977). 'The Photographic Message'. In S. Heath (Ed.), ImageMusic-Text. New York: Noonday Press.
Bazalgette, C. B., David (1995). In Front of the Children: Screen
Entertainment and Young Audiences. London: British Film Institute.
359
Beardon, C. (1993). ‘Social Citizenship in the Information Age’. In C.
Beardon and D. Whithouse (Eds.), Computers and Society. Oxford:
Intellect.
Beardon, C., & Whitehouse, D. (1993). Computers and Society. Oxford:
Intellect.
Beilharz, P. (1991). Social Theory: A Guide to Central Thinkers. Sydney:
Allen and Unwin.
Bell, J., & Bromnick, R. (2003). ‘The Social Reality of the Imaginary
Audience: A Grounded Theory Approach’. Adolescence, 38, 205.
Belsky, J. (1995). ‘Expanding the Ecology of Human Development: An
Evolutionary Perspective’. In P. Moen, Glen H. Elder Jr. and K.
Luscher (Eds.), Examining Lives in Context. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Bennett, A. (2000). Popular Music and Youth culture: Music, Identity and
Place. London: Macmillan Press.
Bennett, T. (1998). Culture: A Reformer's Science. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Bennett, T., Emmison, M., and Frow, J. (1999). Accounting for Tastes:
Australian Everyday Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Berdichevsky, D., and Neuenschwander, Erik (1999). 'Towards an Ethics of
Persuasive Technology'. Communications of the ACM, Volume 42, 5158.
Berger, A. A. (1991). Media Research Techniques. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Berk, L.E. (2000). Child Development (5th Ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Bird, S. E. (2003). The Audience in Everyday Life: Living in a Media World.
New York: Routledge.
Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an
Electronic Age. Boston: Faber & Faber.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Brannen, J., & O'Brien, M. (1996). Children in Families: Research and Policy.
London: Falmer Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development:
Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). ‘Developmental Ecology Through Space and
Time: A Future Perspective’. In P. Moen, Glen H. Elder Jr. & K.
Luscher (Eds.), Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on the
Ecology of Human Development. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Brown, A. (1999). ‘Developing Realistic Methodology: How New Dialectics
Surpasses the Critical Realist Method for Social Science’: The Web
Site
for
Critical
Realism.
360
www.mubs.mdx.ac.uk/Research/Discussion_Papers/
Economics/dpap_econ_no66.pdf. Accessed January 2005
Bryant G.A. and Jary, D. (2001). ‘The Uses of Structuration Theory: a
typology’ in Bryant G.A. and Jary, D (Eds.), The Contemporary
Giddens: Social Theory in a Globalising Age, Houndmills: Palgrave
Buckingham, D. (1993). Reading Audiences: Young People and the Media.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Buckingham, D. (1994). ‘Television and the Definition of Childhood’. In B.
Mayall (Ed.), Children's Childhoods: Observed and Experienced.
London: Falmer Press.
Buckingham, D. (2000). After the Death of Childhood: Growing Up in the
Age of Electronic Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Buckingham, D. (2003). ‘Children and Television: A critical overview of the
research’. In V. Nightingale and K. Ross (Eds.), Critical Readings:
Media Audiences. Maidenhead: Open University.
Cahn, A. (2002). Children and New Technology: A Vision for the Future:
Australian Children's Television Foundation.
Caldwell, J. T. (2000). Theories of the New Media: A Historical Perspective.
London: The Althone Press.
Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical Social Theory. Cambridge, Massachusettes:
Blackwell.
Cannella, G. S., and Kincheloe, J. L. (2002). Kidworld: Childhood Studies,
Global Perspectives and Education. New York: Perter Laing.
Carey, J., W., (1989). Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and
Society. New York: Routledge.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical. Education, knowledge
and action research, Lewes: Falmer.
Case, S. (2004) ‘Women in Gaming’, January 12 2004, Windows XP,
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/games/learnmore/womeningam
es.mspx?pf=true, Accessed December 2005
Cawson, A., Haddon, L., and Miles, I. (1995). The Shape of Things to
Consume: Delivering Information Technology into the home.
Aldershot: Avebury.
Charmaz, K. (2000). ‘Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist
Methods’. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
Charmaz, K. (2001). Grounded Theory. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.),
Contemporary Field Research: Perspectives and Formulations.
Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.
Child, M. (2000). 'Direct Marketing Can Teach Digital Valuble Lessons'.
Marketing, 16.
Christensen, P., and A. James (2000). Research With Children: Perspectives
and Practices. London: Falmer Press.
Coast, J. (1999). ‘The Appropriate Uses of Qualitative Methods in Health
Economics’. Health Economics, 8, 345-353.
361
Cobley, J. (1970). The Crimes of the First Fleet Convicts. Sydney: Angus &
Robertson.
Cohen, I. J. (1989). Stucturation Theory: Anthony Giddens and the
Constitution of Social Life. Houndmills: Macmillan Education.
Cohen, I. J. (2000). ‘Theories of Action and Praxis’. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The
Blackwell companion to social theory. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Connell, J. L., Andy (1997). ‘Generating Grounded Theory from Qualitative
Data: The Application of Inductive Methods in Tourism and
Hospitality Management Research’. Progress in Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Volume 3, 165-173.
Corsaro, W., Molinari, L., and Rosier, K. B. (2002). ‘Zena and Carlotta:
Transition Narratives and Early Education in the United States and
Italy’ Human Development, 45.
Corsaro, W. A. (1997). The Sociology of Childhood. Thousand Oaks: Pine
Forge Press.
Cotton, K. (1996). ‘School Size, School Climate and Student Performance’:
NW
Regional
Educational
Laboratory.
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html Accessed November
2005
Crook, C. (1992). ‘Cultural artefacts in Social Development: The Case of
Computers’. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Childhood Social Development:
Contemporary Perspectives. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Cunningham, S., & Turner, G. (1997). The Media in Australia: Industries,
Texts, Audiences. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Cupitt, M., & Stockbridge, Sally (1996). Families and Electronic
Entertainment. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Authority and the
Office of Film and Literature Classification.
Curran, J., Morley, D., and Walkerdine, V., (1996). Cultural Studies and
Communications. London: Arnold.
Cutcliffe, J. R. (2000). ‘Methodological issues in grounded theory’. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 31, 1476-1484.
Darley, A. Visual Digital Culture: Surface play and spectacle in new media
genres. London: Routledge.
Davis, H. (1997). 'Crisis': The Demonisation of Children and Young People. In
P. Scraton (Ed.), Childhood in Crisis. London: UCL Press.
DCITA (2004). ‘Convicts and the European Settlement of Australia’.
DCITA (2004). ‘The Current State of Play’: Department of Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts.
DCITA (2005). ‘The Current State of Play’. Canberra.
DCITA (2006). Meeting the Digital Challenge: Reforming Australia’s Media
in
the
Digital
Age.
Canberra.
www.dcita.gov.au/broad/media_reform_options. Accessed March 2006
362
Deacon, D., Pickering, M., Golding, P., and Murdoch, G., (1999). Researching
Communications: A Practical Guide to Methods in Media and Cultural
Analysis. New York: Arnold & Oxford University Press.
Deatrick, J. A., and Faux, S. A. (1991). ‘Conducting Qualitative Studies with
Children and Adolescents’. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative Nursing
Research: A Contemporary Dialogue. Newbury Park: Sage.
DeFleur, M. L., and Ball-Rokeach, S., (1982). Theories of Mass
Communication. New York: Longman.
Della Fave, A., and Bassi, M. (2003). ‘Italian Adolescents and Leisure: The
Role of Engagement and Optimal Experience’. New Directions for
Child and Adolescence Development., 99, 79-93.
DeMause, L. (1974). ‘The Evolution of Childhood’. In L. deMause (Ed.), The
History of Childhood. London: Souvenir Press.
Dey, I. (1999). Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative
Inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press.
Dockrell, J., Lewis, A., & Lindsay, G. (2000). ‘Researching Children's
Perspectives: A Psychological Dimension’. In A. Lewis & G. Lindsay
(Eds.), Researching Children's Perspectives (pp. 46-57). Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Dorman, S., M., (2001). 'Teaching Our First Digital Generation'. The
Education Digest, Volume 66, 30-32.
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1979). The World of Goods. New York: Basic
Books.
Dow, G., & Factor, J. (1991). Australian Childhood: An Anthology.
Ringwood, Victoria: McPhee Gribble.
Downes, T. (1998). Children's Use of Computers in their Homes. Unpublished
Doctoral, Western Sydney.
Downward, P., Finch, J. H., & Ramsay, J. (2002). ‘Critical Realism, Empirical
Methods and Inference: A Critical Discussion’. Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 26, 481-500.
Druin, A. (1996). 'A Place Called Home', Interactions of the ACM: ACM.
Druin, A. (2002). ‘The Role of Children in the Design of New Technology’.
Behaviour and Information Technology, 21, 1-25.
Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A., Knotts-Callahan, D. & Platt,
M. (1999). ‘Children as Our Technology Design Partners’. In A. Druin
(Ed.), The Design of Children's Technology (pp. 51-72): MorganKaufman Publishers.
Durham, M., & Kellner, D. (2001). Media & Cultural Studies: KeyWorks.
Cambridge: Blackwell.
Durkheim, E. (1979). ‘Childhood’. In W. F. F. Pickering (Ed.), Durkheim:
Essays on Morals and Education. London: Routledge.
Durkin, K. (1995). Computer Games and their effects on young people: A
review. Sydney: Office of Film and Literature Classification.
Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental Social Psychology: From Infancy to Old
Age. Malden: Blackwell.
363
Durkin, K., and Aisbett, K. (1999). Computer Games and Australians Today.
Sydney: Office of Film and Literature Classification.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., and Lowe, A., (1991). Management
Research: An Introduction. London: Sage Publications.
Education Queensland (1998). ‘Adoption of Technology’: Queensland
Government.
http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/production/reports/pdfs/1999/1
999-an1-technology.pdf Accessed January 2002
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). 'Building Theories from Case Study Research'. The
Academy of Management Research, Volume 14, 532-550.
Eliezer, C. (2000). 'Chaos to use ads to pay artists'. Billboard, Volume 112,
59-66.
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). ‘What is Agency?’ The American
Journal of Sociology, 103, 962-1023.
Fabian, S., and Loh, M. (1980). Children in Australia: An Outline History.
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Facer, K., Furlong, J., Furlong, R., & Sutherland, R. (2001). ‘Home is where
the hardware is: Young people, the domestic environment and 'access'
to new technologies’. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children,
Technology and Culture. London: Routledge.
Factor, J. (1981). Fragments of Children's play in Colonial Australia. In G.
Featherstone (Ed.), The Colonial Child. Melbourne: Royal Historical
Society of Victoria.
Factor, J. (1986). Childhood and Children's Culture. NSW: The
AustralianChildren's Television Foundation.
Featherstone, G. (1981). The Colonial Child. Melbourne: Royal Historical
Society of Victoria.
FEPC (2002). Brief Amici Curiae of thirty-three media scholars in Interactive
Digital Software Ass'n, et al. v. St. Louis County, et al.: Brennan
Centre
for
Justice,
NYU
School
of
Law.
www.fepproject.org/courtbriefs/stlouis.pdf Accessed August 2005
Fernandez, W. D. (2004). ‘Using the Glaserian Approach in Grounded Studies
of Emerging Business Practices’. Electronic Journal of Business
Research Methods, 2, 83-94.
Fetherston, T. (1998). 'A Socio-Cognitive Framework for Researching
Learning with IMM'. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,
Volume 14, 98-106.
Finch, J. (1986). Research and Policy: The uses of Qualitative Methods in
Social Educational Research. London: The Falmer Press.
Fine, G. A., & Sandstrom, K. L. (1988). Knowing Children: Participant
Observation with Minors. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Finn, S. C. M. (1996). 'Media Theory and the Internet'. Media International
Australia, Number 80.
Fleming, D. (1996). Powerplay: Toys as Popular Culture. Manchester and
New York: Manchester University Press.
364
Flynn, M. (1993). The Second Fleet: Britain's Grim Convict Armada of 1790.
Sydney: Library of Australian History.
Foddy, W. (1993). Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires:
Theory and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fogg, B. J. (1999). 'Persuasive Technologies'. Communications of the ACM,
Volume 42, 27-29.
Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader. London: Penguin.
Foundation, T. D. L. P. (2000). 'Children & Computer Technology'. The
Future of Children, Volume 10.
Freiherr-Von-Manteuffel, K. (2002). 'An Introduction to Grounded Theory':
Pandahuluan Metoda Teori Beralas. http://gtm.vlsm.org/gnmgtm.en.html Accessed June 2002
Freiherr-Von-Manteuffel, K. (2002). 'What is Grounded Theory': Pandahuluan
Metoda Teori Beralas. http://gtm.vlsm.org/gnm-gtm.en.html Accessed
June 2002
Freiherr-Von-Manteuffel, K. (2002). 'Core Category Criteria of Grounded
Theory'. http://gtm.vlsm.org/gnm-gtm.en.html Accessed June 2002
Freiherr-Von-Manteuffel, K. (2002). ‘The 18++ Theoretical Coding Families
of Grounded Theory’. http://gtm.vlsm.org/gnm-gtm.en.html Accessed
June 2002
Furlong, A., and Cartmel, F. (1997). Young People and Social Change:
Individualisation and risk in late modernity. Buckingham,
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Fynes-Clinton, J. (2003). ‘The box or the books’, The Courier-Mail 9 August
2003.
Gambarino, J. (1982). ‘The Ecology of Human Development’, Children and
Families in the Social Environment. New York: Aldine Publishing
Company.
Gauntlett, D. (1996). Video Critical: Children, the Environment and Media
Power. Luton: John Libby Media.
Gauntlett, D. (1998). ‘Ten things wrong with the 'effects model'’. In R.
Dickinson, R. Harindranath & O. Linne (Eds.), Approaches to
Audiences - A Reader. London: Arnold.
Gauntlett, D. (2000). web.studies: Rewiring Media Studies for the Digital Age.
London: Arnold.
Gauntlett, D. (2001). ‘The worrying influence of 'media effects' studies’. In M.
Barker & J. Petley (Eds.), Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate.
London: Routledge.
Gibson, E. (1982). ‘The Concept of Affordances in Development: The
Renascence of Functionalism [Book Spelling]’. In W. A. Collins (Ed.),
The Concept of Development. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
365
Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of
Interpretive Sociologies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (2002). ‘Agency, Structure’. In C. Calhoun, J. Gerteis, J. Moody,
S. Pfaff & I. Virk (Eds.), Contemporary Sociological Theory:
Blackwell.
Giesen, P. (1999). 'Have the Media Ruined Childhood?' Interactions.
Gillard, P. (1999). 'Children: The New Media Sophisticates'. Communications
Update.
Gillard, P. (2002). ‘Small Worlds: Research on Children and the Media in
Australia’. In M. Balnaves, T. O'Regan & J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Mobilising the Audience. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Gillespie, M. (1994). Television, Ethnicity and Cultural Change. London:
Routledge.
Gittins, D. (1998). The Child in Question. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Glaser, B., G. & Strauss, Anselm, L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded
Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De
Gruyter.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory:
Theoretical Sensitivity. California: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill
Valley: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist Grounded Theory?, Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum:
Qualitative
Social
Research.
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm Accessed August
2005
Goldson, B. (1997). 'Childhood': An Introduction to Historical and Theoretical
Analyses. In P. Scraton (Ed.), Childhood in Crisis. London: UPL Press.
Goodsall, J. (2001). 'Five Keys to Kid Marketing', AdNews, May 11, 2001.
Gordon, M. M. (1991). ‘Australia and New Zealand’. In J. M. Hawes &
N.R.Hiner (Eds.), Children in Historical and Comparative Perspective.
New York: Greenwood Press.
Gormley, T. (1998). 'Ruination once again' - Cases in the study of media
effects. http://www.theory.org.uk/effec-tg.htm. Accessed January 2005
Goulding, C. (2000). Grounded Theory Methodology and Consumer
Behaviour, Procedures, Practice and Pitfalls. Advances in Consumer
Research, 27, 261-266.
Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management,
Business and Market Researchers. London: Sage.
Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying Children in Context: Theories,
Methods and Ethics. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Green, B., Reid, J & Bigum, C., (1998). 'Teaching the Nintendo Generation?
Children, Computer Culture and Popular Technologies'. In S. Howard
366
(Ed.), Wired Up: Young People and the Electronic Media. London:
UCL Press.
Greig, A., & Taylor, J. (1999). Doing Research with Children. London: Sage
Publications.
Griffith, C. (1996). 'The ABC and Multimedia: A New Media Form'. Media
International Australia.
Griffiths, P. (1998). ‘Teenage Viewers of Television: A Study of the Viewing
Culture of 13 and 14 year old Canberrans’, 1998 Communications
Research forum. Canberra.
Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The Machine at Work: Technology, Work
and Organisation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Grossberg, L., Nelson, C., and Treichler, P. A. Cultural Studies. New York:
Routledge.
Haddon, L. (2003). ‘Domestication and Mobile Telephony’. In J. E. Katz
(Ed.), Machines that Become Us: The Social Context of Personal
Communication Technology. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Haig, B. D. (1995). ‘Grounded Theory as Scientific Method: Philosophy of
Education , www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PESyearbook/95_docs/haig.html
Accessed June 2002
Hall, S. (1996). ‘Who needs identity?’ In S. Hall and P. D. Gay (Eds.),
Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage.
Hall, S. (1999). ‘Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies’. In S. During
(Ed.), The Cultural Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
Hardell, L., Hallquist, A., Mild, K. H., Carlberg, M., Pahlson, A., and Lilja, A.
(2002). ‘Cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for brain
tumours’. European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 11, 377-386.
Hartley, J. (1998). 'When a Child Grows up too Fast':Juvenation and the
Boundaries of the Social in the News Media'. Continuum: Journal of
Media and Cultural Studies, Volume 12, 9-30.
Hartley, J. (2002). Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: Key
Concepts. London: Routledge.
Hartley, J. (2003). A Short History of Cultural Studies. London: Sage.
Harvey, J., Dolgopol, U., & Castell-McGregor, S. (1993). Implementing the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Australia. Adelaide:
South Australian Children's Interests Bureau.
Harvey, M. (1999). ‘How the Object of Knowledge Constrains Knowledge of
the Object. An Epistemological Analysis of a Social Research
Investigation’. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 485-501.
Hayden, H. (2004). ‘Arcade 64 - where rave meets computers in Brisbane’:
Residentadvisor.net.http://www.residentadvisor.net/news.asp?ID=4985
Accessed December 2004
Healy, J. M. (1998). Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our
Children's Minds and What We Can Do About it. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
367
Heaven, P. C. L. (2001). The Social Psychology of Adolescence. Houndmills:
Palgrave.
Hele, M. (2003). ‘TV violence influences adulthood’. Courier Mail 14 June
2003.
Henderson, L. (2002). ‘Playing Video Games and Cognitive Effects:
Teenagers' Thinking Skills and Strategies’. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky
(Eds.), ED-MEDIA & ED TELECOM 2002. Denver, Colorado: AACE,
Charlottesville.
Hensby, S. (2001). A Grounded Theory of Career Experience in the
Contemporary Work Environment. Unpublished Masters of
Organisational Psychology, Griffith University.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2002). The Cultural Industries. London: Sage.
Hodge, B., & Tripp, David, (1994). 'Ten Theses on Children and Television',
The Polity Reader in Cultural Theory. Cambridge: The Polity Press.
Holmes, R. M. (1998). Fieldwork with Children. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
HREC, (1996). Griffith University Guide for Research Involving Human
Participation. Brisbane: Griffith University Human Research Ethics
Committee (HREC). www.gu.edu.au/or Accessed January 2002
Hughes, T. P. (2000). ‘Technological Momentum’. In A. H. Teich (Ed.),
Technology and the Future. Boston: St Martin's Press.
Hume, M., & Peters, S. (2001). Me, My Phone and I: The role of the mobile
phone. Lancaster: Teleconomy and CHI 2001.
Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the
Internet. Cambridge: Polity.
Hutchby, I., & Moran-Ellis, J. (1998). Children and Social Competence:
Arenas of Action. London: The Falmer Press.
Hutchby, I. (2001). Children, Technology and Culture: The impacts of
technologies in children's everyday lives. London: Routledge.
Hutchinson, S. (1986). ‘Grounded Theory: The Method’. In P. Munhall & C.
Oiler (Eds.), Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective. Norwalk,
Conneticut: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Inglis, K. (1981). ‘Young Australia 1870-1900: The idea and the Reality’. In
G. Featherstone (Ed.), The Colonial Child. Melbourne: Royal
Historical Society of Victoria.
J.Eccles, Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan,
C., & MacIver, D. (1999). ‘Development During Adolescence: The
Impact of Stage-Environment Fit on Young Adolescents' Expriences
in schools and in families’. In R. M. Lerner & D. Castellino (Eds.),
Adolescence: Development, Diversity and Context. New York and
London: Garland Publishing.
Jacka, E. (1994). ‘Researching Audiences: A dialogue between cultural studies
and social science’. Media Information Australia, 45-51.
James, A. (1998). ‘From the Child's Point of View: Issues in the Social
Construction of Childhood’. In C. Panter-Brick (Ed.), Biosocial
368
Perspectives on Children - Biosocial Society Symposium Series 10.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
James, A., Jenks, C., and Prout, A. (1998). Theorising Childhood. Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
James, A., & Prout, A. (1996). 'Strategies and Structures: Towards a New
Perspective on Children's Experiences of Family Life'. In J. Brannen &
M. O'Brien (Eds.), Children in Families: Research and Policy (pp. 4151). London: Falmer Press.
James, A., and Prout, A. (1997). Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood:
Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. London:
Falmer Press.
Jamrozic, A., and Sweeny, T. (1996). Children and Society: The Family, the
State and Social Parenthood. Melbourne, Vic: MacMillan Publishing.
Jeffery, M. (2004). Diabetes Australia President's Dinner. Hyatt Hotel,
Canberra:
Australian
Government.
http://gg.gov.au/html/fset_speeches_media_vr.html Accessed July
2004
Jenkins, H. (2005). ‘Out of the Closet and Into the Universe: Queers and Star
Trek’. In W. Brooker & D. Jermyn (Eds.), The Audience Studies
Reader. London: Routledge.
Jenks, C. (1996). ‘The Strange Death of Childhood’. In C. Jenks (Ed.),
Childhood (pp. 116-139). London: Routledge.
Jenks, C. (1996). Childhood. London: Routledge.
Jenks, C. (2005). Subculture. London: Sage.
Johansson, T., & Miegel, F. (1992). Do the Right Thing. Stockholm: Almqvist
and Wiksell International, Lund University.
Johnson, S. (1997). Interface Culture: How New Technology Transforms the
Way We Create and Communicate. San Francisco: HarperEdge.
John-Steiner, V., & Souberman, E. (1978). ‘Afterword’. In M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman (Eds.), LS Vygotsky - Mind in
Society: The Development of Higher Psychological processes.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP.
Jordan, A. B. (2002). ‘A Family Systems Approach to Examining the Role of
the Internet in the Home’. In S. L. Calvert, A. B. Jordan and R. R.
Cocking (Eds.), Children in the Digital Age: Influences of Electronic
Media on Development. Westport: Praeger.
Katz, J. (1994). The Media's War on Kids, Rolling Stone (pp. 31-33).
Katz, J. (1996). 'The Rights of Kids in the Digital Age'. Wired, 4.07, July
1996.
Keys, W. (1999). 'Children's Television: A Barometer of the Australian Media
Policy Climate'. Media International Australia, 93.
Khaslavsky, J. S., Nathan, (1999). 'Understanding the Seductive Experience'.
Communications of the ACM, Volume 42, 45-49.
Kinach, B., M. (1995). 'Grounded Theory as Scientific Method: Haig-inspired
reflections on Educational Research Methodology': Philosophy of
369
Education’.
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PESyearbook/95_docs/kinach.html Accessed June 2002
Kinder, M. (1999). Kids' Media Culture. Durham: Duke University Press.
Kling, R. (1999). 'What is Social Informatics and What Does it Mean?' D-Lib
Magazine, Volume 5.
Kociumbas, J. (1997). Australian Childhood: A History. Sydney: Allen &
Unwin.
Kociumbas, J. (2002). ‘Historical perspectives on Australian Childhood’. In
M. Prior (Ed.), Investing in our Children: Developing a Research
Agenda. Canberra: The Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia.
Kubey, R. (1997). Media Literacy in the Information Age: Current
Perspectives. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Kundanis, R. M. (2003). Children, Teens, Families and Mass Media: The
Millenial Generation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Land, H. (1996). ‘The Crumbling Bridges between Childhood and Adulthood’.
In J.Brannen & M.O'Brien (Eds.), Children in Families: Research and
Policy (pp. 189-201). London: Falmer Press.
Land, R., & Butner, G. (1984). Identity. Sydney: CCH Australia Ltd.
Larkins, J., & Howard, B. (1981). The Young Australians: Australian Children
since 1788. Adelaide: Rigby Publishers.
Larson, G., Montgomery, K., & Nikoomanesh, Y., (1999). ‘Ensuring a Quality
Media Culture for Children in the Digital Age’: Centre for Media
Education Brochure.
Larson, R., Moneta, G., Richards, M., Bolmbeck, G., & Duckett, E. (1999).
Changes in Adolescents ' Daily Interactions with Their Families from
Ages 10 to 18 : Disengagement and Transformation’. In R. M. Lerner
& D. Castellino (Eds.), Adolescence: Development, Diversity and
Context. New York and London: Garland Publishing.
Larson, R. W., Wilson, S., & Mortimer, J. T. (2003). ‘Conclusions:
Adolescents Preparation for the Future’: Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 12, (1)
Layder, D. (1994). Understanding Social Theory, London: Sage
Lee, N. (2001). Childhood and Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lee, N. (2001). ‘The Extensions of Childhood’. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis
(Eds.), Children, Technology and Culture. London: Routledge.
Lerner, R., & Castellino, D. (1999). Adolescents and their Families. New York
and London: Garland Publishing.
Lewis, A., & Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching Children's Perspectives.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lewis, J. (2002). Cultural Studies: The Basics. London: Sage.
Lie, M., & Sorensen, K. H. (1996). Making Technology Our Own?:
Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life. Oslo: Scandinavian
University Press.
Lievrouw, L. A. (2002). ‘Determination and Contingency in New Media
Development: Diffusion of Innovations and Social Shaping of
370
Technology Perspectives’. In L. A. Lievrouw & S.Livingstone (Eds.),
Handbook of New Media. London: Sage Publications.
Lievrouw, L. A., & Livingstone, S. (2002). Handbook of New Media: Social
Shaping and Consequences of ICTs. London: Sage Publications.
Liley, K. (2004). ‘Getting Real: Lessons from RidgiDidge’. In K. Richmond
(Ed.), TASA 2004. La Trobe University, Beechworth: The Australian
Sociological Association.
Liley, K. (2005). ‘Book Review: Sonia Livingstone's Young People and New
Media: Childhood and the changing media environment’. Media
International Australia inc. Culture and Policy, 116, 125-126.
Liley, K. (2005). ‘Book Review: Desmond Hesmondhalgh’s The Cultural
Industries’. Journal of Sociology, 41, 218-220.
Liley, K. H. (2001). Square Eyes: What Children Do with Internet Advertising.
Unpublished Honours Dissertation, Griffith University.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Ling, R. (2004). The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone's Impact on Society.
Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Ling, R., & Haddon, L. (2003). ‘Mobile Telephony, Mobility and the
Coordination of Everyday Life’. In J. E. Katz (Ed.), Machines that
Become Us: The Social Context of Personal Communication
Technology. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Livingstone, S. (2002). Young People and New Media. London: Sage.
Livingstone, S., & Bovill, M. (2001). Children and Their Changing Media
Environment: A European Comparative Study. Mahwah: Lawrence
Ehrlbaum & Associates.
Lloyd-Smith, M., & Tarr, J. (2000). 'Researching Children's Perspectives: A
Sociological Dimension'. In A. Lewis & G. Lindsay (Eds.),
Researching Children's Perspectives (pp. 59-70). Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Lock, L. A. (1993). Is Anyone Watching? Unpublished Dissertation, Griffith
University.
Locke, K. (1996). ‘Rewriting the Discovery of Grounded Theory After 25
Years?’ Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 239-245.
Luke, C. (1999). ‘What Next? Toddler Netizens, Playstation Thumb, Technoliteracies’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Number 1.
Luke, C. (2000). ‘Buzzing Down the Off Ramps of the Information
Superhighway’. Social Alternatives, Volume 20.
Lumby, C. (1997). 'New Media/Old Fears'. In T. Newlands, & Roger, M.,
(Ed.), Children and Interactive Media: A Place to Play? (pp. 111-118).
Sydney: New College Institute for Values Research, University of New
South Wales.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcmen, J., (1999). The Social Shaping of Technology.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
371
MacLennan, G. (2003). ‘Notes for a Reading Group: A Short Introduction to
the Critical Realist Approach to Science’: The Web Site for Critical
Realism.
http://www.raggedclaws.com/criticalrealism/index.php?sitesig=WSCR.
Accessed May 2003
Mariampolski, H. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods: A Comprehensive
Guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Martin, L.H. et al (1988). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel
Foucault. London: Tavistock.pp.16-49.
Martineau, S. (1997). ‘Reconstructing Childhood: Towards a Praxis of
Inclusion’. In A. McGillivray (Ed.), Governing Childhood. Aldershot:
Dartmouth.
Masson, J. (2000). ‘Researching Children's Perspectives: Legal Issues’. In A.
Lewis & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching Children's Perspectives (pp.
34-45). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Mathews, G. (2000). Global Culture/Individual Identity. London: Routledge.
Mauss, M. (1979). Sociology and Psychology: Essays. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
McCormick, M. (2002). 'Children's Video Sales Exceptionally Strong in 2001'.
Billboard, Volume 114.
McDonald, D., G. and Hyeok, Kim (2001). 'When I Die I Feel Small:
Electronic Game Characters and the Social Self'. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Volume 45, 241-258.
McDonnell, K. (2000). Kid Culture: Children and Adults and Popular Culture:
Pluto Press.
McGillivray, A. (1997). Governing Childhood. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
McHoul, A. and Grace, W. (1995) A Foucault Primer: Discourse, power and
the subject. Victoria: Melbourne University Press. pp.vii-xi.
McQuail, D., and Windahl, Sven, (1981). Communication Models for For the
Study of Mass Communications. London: Longman.
McQuail, D. (1991). Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction. London:
Sage Publications.
McQuail, D. (1997). ‘The Audience in Communication Theory’. In D.
McQuail (Ed.), Audience Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
McRobbie, A. (1994). Postmodernism and Popular Culture. London:
Routledge.
Mead, M. (1955). 'Implications of Insight - II'. In M. Mead & M. Wolfenstein
(Eds.), Childhood in Contemporary Culture (pp. 449-461). Chicago:
Phoenix Press/Chicago UP.
Mead, M., & Wolfenstein, M. (1955). Childhood in Contemporary Culture.
Chicago: Phoenix Press/Chicago UP.
Meredyth, D., Russell, N., Blackwood, L., Thomas, J., Wise, P. (1999). Real
Time: Computers, Change and Schooling. Canberra: Australian Key
Centre for Cultural and Media Policy, DETYA.
372
MFMER (2006). ‘Hearing Loss: Mp3 players can pose risk: Mayo Foundation
for
Medical
Education
and
Research.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hearing-loss/GA00046
Accessed
January 2006
Miege, B. (1987). ‘The logics at work in the new cultural industries’. Media,
Culture and Society, 9, 273-289.
Mintz, S. (1997). ‘Review of Garth S. Jowett, Ian C. Jarvie, and Kathryn H.
Fuller, Children and the Movies: Media Influence and the Payne Fund
Controversy’:
H-Film,
H-Net
Reviews.
www.hnet.org/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=1777868897990. Accessed May
2004
Montgomery, K. (2000). Children's Media in the New Millennium: Mapping
the Digital Future: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
www.futureofchildren.org/
pubs-info2825/pubsinfo.htm?doc_id=69787. Accessed in 2004 (page no longer available).
Montgomery, K., & Pasnik, S. (2001). ‘Web of Deception: Threats to Children
from Online Marketing’, K.Montgomery, and S. Pasnik.
http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/commercialism/kids-online.html.
Accessed
March 2006.
Montgomery, K. C. (2002). ‘Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children's
Consumer Culture’, Children, young people and media globalisation.
Goteborg: UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth
and Media.
Morley, D. (1986). Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure.
Old Woking: Unwin Brothers.
Morley, D. (2005). ‘Audience Research’: The Museum of Broadcast
Communications. www.museum.tv. Accessed July 2005
Morley, D. (n/d). Reconceptualising the Media Audience: Towards an
Ethnography of Audiences. Birmingham: Centre for Contemporary
Cultural Studies, University or Birmingham.
Morley, D., & Brunsdon, C. (1999). The Nationwide Television Studies.
London: Routledge.
Morrison, M., & Krugman, D.M., (2001). 'A Look at Mass and Computer
Mediated Technologies: Understanding the Roles of Television and
Computers in the Home'. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media.
Morse, J., & Field, P. (1987). Nursing Research: The Application of
Qualitative Approaches. London: Chapman and Hall.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary
Dialogue. Newbury Park: Sage.
Morse, J. M. (1997). Completing a Qualitative Project: Details and Dialogue.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Qualitative Research Methods for Health
Professionals. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
373
Mundorf, N., & Laird, K. R. (2002). ‘Social and Psychological Effects of
Information technologies and other Interactive Media’. In J. Bryant &
D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research.
Nathanson, A., I. (2001). 'Parent and Child Perspectives on the Presence and
Meaning of Parental Television Mediation'. Journal of Broadcasting
and Electronic Media, Volume 45, 201-220.
Neopets (1999-2006). Neopets Press Kit. www.neopets.com. Accessed August
2005
Neuman, W., Lawrence (2000). Social Research Methods: Quantitative &
Qualitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Nicholls, K. (2002). ‘TV 'bad for mental health of children'’. The Advertiser
03 July 2002.
Nieuwenhuizen, J. (1997). Asleep at the Wheel: Australia on the
Superhighway. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
Nightingale, V. (1989). ‘What's 'ethnographic' about ethnographic audience
research?’ Australian Journal of Communication, 16, 50-63.
Nightingale, V. (1994). ‘Shifty Characters and Shady Relations’. Media
Information Australia, 40-44.
Nightingale, V. (1996). Studying Audiences: The Shock of the Real. London:
Routledge.
Nightingale, V. (2003). ‘The Cultural Revolution in Audience Research’. In A.
N. Valdivia (Ed.), A Companion to Media Studies. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Nightingale, V., Dickenson, D., & Griff, C. (2002). ‘Children's Views on
Media Harm’. Metro, 131/132, 212-224.
Nightingale, V., & Webster, I. (1985). Computer Users as Media Audiences.
New South Wales: Nepean College of Advanced Education.
Nixon, H. P. (1999). Creating a Clever, Computer-literate Nation: A Cultural
Study of the Media, Young People and New Technologies of
Information and Communication in Australia 1994-1998. PhD Thesis,
University of Queensland.
NOIE (2002). The Current State of Play: Australia's Scorecard. Canberra:
National Office of the Information Economy.
O'Brien, M., Aldred, P., & Jones, D. (1996). ‘Children's Constructions of
Family and Kinship. In M. Brannen and M. O'Brien (Eds.), Children in
Families: Research and Policy (pp. 84-100). London: Falmer Press.
OFLC (2005). ‘Community Assessment Panels’. Sydney: Office of Film and
Literature Classification.
O'Regan, T. (1996). Australian National Cinema. London: Routledge.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1992), ‘The Duality of Technology: rethinking the concept
of technology in organisations’, Organisation Science, 3(3): 398-427
Orlikowski, W.J. (2000). ‘Using technology and constituting structures: a
practice lens for studying technology in organizations’. Organization
Science 11.4 (July-August 2000): 404(26). Accessed April 2006
374
O'Sullivan, T., Hartley, J., Saunders, D., M.Montgomery, and J.Fiske (1994).
Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies. London:
Routledge.
Palmer, P. (1986). The Lively Audience. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Pandit, N. R. (1996). ‘The Creation of Theory: A Recent Application of
Grounded Theory Method’. The Qualitative Report, Volume 2.
Pavlik, J. V. (1998). New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial
Perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Pearn, J. H. (1984). ‘Working with Children: An Analysis of Special themes
relating to Paediatric Research’. Transactions of the Menzies
Foundation, Volume 7.
Perse, E. M. (2001). Media Effects and Society. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum & Assoc.
Petley, J. (2001). ‘Us and them’. In M. Barker & J. Petley (Eds.), Ill Effects:
The Media/Violence Debate. London: Routledge.
Pickard, A., Jane, (1998). ‘The Impact of Access to Electronic and Information
Resourses on Learning Opportunities for Young People: A Grounded
Theory Approach’: Information Research.
Pidgeon, N., & Henwood, K. (1997). ‘Using grounded theory in psychological
research’. In N. Hayes (Ed.), Doing Qualitative analyses in
Psychology. London: Psychology Press.
Pinch, T. (1988). ‘Understanding Technology’. In B. Elliot (Ed.), Technology
and Social Process. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Presss.
Pocock, B., & Clarke, J. (2004). Can't Buy Me Love: Young Australians' view
on parental work, time and guilt and their own consumption.
Melbourne: The Australia Institute.
Poole, R. (2003). ‘National Identity and Citizenship’. In L. M. Alcoff & E.
Mendieta (Eds.), Identities: Race, Class, Gender and Nationality.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Poster, M. (1995). The Second Media Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Postman, N. (1982). The Disappearance of Childhood. New York: Delacorte
Press.
Pratt, A. (1994). Uneven Re-Production. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Previte, J. (1999). 'Internet Advertising: An Assessment of Consumer
Attitudes'. Prometheus, Volume 17.
Punch, S. (2002). 'Interviewing Strategies with Young People: The 'Secret
Box', Stimulus Material and Task Based Activities'. Children &
Society, Volume 16.
Punie, Y. (1997). ‘Created or Constrained Consumption?: An Assessment of
the Demand for New Media Technologies in the Home’.
Communication Review, Volume 2, 179-205.
Qvarsell, B. (1988). ‘Children's Views on Computers - The Importance of
Affordance’. Education and Computing, 4, 223-30.
Qvortrup, J. (1992). ‘Nine Theses about 'Childhood as a Social Phenomenon'’.
In J. Qvortrup (Ed.), Childhood as a Social Phenomenon: Lessons from
375
an International Project. Billund, Denmark: European Centre for
Social Welfare Policy and Research.
Qvortrup, J. (1992). ‘Childhood as a Social Phenomenon: Lessons from an
International Project’. In European Centre for Social Welfare Policy
and Research (Ed.), Childhood as a Social Phenomenon: Lessons from
an International Project. Billund, Denmark.
Qvortrup, J. (1997). ‘A Voice for Children in Statistical and Social
Accounting: A Plea for Children's Right to be Heard’. In A. James &
A. Prout (Eds.), Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood:
Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. London:
Falmer Press.
Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M., Sgritta, S., and Wintersberger, H. (1994). Childhood
Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics. Vienna: European
Centre.
Raskin, J. D. (2002). ‘Constructivism in Psychology: Personal Construct
Psychology, Radical Constructivism and Social Constructionism’.
American Communication Journal, 5.
Richards, T. (2005). ‘Not Just a Pretty Node System: What Node Hierarchies
are all about, Why they are the heart of powerful research techniques,
and Where they can take us next’.: QSR International,
www.qsrinternational.com , Accessed September 2005.
Ribisl, K.M et al. (1996). ‘Minimising Participant Attrition in Panel Studies
through the use of effective retention and tracking strategies: Review
and Recommendations’. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19 (1), pp.
1-25
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). ‘An Ecological Perspective on
the Transition to Kindergarten: A Theoretical Framework to Guide
Empirical Research’. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
21.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U.G., Rideout, V.J., & Brodie, M., (1999). kids & media
@ the new millenium: The Kaiser Family Foundation.
Rockman, S. (1995). 'In School or Out: Technology, Equity and the Future of
our Kids'. Communications of the ACM, Volume 38.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Ross, K., & Nightingale, V. (2003). Media and Audiences: New Perspectives.
London: Open University Press.
Rousseau, J. J. (1972 (1762)). Emile or Education. London & New York: JM
Dent & Sons Ltd./EP Dutton& Co. Inc.
Rubinstein, D. (2001). Culture, Structure and Agency: Toward a truly
Multidimensional Society, Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications
Rushkoff, D. (1999). Coercion: The Persuasion Professionals and Why We
Listen to What They Say. London: Little, Brown & Company.
Ryan, R. (1982). The Second Fleet Convicts: A Comprehensive Listing of
Convicts who sailed in HMS Guardian, Lady Juliana, Neptune,
Scarborough and Surprise. Sydney: Australian Documents Library.
376
Samik-Ibrahim, R. M. (2002). 'In Emergence We Trust': Pandahuluan Metoda
Teori Beralas.
Sanson-Fisher, R. W. (2004). ‘Diffusion of Innovation Theory for Clinical
Change’. Medical Journal of Australia, 180.
Schlosser, A. E., Shavitt, S., Kanfer, A., (1999). ‘Survey of Internet Users'
Attitudes Toward Internet Advertising’. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 13.
Schneider, B. H. (1993). Children's Social Competence in Context: The
Contributions of Family, School and Culture. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Schramm, W., Lyle, J., Parker, E.B., (1961). Television in the Lives of our
Children. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Schramm, W., Roberts, D.F, (1972). The Process and Effects of
Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Sefton-Green, J. (1998). Digital Diversions: Youth Culture in the Age of
Multimedia. London: UCL Press.
Sefton-Green, J. (1999). Young People, Creativity and New Technologies:
The Challenge of Digital Arts. London: Routledge.
Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for
Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York and
London: Teachers College Press.
Seiter, E. (1988). 'Children's Desires/Mothers' Dilemmas': The Social Contexts
of Consumption'. In H. Jenkins (Ed.), The Children's Cultural Reader.
New York: New York University Press.
Seiter, E. (2000). ‘Television and the Internet’. In J. T. Caldwell (Ed.),
Theories of the New Media. London: The Althone Press.
Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., and Morey, D. (1992). Information and
Communication technologies and the Moral Economy of the
Household’ in Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in
Domestic Spaces, Roger Silverstone and Eric Hirsch, London:
Routledge
Shade, L. R. (2002). ‘Canadian Kids Online’. Transition Magazine, 32.
Sheldon, L., Ramsey, G., Loncar, M., (1994). 'Cool' or 'Gross': Children's
Attitudes to Violence, Kissing and Swearing on Television. Sydney:
Australian Broadcasting Authority.
Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2000). ‘Children and Computer
Technology: Analysis and Recommendations’. The Future of Children,
10.
Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication Rules: Theory and Research.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Shucksmith, J., & Hendry, L. B. (1998). Health Issues and Adolescents:
Growing Up, Speaking Out. London and New York: Routledge.
Sibeon, R. (1999). ‘Anti-Reductionist Sociology’, Sociology, 33 (2), pp. 317334
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing
Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage Publications.
377
Silverstone, R., & Hirsch, E. (1992). Consuming Technologies. London:
Routledge.
Skodol-Wilson, H., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1996). ‘Methodological mistakes in
grounded theory’. Nursing Research, 45, 122-124.
Smart, D., and Sanson, A. (2003). ‘Social Competence in Young Adulthood:
Its Nature and Antecedents’. Family Matters, 64, 4-9.
Smith, M.K. (1999). ‘Praxis’, Infed, http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-praxis.htm,
Accessed December 2005
Smyka, M. (1996). ‘Editor's Note: The New Literate Teen’: Kidscreen.
Solberg, A. (1996). ‘The Challenge in Child Research: From 'Being' to
'Doing'’. In J. Brannen & M. O'Brien (Eds.), Children in Families:
Research and Policy. London: Falmer Press.
Sonnet, E. (2003). ‘'Just a book', she said.': Reconfiguring Ethnography for the
Female Reader of Sexual Fiction’. In W. Brooker & D. Jermyn (Eds.),
The Audience Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the Net: Women, Power and Cyberspace.
North Melbourne: Spinifex Press.
Spiggle, S. (1994). ‘Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in
Consumer Research’. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 491.
Spratt, M. (2004). Community Attitudes Towards Classification Issues and
Consumer Advice. Sydney: Office of Film and Literature
Classification.
Squires, J. (1999). 'Developing Child/Developing Media'. The New College
Institute for Values Research and Young Media Australia, Sydney:
University of New South Wales.
Sroufe, L. A., Cooper, R. G., DeHart, G. B., and Marshall, M. E. (1996). Child
Development: Its Nature and Its Course. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stempel, G. H., III, Westley, B.H., (1981). Research Methods in Mass
Communication. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Stern, P. N. (1994). ‘Eroding Grounded Theory’. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical
Issues in Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 210-223). London: Sage.
Storey, J. (1996). Cultural Studies and the Study of Popular Culture: Theories
and Methods. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Storey, J. (1998). An Introduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture.
Athens, Georgia: Georgia UP.
Strasburger, V. C., & Wilson, B. J. (2002). Children, Adolescents and the
Media. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques
and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage
Publications.
Streubert, H. J., & Carpenter, D. R. (1995). Qualitative Research in Nursing:
Advancing the Humanistic Imperative. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott
Company.
Strinati, D. (1995). An Introduction to the Theories of Popular Culture.
London: Routledge.
378
Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut, R., Greenfield, P., & Gross, E. (2001). ‘New
Forms of Electronic Media’. In D. G. Singer and J. L. Singer (Eds.),
Handbook of children and the media. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut, R. E., Greenfield, P. M., and Gross, E. F. (2000).
‘The Impact of Home Computer Use on Children's Activities and
Development’. The Future of Children, 10.
Sweeney, C. (1981). Transported in Place of Death: Convicts in Australia.
Melbourne: MacMillan.
Sztompka, P. (1994). ‘Evolving focus on Human Agency in Contemporary
social theory’. In P. Sztompka (Ed.), Agency and Structure:
Reorienting Social Theory (pp. 25-60). Camberwell: Gordon and
Breach.
Tallon, S. (2002). ‘Kids Inc.’ The Sunday Mail 17 February 2002.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tarpley, T. (2001). ‘Children, the Internet and other new technologies’. In D.
G. Singer and J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Taylor, A. S. (2000). ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Giving
Children a Voice’. In A. Lewis & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching
Children's Perspectives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Teich, A., H. (2000). Technology and the Future. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin's.
Thomas, R. M. (2000). Comparing Theories of Child Development. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Thompson, K. (1996). Key Quotations in Sociology. London: Routledge.
Thornton, S. H. (2002). 'Let Them Eat IT: The Myth of the Global Village as
an Interactive Utopia'. ctheory, 2002.
Thurlow, C. (2002). ‘High Schoolers' Peer Orientation priorities: A Snapshot’.
Journal of Adolescence, 25, 341-349.
Timlin-Scalera, R., Ponterotto, J., Blumberg, F., & Jackson, M. (2003). ‘A
Grounded Theory Study of Help Seeking Behaviours Among White
Male High School Students’. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 50
(3), 339-350.
Trend, D. (2001). Reading Digital Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Tsao, L.-L. (2002). 'How much do we know about the importance of play in
child development?' Childhood Education, Volume 78.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Turnbull, S. (1996). Getting Connected: Gender and the Future of Online
Services in the home, Report No. 2, Melbourne: La Trobe University
Online Media Program. www.latrobe.edu.au/teloz/reports/turnbull.pdf.
Accessed December 2005
379
Turnbull, S. (1997). ‘On Looking in the Wrong Places: Port Arthur and the
Media Violence Debate’. Australian Quarterly, 69.
Turnbull, S. (2001). ‘Once More with Feeling: Talking about the media
violence debate in Australia’. In M. Barker & J. Petley (Eds.), Ill
Effects: The Media /Violence debate. London: Routledge.
Turnbull, S. (2003). ‘Teaching Buffy: the curriculum and the text in Media
Studies’. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 17, 1931.
Turner, G. (1996). British Cultural Studies: An Introduction. London:
Routledge.
Turow, J. (2002). ‘Family Boundaries, Commercialism and the Internet: A
Framework for Research’. In S. L. Calvert, A. B. Jordan & R. R.
Cocking (Eds.), Children in the Digital Age: Influences of Electronic
Media on Development. Westport: Praeger.
Tyler, D. (1993). ‘Making Better Children’. In D. Meredyth & D. Tyler (Eds.),
Child and Citizen: Geneologies of Schooling and Subjectivity.
Brisbane: Institute for Cultural Policy Studies, Faculty of Humanities,
Griffith University.
Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first
century. London: Routledge.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Cantor, J. (2002). ‘The Development of a Child into a
Consumer’. In S. L. Calvert, A. B. Jordan & R. R. Cocking (Eds.),
Children in the Digital Age: Influences of Electronic Media on
Development. Westport: Praeger.
Vromen, A. (2004). ‘Three political myths about young people’, The Drawing
Board: an Australian Review of Public Affairs: School of Economics
and Political Science, University of Sydney.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the
Digital Divide. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Wartella, E. (2002). ‘New Directions in Media Research and Media Effects on
Children’, The Eyes of the Child: The World They'll see in the 21st
Century. Melbourne: Australian Children's Television Foundation.
Wartella, E. (2002). ‘New Directions in Media Research and Media Effects on
Children’, The Eyes of the Child: What They'll See in the 21st Century.
Melbourne.
Wartella, E., & Jennings, N. (2000). 'Children & Computers: New Technology
- Old Concerns'. The Future of Children, Volume 10.
Wartella, E. A., O'Keefe, B., & Scantlin R., (2000). Children and Interactive
Media: A Compendium of Current Research and Directions for the
Future, Markle Foundation.
Wartella, E. A., O'Keefe, B., & Scantlin R., (2000). Growing Up with
Interactive Media: Markle Foundation.
380
Wartofski, M. (1981). ‘The Child's Construction of the World and the World's
Construction of the Child: From Historical Epistemology to Historical
Psychology’. In F. S. Kessel & A. W. Siegel (Eds.), The Child and
Other Cultural Inventions. New York: Praeger Special Studies.
Weber, D. (1997). ‘Opinion: The Way Kids Are: A New Breed of Kids’.
Kidscreen, 2001.
Weisman, R. X. (1999). 'Connecting with Digital Kids'. American
Demographics, Volume 21, 16-17.
Weitz, A. (1999). 'New Study finds Kids spend Equivalent of Full Week using
Media': The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation.
WGBH/Frontline (2001). ‘The Merchants of Cool’, Frontline.
Whetten, D., A. (1989). ‘What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?’
Academy of Management Review, Volume 14, 490-495.
Willis, P. (1990). Common Culture. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Wise, S. (2003). ‘Family structure, child outcomes and environmental
mediators: An overview of the Development in Diverse Families
Study’, Research Paper No. 30, January 2003: Australian Institute of
Family Studies.
Wolak, J., Kimberely, & Finkelhor, D. (2003). ‘Escaping or connecting?
Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships’. Journal
of Adolescence, 26, 105-119.
Woodhead, M., & Falkner, D. (2000). ‘Subjects, Objects, Participants?
Dilemmas of Psychological Research with Children’. In P. Christensen
& A. James (Eds.), Research with Children: Perspectives and
Practices. London: Falmer Press.
Woodhead, M., & Montgomery, H. (2003). Understanding Childhood: An
Interdisciplinary Approach. Chichester: Open University/Wiley &
Sons.
Woodward, I. (2001). ‘Domestic Objects and the Taste Epiphany: A Resource
for Consumption Methodology’. Journal of Material Culture, 6, 115136.
Woodward, I., & Emmison, M. (2001). ‘From aesthetic principles to collective
sentiments: The logics of everyday judgements of taste’. Poetics, 29.
Wyness, M. G. (2000). Contesting Childhood. London: Falmer Press.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Zelizer, V. A. (1994). Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing Social Value
of Children. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Zillman, D. (2000). ‘Influence of Unrestrained Access to Erotica on
Adolescents' and Young Adults' Dispositions Toward Sexuality’.
Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume 27S, 41-44.
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
- Isaac Newton, letter to Robert Hooke, 1676
381
382
383
8. Appendices
Table 4: Concept Definitions
Concept
Adult Community
Definition
KL: Do you have much
contact with adults outside of
your family or school, like
friend’s parents or sporting
coaches?
Example
M8: Oh yeah, my football coach Mark
yeah and my friend’s Dad, when I'm at
my friends house, we talk and stuff.
He's cool.
Advertising
KL: Do you think you're
affected by Advertising?
M8: Not really. I mean when you go
on the net there's a bit of advertising
around, and you just ignore it.
Agency
KL: Do you think you're
affected by Advertising?
Alone
KL: Is there anything that, for
example, you would only use
on your own or are there
technologies that you would
definitely not use on your own
but use in a group? Say like,
listening to music - is that a
private kind of activity for you
while you're on your
computer?
KL: What's your attitude to
school?
M1: I'd say a little but I'd still make my
own choice about it - whether to use
that product or buy it or not.
M4: Well if a friend comes over I'll just
put on some music or go on the
internet or something like that. It's
more like a group thing but not too
many people - like two or three max.
Attitude to School
Barriers to socialisation
M8 asked what his
socialisation with friends
depends on.
Books
Participants mention books
as part of their media
consumption
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
KL: Do you think you've
changed your media
consumption since your last
media diary?
Burned Game CD's
Cable
Change
Cinema
Direct and volunteered
responses
384
M5: Yes its good
I get to seem my friends and that.
KL: So it's a social opportunity?
M5: Yep
M8: I just moved house to Chandler at
the moment, and that's a fair way
away form where these guys are now.
We used to live fairly close, just down
the road and stuff.
M7: Yes, definitely.
Unfortunately…the TV. I've been
grounded. Not very good grades. I've
been grounded from the TV, so I'm
not staying awake for very long
watching TV all night so that's a bit of
a bummer.
Co-media activity
Communication
Competition
Refers to multitasking like
watching television and
eating or talking, listening to a
CD and being on the
computer.
Talking and discussion about
technology.
How do you feel when you
play with someone else? Are
you in competition with them?
M6: yes
Consideration to family
KL: Is there any sort of
technology that you haven't
got at the moment but that
you would like to get?
M8: I haven't got a DVD player. Well
in a sense I do, it's my PlayStation 2,
but it's not really downstairs with the
TV for everyone to enjoy.
Consumption
Indication of material
consumption
KL: Have you ever discussed
buying new pieces of
technology like a DVD or
software with friends?
Cooperation
KL: Do you have chores to
do?
M8: Yeah, X has a DVD. I just go my
friends and we talk about it. See my
friend, he bought like a game on a PS
system but he got bored with it so he
got an Xbox for Christmas and, pretty
lucky hey, and pretty much everybody
wants and Xbox and it comes with the
one game 'Halo'. It's a really big seller
game, like 3 million copies sold. It
came out mid last year.
F7: Yes we take turns in cooking
dinner and washing up.
Criticism
Direct criticism of adults in
relation to childhood obesity
debate
Reference to burned CD’s
and thoughts about whether
DP is a ‘bad’ thing
Response to being asked
what they thought about the
childhood obesity debate.
Responses indicate other
young people susceptible to
advertising, media effects.
Direct and volunteered
responses
KL: Do you think you'll have
much time to play games and
socialise over the holidays?
Digital Piracy
Displacement
Downloaded Music
Drinking
DVD's
Education
Environment
Direct and volunteered
responses
KL: So are you finding that
[using the internet means]
you're able to do a lot more
schoolwork?
Response to the question of
Christmas and Christmas
holidays
385
M2: Well it's most probably because
kids are just always on computers and
stuff like that all day and not going out
for fresh air and sunlight and exercise.
They're probably not eating right or
looking after themselves.
M2: Yeah. Well, I suppose because
I'm grade 10, like, we had our semi a
while ago and everyone got drunk. So
I suppose I'll be doing a bit of that
over the holidays as well. A little bit of
drinking. I don't know.
M8: Oh yeah. Get higher grades.
Sometimes I download music too. It's
pretty fun.
F6: I'd like to have my room painted.
Like, my whole room designed the
way I like it because it seems like a
baby room because it's all pink.
Family
Fluid Tastes
Friends
Game CD's
Game Playing
Games
Happiness
Human Interaction
Internet
LAN-MUD Games
Media
Media Influence
Media Literacy
Media Production
Music CD's
NMT
Outside friends
Parental Control
All discussion concerning
family (direct response and
volunteered information)
KL: Who are your favourite
artists at the moment?
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
KL: So you would prefer to
speak to someone than have
a conversation by phone?
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses about disks,
books, news, games
Participant perception of how
they are influenced by media
Direct and volunteered
responses about how
participant perceives media
Direct and volunteered
responses about creating
media (does not include CD
burning)
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses about upgrading
or desire for the new or the
latest
Direct and volunteered
responses about friends
outside Wynnum SSHS
Direct and volunteered
responses
386
M7: I don't really have a favourite
artist. I kinda like, I've always like, I've
never had a favourite one I've always
just like changed over and I've never
had a favourite. It's like I'm a bit of a
mix.
F3: Yeah, most of the time
KL: Which search engine do you use?
M8: Google.com. It's a pretty popular
one. If you're looking for something in
particular, like say a history thing, it
wouldn't come up with that. It would
come up with something else. A
couple of years ago it probably would
because there wasn't as much things
there back then. It really depends.
You've got to know what you're
looking for though.
Perceived influences
Perceptions of Childhood
Perceptions of NMT
Personal Economics
Phones
Piercing
Planning
Pleasure
Ratings
Research difficulties
Self-management
Self-Reflexivity
Smarts
Social Conscience
Social Responsibility
Sole Parental Practice
Sport and Recreation
Talk
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
Participant asked about plans
for the Christmas break
Direct and volunteered
responses
One volunteered response
KL: Have you got any
activities or plans for over the
Christmas holidays?
F3 in particular enjoys
reading more than media
technology use and spends a
great deal of time reading for
pleasure.
Direct and volunteered
responses
Included as an articulation of
some of the difficulties with
field research.
KL: Do you take [your phone]
with you everywhere?
Direct and volunteered
responses
This concept emerged in
relation to participants
displaying complex thought
processes
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
KL: And what sort of things
will you do down in
Melbourne with your dad?
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses about who and
when participants talk to
others
387
M8: Sort of, just have a good holiday,
and maybe get a job. I don't know. I'm
not old enough yet. I'm 14 and 9
months next July but hopefully I could
over the holidays just earn some
money and to do whatever I want with
my friends like go down to the
computer shop or something.
M2: Well no I don't usually plan things.
It just happens normally.
KL: So what would be your favourite
thing to do?
F3: Reading. It sounds really dumb,
but I've just finished the Bourne
Identity
KL: I haven't got your media Diary.
M6: I know! I keep forgetting to bring
it!
M2: Not really I used to take it school,
I only got it this year, but now I'm just
limiting myself, so I only take it out on
the weekends and stuff.
Aware of marketing strategies
Value for money sought in technology
consumption
F6 actively involved with fundraising
KL: Do you think burning CD's should
be against the law?
M2: It really depends, like music CD’s
I reckon that's okay like it's all stealing
pretty much but like music companies
are multi-million dollar corporations.
F3: Probably just go to the movies
and hang around at his house
Teaching Skills
Technology location
Technological knowledge
Texting
Travel
TV
Work
Young person’s life world
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses about specialised
knowledge
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses about travel to see
family
Direct and volunteered
responses
Direct and volunteered
responses
Participants asked how they
feel in relation to adults.
388
Internet and computer mainly located
in family/spare room
M6: We don't have a chipped Play
Station.
KL: Do you find [texting] more
convenient?
M2: It's cheaper like than actually
calling someone especially during the
day.
M8: Yeah I feel like they're [adults] a
part of us and, you know, you can ask
them questions if you need help and
stuff, and all that. And there is a
difference between us because my
Mum, she doesn't know anything
about computers and stuff. So I'm like
‘Hey’ but that's alright.
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
F1 F3 F4 F7
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M9
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
(F8 had originally mistaken Public
TV for HDTV)
F8
M3 M5 M8
F1 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M6 M7 M8 M9
F2 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
F2
F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
F3
M1 M6 M8
F3 F4 F7
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8
F1 F2 F3 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8
F2 F8
M1 M6
M3: Tape Walkman & Game Boy
M7: Tape
CD Player
CD Walkman
Public Television
HDTV
Cable
Video
DVD
Computer
Laptop
Internet connection
CD ROM Burner
Games System
Mobile Phone
Palm Pilot/
Digital Organiser
Other
2
4
13
10
4
12
1
12
14
13
4
0
15
11
15
M5
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
F3 F4
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
F3
M1
F3
M1 M2 M5 M8
M5
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M5 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
M3 M5 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
Participant Response
Total
15
Participant Response
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
Stage 2
Stage 1
Radio
Media
0
1
8
7
2
5
1
7
7
8
3
0
8
8
8
8
Total
1. Tick the media technologies you have in your home (You can tick more than one box)
Data Tables
M1
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8
F3 F4
M1 M2 M8 M9
F3 F4
M1 M8 M9
F3 F4
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8
F6
M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M4 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
Participant Response
Stage 3
Total
0
1
7
6
5
7
0
8
8
8
2
0
8
8
8
8
F8
M6 M7
F8
M7
F2
DVD
Computer
Laptop
0
5
M1 M2 M5 M6
F6
F1 F2 F3 F8
M1 M6
F2 F8
M1
M3: Tape Walkman & Gameboy
M7: Tape
CD ROM Burner
Games System
Mobile Phone
Palm Pilot/
Digital Organiser
Other
2
3
6
0
Internet connection
1
2
3
2
F3
M3
Video
9
0
F3 F6 F8
M1 M5 M6 M7 M9
Public Television
9
Cable
F1 F4 F7
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7
CD Walkman
13
0
F1 F2 F3 F4F6 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M9
CD Player
14
HDTV
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M9
M5
F4
M3
M1 M5
M8
M5
M1 M5
F3 F6
M1 M5 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M3 M5 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
Participant Response
Participant Response
Total
Stage 2
Stage 1
Radio
Media
2. What media technology do you have in your room? (You can tick more than one box)
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
5
7
7
8
Total
M1
F3 F4 F6
M4 M8
M1 M8 M9
M4
M4 M8
M8
M1
F3
M1 M8 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M4 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M4 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
Participant Response
Stage 3
0
1
5
3
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
4
6
6
8
Total
M7 F8 M8
F1
No
Don’t Know
1
3
M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5
Participant Response
11
Total
Participant Response
F2 F3 F4 F6 F7
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M9
Yes
Stage 2
M3
F6
M3 M5 M8
F4 M5 M8
M1 M3
Stage 1
4. Do your parents/guardians use a computer at work?
2
Other
M7: Housemate
F6:Brother’s friend
0
Sister/s
2
Brother/s
F6 M8
0
Grandparent
5
Step-Father
F3 F4 F8
M5 M8
0
4
Step-Mother
M1 M3 M6 M9
Father
F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
Participant Response
15
Total
Participant Response
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
Stage 2
Stage 1
Mother
Relative
3. Whom do you live with (people over 18 years of age)? (You can tick more than one box)
0
1
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
7
Total
Total
7
M4 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M9
Participant Response
Stage 3
F6
M8
F3 F4
M4 M8
M1 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
Participant Response
Stage 3
Total
0
2
6
Total
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
7
12
F3 F6
M1 M2 M3 M8
F2 F6
M1 M5 M7 M8 M9
F1
M3
No
I do not have a
computer at home
2
7
6
M3
F6
M1 M5 M8
F3 F4
M2
1
4
3
Total
6
2
Total
F6
M1 M4 M8 M9
F3 F4
M2
Participant Response
Stage 3
F3 F4 F6
M1 M4 M8 M9
M2
Participant Response
Stage 3
I don’t play computer
games/systems
No
Yes
1
7
F3 F6
M1 M5 M8
F4
Participant Response
M2 M3
Participant Response
F7 F8
M2 M3 M6
F4 F6
M1 M5 M7 M8 M9
F1
Total
5
Stage 2
Stage 1
1
5
Total
2
Participant Response
F3
M2
F4 F6
M1 M4 M8 M9
Stage 3
7. Do your parents/guardians have rules about how much time you spend playing computer games/games systems?
F3 F4 F7 F8
M2 M6
Yes
Participant Response
Participant Response
Total
Stage 2
Stage 1
6. Do your parents/guardians have rules about how much time you spend on a home computer?
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6 F7
M1 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
No
F4 M5
Participant Response
3
Total
Participant Response
F8
M2 M3
Yes
Stage 2
Stage 1
5. Do your parents/guardians have rules about how much television you watch?
0
6
Total
2
0
5
3
Total
7
1
Total
Other
At relation’s house
At the Library
At a friend’s house
At home
F2
M3
F8, M6: School
M7: Housemate’s room
2
2
1
2
F4, F6: school
M3
Participant Response
F3 F4
M1 M2 M5 M8
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M5 M6 M8 M9
F1
M3
M3 M6
Total
11
Stage 2
Stage 1
9. Where do you mainly use the Internet?
F3
No
1
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
Participant Response
F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
Yes
Total
14
Stage 2
Stage 1
8. Do you use the Internet?
2
0
1
0
Total
6
0
Total
8
F6: School
F6
Participant Response
F3 F4
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
F4 F6
Stage 3
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
Stage 3
1
0
1
2
Total
7
0
Total
8
F8
M1 M2 M6
M2, M6: Ring tones
M7: Cheats
F3: MSN Messenger
F7: Music clips
MP3 files
Other
‘Net Surfing
Games (MUD’s)
Chat Rooms
News Groups
F1 F4 F8
M1 M2 M3 M6
F2 F4 F6 F7 F8
M2 M3 M6 M7 M8 M9
F1 F2 F7
M1 M2 M5 M6 M9
F7 F8
M1 M3 M5 M6
F7 F8
M1 M2 M6
M6
Research (hobbies)
Information Gathering
12
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6
Research (School)
5
4
8
11
7
1
5
6
0
F6: sound and game sites
F3
M1 M2 M5
F3 F4
M1 M2
F3 F4
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
F3 F4
M1 M5
M1
M1 M3 M5
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M5 M8
M5
Total
12
Participant Response
F1 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M6 M8 M9
On-line shopping
E-mail
Stage 2
Stage 1
10. What do you mainly use the Internet for?
0
4
4
8
4
0
1
3
8
0
Total
7
F3
F4
M1 M9
F3
M1 M2 M8
F6
M1
M1 M2
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2
Stage 3
0
1
3
1
3
0
2
2
6
0
Total
5
Stage 1
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6F8
M1 M3 M7 M6 M9
11
W/D
W/D
ChannelV.com, Bored.com, Hotmail.com
Stupid.com, hotmail.com, dolzmania.com
Neopets.com,cartoonnetwork.com, hotmail.com
W/D
W/D
Hotmail.com, ninemsn.com, clubbrugge.be
ChannelV.com, Take40.com, freearcade.com
Nrl.com, stickdeath.com
N/R
Ebay.com
W/D
W/D
Google.com
W/D
Stage 2
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
Participant Response
Participant Response
M5M8
Total
1
Stage 2
Stage 1
Do you have one or more favourite websites?
F1
Girlfriend.com
F2
Bubblegumclub.com
F3
Neopets.com, rove.com, bored.com
F4
Stupid.com
F6
Neopets.com
F7
Bubblegumclub.com
F8
Girlfriend.com, neopets.com, ninemsn.com/dolly
M1
Fifa.com
M2
Electrotank.com, freearcade.com
M3
Nrl.com, kingsofchaos.com, stickdeath.com
M4
N/R
M5
N/R
M6
Miniclips, mrtones
M7
Tellitubbiesmercykilling.com
M8
N/R
M9
Birch.com.au, xbox.com
N/R = No Response W/D = Withdrawn
Yes
No
11.
8
Total
0
7
Total
1
W/D
W/D
Hotmail.com,weebls-stuff.com, spacerunner.com
Google.com. weenles-stuff.com, hotmail.com
Hotmail.com, girlfriend.com, take40.com
W/D
W/D
google.com, ninemsn.com, clubbrugge.be
Take 40, ChannelV
W/D
N/R
W/D
W/D
W/D
Google.com
Google.com, xbox.com, thesimpsons.com
Stage 3
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M8 M9
Participant Response
M4
Stage 3
F3 F4 F6 F7
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8
F1
M3 M6
M9: Family
Rent
Own
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6 F7
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
0
Stage 2
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
M3
Stage1
Total
12
1
3
11
Participant Response
Participant Response
14. Do you own or rent this games system?
Other
At a friend’s house
At home
Stage 2
Stage1
Total
2
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
Total
13
Participant Response
F1 F2 F3 F6 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
F8 F2
13. Where do you play on a games system?
No
Yes
Stage 2
Stage1
12. Do you play on a games system (like PlayStation, X Box)?
0
Total
8
0
1
8
Total
0
Total
8
Participant Response
F3 F4
M1 M2 M8 M9
Stage 3
F3 F4
M1 M2 M8 M9
Participant Response
Stage 3
Participant Response
F3 F4
M1 M2 M8 M9
F6
M4
Stage 3
0
Total
6
0
0
6
Total
2
Total
6
M1 M2 M3
M1 M2 M3 M6 M8
F6
F3 F4 F7
M1 M2 M3 M7
M9
M3: Super Nintendo, Gameboy
M6:Gameboy
PlayStation
PlayStation 2
Sega
Other
Nintendo
M5
2
1
7
6
3
1
M1: Gameboy
F6
M1 M2 M3 M8
F3 F4
M2 M3
M1 M2 M3
M5
Participant Response
Total
0
Participant Response
X Box
Game Cube
Stage 2
Stage1
15. Which Games System do you play?
1
0
4
5
3
1
Total
0
F3 F4
M1 M2 M8
M1 M2
M1 M9
Participant Response
Stage 3
0
0
0
5
2
2
Total
0
0
0
Other
3
Brother
Sister
0
Grandparent
M1 M6
F6
0
Step Father-
5
7
0
F3 F4 F7
M1 M2 M5 M7
F4
M1 M2 M3 M9
F6
M1
F3 F4
M1 M2 M5
F4
M1 M2 M3
Participant Response
M1 M2 M8
Total
4
Participant Response
M2 M1 M3 M8
Step-Mother
Father
Mother
I did
Stage 2
Stage1
16. Who bought this system?
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
5
Total
3
M1: Won X-Box
M1
F4
F3 F4
M1 M2
M1 M2 M9
Participant Response
M1 M2 M8
Stage 3
1
0
1
0
1
0
3
4
Total
3
Age of Empire I & II, Pinball
Mariocart, Zelda: Ocarna of Time, Tekken 3,
Grand Turismo
GTA 3, Red Faction,
Need for Speed (Hot Pursuit 2)
Unreal Tournament, GTA, Time Splitters
F6
F7
The Simm's Deluxe/Hot date, GTA Vice City, Empire Earth
Diablo 2, Soldier of Fortune, Unreal Tournament
Final Fantasy X, Red Faction II, Vampire Night
Halo, Mech Assault, Flight Simulator (Microsoft)
M6
M7
M8
M9
M5
GTA (Race City), Grand Turismo,
Tony Hawks 4
V8 Supercars, Halo, Tony Hawks Pro Skater 3
M3
M2
M1
F4
Grand Theft Auto 3, The Sim’s: Livin’ Large,
Who Wants to be a Millionaire
Simms’, Encarta, Cosmopolitan Virtual Makeover
Stage 1
Anything
F3
F1
17. What are your favourite games/software?
No response
No response
No response
No response
True Crime: Streets of LA, V8 Supercars, AFL 2003
GTA Vice City, GTA 3, Madden 2001
Tekken Tag Tournament
GTA Vice City, Tekken 4, GTA 3
No response
No response
No response
Mat Hoffman Pro BMX, The Simms
Stage 2
No response
V8 Supercars, GTA
'shoot 'em up games'
No response
No response
No response
No response
Unreal Tournament
GTA Vice City, Need for Speed Underground, V8 Supercars II
No response
No response
Simpson's Road Rage, Virtual Tennis 2, Dancing Stage Mega Mix
Eye-Toy, The Simpson's Road Rage
Stage 3
No response
0
5
F6 M5
Participant Response
F3
M1 M2 M3 M8
F4
Total
8
Participant Response
F1 F3
M1 M2 M3 M6 M7 M8
F4 F6 F7
M5 M9
Other
Mobile Phone/WAP
Magazine
Newspaper
F4: Friends
F6 : School discussion
M8: Mother
F1 F2 F4 F6 F7 F8
M3 M6
F3 M6
3
2
8
9
6
Internet
F4 F6 F7
M1 M3 M6
F1 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M3 M7 M9
0
2
14
F1 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M3 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
M3 M5
F4: Friends
F6: Radio
F3 F6
M1 M5
F3 F6
M1 M5
M1 M2
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
M3
Participant Response
Total
0
Participant Response
HDTV
Cable TV
I am not interested in
news
Public Television
Stage 2
Stage1
19. Where do you get your News (You can tick more than one box)
No response
No
Yes
Stage 2
Stage1
2
1
Total
5
2
0
4
4
2
0
1
8
Total
0
F4: Friends
F6: Friends and family
F4 F6
M9
F3 F4
F4 F6
M1 M2 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
M9
Participant Response
Stage 3
Participant Response
F3
M1 M2 M8
F4 M9
Stage 3
0
2
Total
4
2
2
3
6
5
0
1
8
Total
0
18. Have you ever used ‘pirate’ software or software copied from a friend? (Answering this question is optional and remember that all your answers are
strictly confidential)
1
Rarely
No
Yes
Participant Response
F4
M2 M3
F6
M1 M5 M8
Participant Response
F1 F2 F3 F8
M2 M6
F4 F6 F7
M1 M8
5
Stage 2
Stage1
Total
6
4
Participant Response
F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5
F3 M8
Participant Response
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M6 M8
M3 M5 M7 M9
22. Is this your personal telephone?
No
Yes
Stage 2
M5
Stage1
Total
11
0
Occasionally
21. Do you use a mobile phone?
0
Once a week
F2
0
6
Participant Response
F3 F6
M1 M3
F4
M2
M8
Total
6
Participant Response
F1 F3 F7 F8
M1 M3
M2 M6 M7 M8 M9
F6
A few days a week
Most days
Everyday
Stage 2
Stage1
20. How often do you get your News?
4
Total
3
2
Total
6
1
1
2
Total
4
Participant Response
F3 F4
M4 M8
F6
Stage 3
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6
M4 M8
M1 M2 M9
Stage 3
Participant Response
F3 F6
M1 M9
F4
M2 M4
M8
Stage 3
1
Total
4
3
Total
5
0
0
0
1
3
Total
4
Other
Receiving Text
Messages
Games
Sending Text Messages
Receiving Calls
Calling Friends
In case of emergency
I do not have a mobile
Phone
F3: News
F4: Pick up call
F6: calling family
F7: answer phone
F8: mobile phone book
F2 F6 F7 F8
M2 M6
F3 F7 F8
M2 M6
F2 F3 F6 F8
M2 M6
F1 F2 F3 F8
M2 M6
F1 F2 F3 F6 F8
M2 M6
F1 F2
5
2
7
6
6
5
6
F4 F6
M1 M2
F4
M2 M3
F4 F6
M2 M3
F4 M3
F4 F6
M1 M2 M3
F4 F6
Participant Response
M5 M8
Participant Response
F8
M1 M3 M7 M8
Total
5
Stage 2
Stage1
23. What do you mainly use a mobile phone for? (You can tick more than one box)
0
2
4
3
4
2
5
Total
2
F6: Use up credit
F3 F4
M4 M8
F3 F4
M4
F3 F4
M4
F3
F3 F4
M8
F4
Participant Response
Stage 3
1
1
3
3
4
1
3
Total
0
F1 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M6 M8 M9
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M6 M7 M8 M9
F3 F4 F6
M6 M9
F1 F8
F7: Chat rooms
M3: Listening to Music, playing with
dogs and family
F6:Sleepover Parties
M6: playing games, hand ball, riding
Watching TV/Videos
Going to the movies
Reading
Shopping
Other
Using a computer
F1 F2 F3 F4 F6 F7 F8
M1 M2 M6 M8
F3 F4 F7
M1 M6 M8 M9
F3
F6: Pets and Family
4
F3 F6
M5
F3 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M5 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M8
2
5
13
10
7
11
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M3 M5 M8
Total
11
Participant Response
F1 F2 F3 F4 F7 F8
M1 M2 M5 M8 M9
Catching up with friends
Playing Sport
Stage 2
Stage1
24. What are you favourite activities outside school? (You can tick more than one box)
1
1
3
6
6
5
8
Total
8
F6: Hanging out at home
F3 F4 F6
M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M9
F3 F4 F6
M1 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8
F3 F4 F6
M1 M4 M8 M9
Participant Response
F3 F4 F6
M1 M2 M4 M8 M9
Stage 3
1
0
4
7
5
7
7
Total
8
M1 M3 M7
F2 F3 F4
F6
M3 M5 M7
M9
F3 F4
F1 F3
M1 M2 M3
M5 M6 M8
F1 F2 F8
M1 M3 M5
M5 M6
Catching up with
Friends
Using a computer
Going to the
Movies
Reading
Other
Watching
TV/Videos
F3 F4 F6
F7
M7
Playing Sport
F1 F7
M3
F3 F4 M6
F2 F6 F8
M7
M8
F7
M1 M6
F2 F3
M8
F2 F8
M2 M9
M7 M9
F6
F6 F7 F8
M8
F1F6
M5 M6
F1
M1 M8
M1
F1
M1 M3 M4
M5 M6 M9
F4 F7 F8
M2
M3 M5
6+hrs
M1 M2
F3 F4 F6
M1 M3 M5
F4 F6
M3
M1 M5
F3 F4 F6
M5 M8
1-2+hrs
5-6+hrs
1-2+hrs
3-4+ hrs
Stage 2
Stage 1
M1:
Homework
M3 M5
F3
M2 M5 M8
F3 M8
F3 F4
M2 M3
M1 M2
3-4+ hrs
25. How many hours each week would you spend on activities outside school?
M5
F3 F6
M2
F4 F6
M1 M2
F6 M8
5-6+hrs
M2
F4
M1 M3
M3
6+hrs
M1 M2
F4 F6
M1 M2 M4
F3
F3 F4 F6
M8
F3 F6
M4
1-2+hrs
Stage 3
M2
F3
M1 M2 M4
M8
F4 F6
M1 M4 M8
M1
F4 M2
3-4+ hrs
F3 F6
F3 F4 F6
M2
M1
5-6+hrs
F4 F6
M9
M9
M9
M2 M4
M8 M9
6+hrs
RidgiDidge Information Form
Dear Parent/Guardian
High school students in The Redlands are invited to participate in this study which
looks at the role new media technology plays in Australian adolescent life.
This study will track changes in the uses of, and attitudes towards, the new technologies
available to students in terms one and three of 2003 and in term one of 2004.
Students participating in the research will be asked to:
Keep a media diary for one week in terms one and three, 2003 and in term one, 2004,
and;
Take part in an individual 15-minute interview on school premises, during school hours,
about the role new media plays in their home life in terms one and three, 2003 and in
term one, 2004.
Student interviews will be videotaped in the interests of accurately recording student
comments and any personal details gathered in the course of this research will be strictly
confidential and will not be for publication.
A summary of the study results will be made available to participants and their families
at the conclusion of the research.
While this research is not part of normal student activity, those students who participate
in this research will benefit from understanding the role technology plays in their lives
over a period of time.
Griffith University requires that all participants are informed that any complaints
concerning the manner or execution of this research can be referred to the researcher, or,
if an independent person is preferred, either The University Ethics Officer, Office for
Research, Bray Centre, Griffith University, Kessels Road, Nathan QLD 4111, telephone
(07) 3875 6618; or, The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Administration), Bray Centre, Griffith
University, Kessels Road, Nathan QLD 4111, telephone (07) 3875 7343.
Please return the attached consent form to your child’s teacher.
Thank you in anticipation of you and your child’s assistance with this research.
Yours sincerely
Kate Liley
For further information about this study, contact:
Wendy Keys (Principal Supervisor), [email protected], (07) 3875 7770
Kate Liley (PhD Candidate), [email protected], (07) 3286 7376
RidgiDidge Consent Form
This study looks at the role new media technology plays in the lives of Redland’s High
School Students.
Participation is voluntary.
While this research is not part of normal student activity, students who participate will
benefit from understanding how new media might shape their lives.
Any personal details gathered during the course of this study will be held in the strictest
confidence and are not for publication.
A summary of results will be made available to study participants and their families at
the conclusion of the study.
You will be asked for your consent again in 2003 at the next research window and again
in 2004.
I have read the Information sheet and Consent form. I agree to allow my child to
participate in the RidgiDidge Study and give my consent freely.
I understand that the study will be carried out as described on the information statement,
a copy of which I have retained.
I understand that I can withdraw my consent at any time, for any reason, without
penalty.
Student’s Name:
Class:
Teacher:
I give consent for my child to (please tick%):
%
Complete the 7-day media diary and to be individually interviewed once each
year for the next three years.
%
I do not consent to my child’s participation in this study
Parent/Guardian’s signature:
Covering Letter to Schools
Dear Mr XXXXX,
PhD Study Request
RidgiDidge: A Study of New Media Use among
Australian High School Students
I am a Griffith University PhD Candidate researching the impact of new media
technology in the lives of Australian High School children.
The purpose of this letter is to request your permission to conduct a study among
students with parental consent from Years 8, 9 and 10, in school terms one and three in
2003, and in term one, 2004.
Australian families are acknowledged as the most rapid adopters of new technology in
the world, incorporating technologies such as the Internet and the mobile phone into
their everyday lives.
Recent studies suggest that these technologies have encouraged users to develop
personal traits such as openness, curiosity and assertiveness.
Should you agree to XXXXXXX State High School participation in this study, the
research will commence in term one, 2003 and be conducted in two parts with
consented students completing a media diary over a seven-day period as well as
participating in a short individual interview.
This process is repeated with the same students, re-consented, in term three, 2003, and
in term one, 2004. Completion of the media diary is not expected to take more than 5
minutes of the consented student’s time each day over seven days, and the interview is
expected to last no more than 15 minutes.
The Griffith University Ethics Committee has approved the RidgiDidge research
proposal dependant upon your written approval (Ethics Committee approval number
FMC/02/02/hec). This approval provides the assurance that student participants, and the
personal data they provide, will be treated according to Griffith University’s stringent
ethical and academic protocols.
It is expected that the RidgiDidge study would have a negligible impact on the normal
school activity of students and teaching staff with the study results being made available
to the school, student participants and their families.
A condensed review of the literature and a select bibliography are attached to this letter,
with the Parent/Student Information and Consent form and ‘RidgiDidge’ media diary
enclosed for your perusal.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries about this study.
I thank you in anticipation of your consideration in this matter.
Yours Sincerely
Kate Liley (PhD Candidate)
Media Diary Cover
Media Diary Questionnaire Pages
About this Media Diary
The information you enter in this media diary will help to build a picture
of the role new media plays in the lives of high school students in the Redlands.
While discussions of youth and media culture tend to focus on content issues like
violence on television, the effects of new media technology itself is yet to be
determined.
Recent studies suggest that new media like the mobile telephone and the Internet have
encouraged new media users to develop personal traits such as openness, curiosity and
assertiveness (Luke, 1999; Morrison & Krugman, 2001).
This study will look at the effect of new media technology on Australian youth culture
and how that effect might change over time.
This is not a test and your answers will be kept private.
Please seal your completed media diary in the envelope provided and give it to your
teacher for collection.
Thank you for your assistance in this study.
Kate Liley
PhD Candidate
The following details will be held in the strictest confidence
Name:
Date of Birth:
Address:
Contact
Number:
Alternative Contact details (optional)
Enter the contact details of a family member who does not live with you (like an
Aunt/Uncle or Grandparent).
This is so you can be reached if you change schools or move house before Term 1 in
2004.
The person you nominate will be contacted by post to inform them of their alternative
contact status.
Name:
Relationship
to you:
Postal Address:
Contact
Number:
About Your Media Technology
1. Tick the media technologies you have in your home
(You can tick more than one box)
Radio
CD Player
CD Walkman
Public Television
&
&
&
(ABC, SBS, Channels 7,9 & 10)
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
High Definition Television (HDTV)
Cable Television (Optus, Foxtel etc.)
Video Recorder
DVD Player
Computer (PC or Mac)
Laptop
Internet Connection
CD-ROM Burner
Games System
&
(PlayStation/X-box/GameCube/Dreamcast etc)
Mobile Phone
Palm Pilot/ Digital Organiser
Other
&
&
&(please specify)
2. What media technology do you have in your room?
(You can tick more than one box)
Radio
CD Player
CD Walkman
Public Television
&
&
&
(ABC, SBS, Channels 7,9 & 10)
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
High Definition Television (HDTV)
Cable Television (Optus, Foxtel etc.)
Video Recorder
DVD Player
Computer (PC or Mac)
Laptop
Internet Connection
CD-ROM Burner
Games System
(PlayStation, X-box etc)
Mobile Phone
Palm Pilot/ Digital Organiser
Other
&
&
&
&(please specify)
About Your Family and Household Rules
3. Who do you live with (people over 18 years of age)?
(You can tick more than one box)
Mother
Father
Step-Mother
Step-Father
Grandparent
Brother/s
Sister/s
Other
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&(please specify)
4. Do your parents/guardians use a computer at work?
Yes
No
Don’t Know
&
&
&
5. Do your parents/guardians have rules about how much television you watch?
Yes
No
&
&
6. Do your parents/guardians have rules about how much time you spend on a
home computer?
Yes
&
No
&
I do not have a computer at home &
7. Do your parents/guardians have rules about how much time you spend
playing computer games/games systems?
Yes
&
No
&
I don’t play computer games/systems &
About your Internet Use
8. Do you use the Internet?
Yes
No
&
& (Go to Question 12)
9. Where do you mainly use the Internet?
At home
At a friend’s house
At the Library
At a relations house
Other
&
&
&
&
&(please specify)
10. What do you mainly use the Internet for?
(You can tick more than one box)
E-mail
On-line Shopping
Research for school projects
Research for hobbies
Information gathering
(daily news, horoscope, weather
News groups
Chat rooms
Games (Multi-User Domains)
‘Net surfing
MP3 files
Other
&
&
&
&
etc.)
&
&
&
&
&
&
&(please specify)
11. Do you have one or more favourite websites?
No
Yes
&
& (please specify)
www.
www.
www.
About Game Playing
12. Do you play on a games system (like PlayStation, X Box)?
Yes
No
&
&(Go to Question 19)
13. Where do you play on a games system?
At home
At a friend’s house
Other
&
&(Go to Question 17)
&(please specify)
14. Do you own or rent this games system?
Own
Rent
&
& (Go to Question 17)
15. Which Games System do you play?
Game Cube
X Box
PlayStation
PlayStation 2
Nintendo
Sega
Other
&
&
&
&
&
&
& (Please Specify)
16. Who bought this system?
I did
Mother
Father
Step-Father
Step-Mother
Grandparent
Brother
Sister
Other
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& (please specify)
17. What are your favourite games/software?
1. ______________________________________________________
2. _______________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________
18. Have you ever used ‘pirate’ software or software copied from a
friend? (Answering this question is optional and remember that all your answers are strictly confidential).
Yes
No
&
&
About your News and Information
19. Where do you get your News from? (You can tick more than one box)
I am not interested in the news
Public Television
Cable TV
HDTV
Internet
Newpaper
Magazine
Mobile Phone/WAP
Other
& (Go to Question 21)
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
& (please specify)
20. How often do you get your News?
Everyday
Most days
A few days a week
Once a week
Occasionally
Rarely
&
&
&
&
&
&
21. Do you use a mobile phone?
Yes
No
&
&
(Go to Question 24)
22. Is this your personal phone?
Yes
No
&
&
23. What do you mainly use a mobile phone for?
(You can tick more than one box)
&
I do not have a mobile phone
In case of an Emergency
Calling friends
Receiving calls
Sending text messages
Receiving text messages
Other
&
&
&
&
&
&
(please specify)
About your Recreation
24. What are you favourite activities outside school?
(you can tick more than one box)
&
&
&
&
&
&
&(please specify)
Playing Sport
Catching up with friends
Using a computer
Watching TV/Videos
Going to the movies
Reading
Other
25. How many hours each week would you spend on activities outside school?
(you can tick more than one activity)
1-2+ hours
Playing Sport
Catching up with friends
Using a computer
Watching TV/Videos
Going to the movies
Reading
Other
3-4+ hours
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
5-6+hours
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
6+hours
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
Media Diary Sample Journal Pages
Interview Aid