Refamilisation in the broadband society – the effects of ICTs on family solidarity in Finland

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Refamilisation in the broadband society – the effects of ICTs on family solidarity in Finland © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published version Hänninen, Riitta; Taipale, Sakari; Korhonen, Armi Hänninen, R., Taipale, S., & Korhonen, A. (2021). Refamilisation in the broadband society – the effects of ICTs on family solidarity in Finland. Journal of Family Studies, 27(2), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2018.1515101 2021 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjfs20 Journal of Family Studies ISSN: 1322-9400 (Print) 1839-3543 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjfs20 Refamilisation in the broadband society – the effects of ICTs on family solidarity in Finland Riitta Hänninen, Sakari Taipale & Armi Korhonen To cite this article: Riitta Hänninen, Sakari Taipale & Armi Korhonen (2018): Refamilisation in the broadband society – the effects of ICTs on family solidarity in Finland, Journal of Family Studies, DOI: 10.1080/13229400.2018.1515101 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2018.1515101 © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 29 Aug 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 427 View Crossmark data Refamilisation in the broadband society –the effects of ICTs on family solidarity in Finland Riitta Hänninen a , Sakari Taipale b and Armi Korhonen b a Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland; b Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland ABSTRACT In this article we explore the effects that new information and communication technologies (ICTs) have on family relations in Finland. The idea of ‘new connectivities’works as a starting point for the study directing attention to ICT-mediated forms of being together with distant family members. The research data consists of 22 student reports encompassing a total of 133 informants from extended Finnish families. Extended group interview (EGI) technique was developed and used for data collection in order to grasp the underlying social practices and values behind the use of ICTs in extended families. The results show that new ICTs, especially mobile social media, enhance family solidarity among family members who do not live in the same household. The concept of ‘refamilisation’is introduced to encapsulate the diverse effects of new ICTs such as democratization of the family, rise of proxy persons, intensification, and compartmentalization of family communication on family solidarity. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 19 May 2017 Accepted 15 August 2018 KEYWORDS Family; communication; democratization; ICT; social media; mobile media; connectivities; refamilisation; collaborative ethnography; extended group interview Introduction The rise of information and communication technology (ICT), especially new social mobile media, has mediated and altered family relations (Cabalquinto, 2017a,2017b; Clark, 2013; Livingstone, Mascheroni, Dreier, Chaudron, & Lagae, 2015; Neustaedter, Harrison, & Sellen, 2013) by introducing new tools of communication available to all family members. Nevertheless, the question remains how these new tools are distributed in the context of family and whether they actually contribute to the sense of belonging characteristic to family solidarity. Hence, in this article we ask what kind of effects new ICTs, ranging from personal communication devices to social media applications, have on family relations in Finland. Additionally, we examine the interplay between ICTs and structural elements of family life. Our analysis is based on 22 interviews within Finnish families, encompassing a total of 133 informants. Daatland and Herlofson (2003)define family solidarity as ‘the felt obligations towards children and parents’. In this research family solidarity is a multi-faceted concept © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. CONTACT Riitta Hänninen riitta.j.hanninen@jyu.fiDepartment of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä, PO Box 35, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2018.1515101 employed in order to highlight the positive and counter-productive aspects of ‘belonging’ associated with family life and consequently family solidarity in the broadband society (about the concept, see Fortunati, Vincent, Gebhardt, Petrovcic, & Vershinskaya, 2010). Family norms and solidarity cannot be regarded as absolute rules defining the lives of all families, but rather as guidelines that take new forms from situation to situation under given social conditions (Finch & Mason, 1993). Instead of studying how ICT use is associated with particular forms of solidarity (also see Bengtson & Roberts, 1991), this article explores and clarifies what are the daily situations and social conditions that make ICTs significant in terms of family solidarity (Baldassar, Nedelcu, Merla, & Wilding, 2016). While working to this end, the analysis is firmly anchored on a grassroots level data, which leads us to contemplate the studied phenomenon through the concept of refamilisation. Borrowing from social policy and family research (see Leira, 2002) where it highlights the shift in care responsibilities from the state back to the family and hence also calls for intergenerational family solidarity. As little as a decade ago it was widely considered that one-to-one communication tools, such as mobile telephone calls, text-messages and emails, were especially useful in integrating the spatially and temporarily separated daily agendas of individuals. Consequently, it was argued that the individual had become the primary unit of household connectivity, replacing traditional family solidarities based on shared values and norms (Kennedy & Wellman, 2007). It was also suspected that the Internet and mobile phone would have led to increased social isolation and a decline in the average size and diversity of core social networks (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears, 2006). More recently, not least because of social media, scholars have questioned these results, showing that those who use the Internet and specific forms of social media such as photo sharing and instant messaging have more extensive and diverse core networks than those who do not (Hampton, Sessions, & Her, 2011; Lam, 2013). While the rise of social media inspired much research on social networks and group-based communication (e.g. Ling & Lai, 2016; Neustaedter et al., 2013), this article argues that family solidarities have been subject to many significant changes as well. New forms of family connectivities Contemporary ICTs have not only fostered individual networking and added to the ‘privatization of communication’, they have also made possible the maintenance of –and sometimes intensified –family and other core ties. Mesch (2006) summarizes the effects of ICT’s families, mentioning positive effects such as the possibility for collaborative use, better coordination of family activities, and distance parenting. The negative effects were seen to accrue from family members solitary use of ICTs (watching or playing videos alone), which was considered to detract from time spent together within the family (Nie, 2001; Nie & Hillygus, 2002). This in turn diminishes time spent together, which is regarded as a precondition for a sense of ‘togetherness’in the family. Relating to the potential risks of solitary use of technologies, many studies have investigated parenting styles and parental mediation in relations to children’s use of ICTs (Clark, 2013; Lee, 2013; Livingstone et al., 2015; Mesch, 2009; Shepherd, Arnold, & Gibbs, 2006). Despite the merits of these studies, existing literature about the impact of computer technologies on the family is still surprisingly limited in scope. Most of 2R. HÄNNINEN ET AL. studies have focused on individual family members or family members residing in the same household. The only remarkably expectation is the migrants living in diasporic family relations (Cabalquinto, 2017a,2017b; Madianou, 2016; Miller & Madianou, 2012). Considerably less is known about the use of ICTs in extended families whose members live in different locations around Finland –or in other developed Western countries –and stay in touch with one another by means of communication technologies. Following the example of Christensen’s(2009), we think that the term distributed family describe this family type under investigation perhaps most accurately. Regarding ICT use in this type of families, Lam (2013, p. 323) presents that among Chinese migrant workers who maintain translocal relations with family and construct translocal identities, ICT use leads to ‘a new form of intergenerational solidarity among the elderly parents and the young family members who are distant and cannot physically gather together for a long period of time’. These distant-but-intimate connections, Lam concludes, have made intergenerational relationships and family obligations more symmetrical and egalitarian. However, research has also pointed out that gender, age and social class differences sometimes translate into asymmetrical use of digital communication technologies, which in dispersed families create new social inequalities between family members (Cabalquinto, 2017a,2017b). This kind of new connectivity is commonly described using the term ‘connected presence’, which refers to the feeling of a perpetual connection that can be activated at any time (Licoppe, 2004). For connected presence, small gestures and communicative acts are as important elements as the content of communication or messages (Licoppe & Smoreda, 2005). Regarding intra-family communication, Christensen (2009) notes that frequent mobile phone calls and text messages serve the feeling of closeness while members are physically separated. Additionally, with the rise of new social media, a variety of new simple modes of communication, such as pressing a ‘Like’button in Facebook or in Twitter, have emerged which provide new means to nurture family solidity from a distance (Eranti & Lonkila, 2015). The significance of such small communication acts, for instance group messaging, has been mostly discussed in connection to peer-relations (e.g. Ling & Lai, 2016;O’Hara, Massimi, Harper, Rubens, & Morris, 2014). Lately, attention has been also paid to a variety of small ordinary communicative practices that serve the feeling of co-presence in transnational distributed families (Nedelcu & Wyss, 2016). Madianou and Miller (2012) have for example introduced the notion ‘polymedia’to have a better grasp of this environment of multiple communication opportunities, and to address the social, emotional and moral consequences of choosing between them in the context of interpersonal and family communication. Finland has some specific family features that shape the need and actual use of communication technologies in families. First, one-fifth of Finns live alone and approximately one-third of them live in two-person families. One reason for the high proportion of small families is that young people, who are entitled to universal public study and housing benefits, leave their childhood homes at a considerably young age. The share of 20–24 year-olds living in their parents’home declined for at least three decades, but has recently stabilized being at the level of 24 percent in 2014 (Statistics Finland, 2015). Secondly, the percentage of families with children has decreased from 64 in 1950 to 39 in 2014 (Statistics Finland, 2015). In contrast to many Southern European countries, multi-generational housing arrangements are almost non-existent in Finland. Thirdly, it is interesting to JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 3 note that face-to-face time with other family members has clearly dropped between 1999/ 2000 and 2009/2010 in Finnish families; this applies to all age groups including both men and women (Hanifi,2015). All things considered, nuclear families in Finland divide relatively early into smaller units, contributing to the emergence of distributed families and making daily interactions increasingly reliant on either physical visits or –more commonly –on ICT-mediated family communication. ICT-mediated family communication has not been studied very systematically in Finland. Punamäki, Wallenius, Hölttö, Nygård, and Rimpelä (2009) investigated the relationships between ICT usage, peer and parent relations in early adolescence. Regarding child–parent relations, they found that intensive ICT use for digital playing, Internet surfing, as well as for emailing and chatting, were related to poor child–parent relations. Hurme, Westerback, and Quadrello (2010) examined communication patterns between grandchildren and grandparents in Finland with two statistical surveys. The data collected from grandparents indicated that the further away grandchildren lived, the less landline, mobile and face-to-face contact there was. Only the exchange of letters and postcards with grandchildren increased with distance. Similarly, data collected from grandchildren showed that they used less text messaging with grandparents when the geographic distance between the two generations became greater. Drawing on Finnish time-use surveys collected between 1979 and 2009/2010, Repo and Nätti (2015) maintain that young people (10–19 year-olds) use computers mostly alone in Finnish households. Internet use is also mentioned as a solitary activity among children. By contrast, watching television has remained as an activity that children do together with their family members more often than with their friends. All these previous accounts rely on relatively simple, unidimensional indicators of ICT use (time use, frequency). Other kinds of methods are required in order to clarify the reasons behind the use of various digital communication technologies in family communication, and to illuminate the positive and negative consequences of their different uses for family cohesion/solidarity (see also Christensen, 2009). Research data The research data consists of twenty-two (22) reports based on extended group interviews and observation. The reports were written by Finnish social sciences and communications studies students at the University of Jyväskylä between December 1024 and March 2015. The students’assignment was to observe ICT-related communication in their families and interview five (5) family members who use ICT. The total number of informants in this study is therefore 133 including the 22 key informants. Nineteen (19) of the key informants were female and three (3) male. The age of the key informants varied between 20 and 38 although only two of them were in their thirties. There were 61 female and 50 male family members interviewed and observed by the key informants, meaning that women are slightly overrepresented in this research material. All families participating in the research were studied in the context of three generations including children, siblings, spouses, parents and grandparents that typically formed the immediate family of the key informants. Some key informants extended the interviews to their cousins, children and spouse’s relatives. Geographically the key informants and informants represent all the major regions of Finland. Social class background 4R. HÄNNINEN ET AL. was not specifically inquired from the key informants. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the research data is skewed in this respect, as the children of highly educated parents are more likely to attend universities also in Finland (Kivinen, Hedman, & Kaipainen, 2012). Based on their fieldwork, the key informants wrote a total of three (3) reports with a minimum of 300 words per report in which they were asked to describe: (1) what ICT tools and applications were used to stay in touch with family members, (2) how the key informants consider their ICT skills in relation to one another and finally (3) how ICT affects the roles within their family. ICT was defined as all kinds of digital communication tools and applications that are used to stay in contact and communicate with family members including mobile phones, e-mails, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram. For comparative reasons the key informants were advised to interview at least one of their parents and one grandparent, if possible. The three remaining interviewees were freely determined by the key informants providing that they were of different ages. Key informants also gathered background information on each interviewee including gender, age, relationship with the key informant and whether the key informant and informant shared a household. Geographical distance was documented if the key informant and the informant were not members of the same household. Lastly, the method of interview used with different informants was reported. Research methods and analysis Students have good knowledge regarding the family relations and ICT skills within their families. Due to their educational background, they also possess the necessary tools to communicate their findings to the researcher in an unambiguous manner. Furthermore, as the students are part of the families they observe and interview, they are able to gain information that might not be accessible to an outside interviewer. In research focusing on generational relationships and family solidarity, this kind of collaboration is even more significant as it provides access to the experiences of not only the 22 key informants but their 111 family members as well. The extended group interview (EGI) employed in this study is a qualitative research method that we have developed in order to better grasp the underlying social practices and values behind the use of ICTs in families. We have designed it to describe families and their relationships with various ICTs, but particularly to deepen our understanding of the changes ICTs have brought on family solidarity within the family. EGI also enabled us to reach a relatively large number of family members without compromising the quality of the observations and interviews. As a research method, EGI draws upon both new methodological aspirations regarding group interviews in the context of the family studies (Reczek, 2014) as well as the collaborative nature of the ethnographic enquiry (Lassiter, 2005). By the term ‘extended’in EGI, we wish to emphasis the scope of the research material: instead of the nuclear family, the group interviews conducted in this study consisted of three generations extending from grandchildren to grandparents. The second meaning attached to the concept of ‘extended’highlights the methodological expansion of the notion of group interview developed in this research. The reports are based on a variety of interviews and observations conducted by the key informants including traditional JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 5 individual and group interviews as well as face-to-face and phone interviews. Furthermore, EGI and observation were not necessarily conducted at one specific time or place, but rather as a series of individual or group interviews in which family members described their everyday lives in the context of their weekly schedules and the social dynamics of their families. Instead of fixed on a specific time or place outside the family life (cf. focus group interview facilities), EGI goes wherever the key informants might go and thus expands the boundaries of traditional group interview. Utilizing key informants as interviewers and observers added a strong collaborative element to the method as key informants worked side by side with researchers while gathering the research material. In numerous ethnographic studies (Lassiter, 2005; Lassiter & Campbell, 2010; Powdermaker, 1967; Rappaport, 2008), the equality between the researcher and the informant has consistently been reported as a positive element in the context of fieldwork. Equality enhances the quality of the research data by giving the informant, or in this case, the family unit, an opportunity to bring forward their ‘own voice’in terms of ICT and family solidarity. In addition to the interpretative distance (Geertz, 1973) characteristic of qualitative research in general, there is the element of physical distance to be accounted for in this research. Many of the family members participating in this study lived a significant distance, sometimes several hundred kilometres away from the key informants who have gathered the research data. In this light, using EGI and observation has enabled the key informants to adjust the data gathering according to their family situation and to employ the most convenient method of communication in order to reach their family members. In comparison with e.g. traditional group interview conducted by a researcher, EGI has also a considerable amount of reflexive capacity to it. EGI it gives room for the key informants to contemplate on the ICT use of their families during both observation and the actual interviews in collaboration with their family members but also later on when they write their reports. The reports depict numerous occasions on which the family members disagreed with one another, indicating that the environment in which the interviews took place was considered safe enough for everyone to express their opinions regardless of gender or age. The key informants also demonstrated the necessary sensitivity towards their informants’ opinions: even contradictory views on ICT use in families were carefully documented in the reports. The fact that key informants gathered research data from their own families raises some methodological issues. While studying one’s own family in many ways provides valuable access to information on family members, existing preconceptions can follow key informants through their fieldwork and find their way into the reports. However, in ethnographic terms the process of interpretation is by necessity always invested with various biases, as human perception in general is subjective by nature (Clifford, 1986; Geertz, 1973; Marcus, 1998). The reports made by the key informants do not produce ‘objective facts’but rather impartial truth, which are further interpreted by the researchers during the analysis in order to detect and make visible potential biases (Hänninen, 2012). The research material was analyzed by using thematic analysis of coded research data (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2006), a commonly applied method in ethnography. At the first stage of examining the reports we focused on the question of how exactly ICT has affected family relations in Finland and discovered that the studied families consider these 6R. HÄNNINEN ET AL. effects mostly positive. At the second stage of our thematic analysis, we took a closer look at the central themes of the relationship between ICT and family solidarity. We concluded that there are several ways in which ICT enhances family solidarity and that despite of the positive effects associated with various ICTs, almost all of them included one or more counter-productive elements as well. As regards research ethics, this study operates on informed consent (Miller & Bell, 2002; Seidman, 2013). All of the students and their family members were aware of the nature of the research and its aspirations. They also gave their permission to use the reports based on observation and interviews as research material. In order to ensure the privacy of the key informants and interviewees, all names appearing in this study have been changed to pseudonyms. Enhanced solidarity within Finnish families through ICTs Interviewees participating in this study agreed on that ICTs, especially smartphones, have increased communication within their family. Although new technologies have partially replaced traditional ways of communication within the studied Finnish families, interviewees also reported that their interaction with other members of their families had become more diverse. ICTs provide multiple tools and modalities of communication (voice, text, photo, video etc.) to connect with one another, which has made it easier to find more convenient modes of communication that cater to the various needs of people in different life-situations and within different family structures. Consequently, it can be argued that ICTs have the potential to improve intra-family relations and family solidarity in Finland. According to Laura, a key informant, the main reason people are willing to try out various new technologies and applications is that they provide family members opportunities to be available and to participate in family matters. New technologies are also appreciated because they make communication fast, easy and often free of charge and because of they proved usefulness in everyday life. It can be argued that especially the younger interviewees have a tendency to choose the appropriate mode of communication according to the ICTs that they know their family members use frequently. Parents utilize Facebook and text messages while communicating to their children and other younger members of the family, and make phone calls to the older generations such as their parents or grandparents. Young people typically use WhatsApp and text messages (see also, Racz, Johnson, Bradshaw, & Cheng, 2017) or contact their family members in Facebook. If they want to be in touch with their grandparents, they too choose a phone call (Oksman, 2006). There are also several examples available in the research data suggesting that in some families, instant messengers such as WhatsApp and Vine represent an important part of intra-family communication between children and their parents on a daily basis. In these families, almost everything from discussions regarding weekly schedules to sending funny pictures and asking how family members are doing is conducted through these applications. As Emilia describes her family’s recently established WhatsApp group: It is a convenient way to reach the whole family when there is something that needs to be discussed with everybody. […] Nowadays all my family members are in Instagram too. We like each other’s pictures there and sometimes even leave comments. […] It was only JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 7 other phatic communication among families is the fact they are not time-consuming practices and that they can be used to keep in touch and to create a sense family solidarity regardless of place or geographical distance (see also Cao, 2013). Note 1. Phatic communication is an established expression in the field of communication studies. However, originally Malinowski (1924/1994) used the term phatic communion to describe that the importance of seemingly meaningless and purposeless talk for social bonding. Unlike communication, phatic communion does not primarily aim to the exchange of information. Acknowledgments We wish to thank Professor Laura Stark from the Department of History and Ethnology at the University of Jyväskylä for her invaluable comments and insight regarding our research. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding This work was supported by the Academy of Finland under grant number 265986 and the Academy of Finland’s Centre of Excellence in Research on Ageing and Care (CoEAgeCare) under grant number 312367. ORCID Sakari Taipale http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8962-6226 References Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society: The internet in everyday life. London: SAGE. Baldassar, L., Nedelcu, M., Merla, L., & Wilding, R. (2016). ICT-based co-presence in transnational families and communities: Challenging the premise of face-to-face proximity in sustaining relationships. Global Networks,16(2), 133–144. Bengtson, V. L., & Roberts, R. E. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family,53,856–870. doi:10.2307/352993 Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: SAGE. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: The Yale University Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3,77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Cabalquinto, E. C. (2017a). Home on the move: Negotiating differential domesticity in family life at a distance. Media, Culture & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0163443717737611 Cabalquinto, E. C. (2017b). “We’re not only here but we’re there in spirit”: Asymmetrical mobile intimacy and the transnational Filipino family. Mobile Media and Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2050157917722055 14 R. HÄNNINEN ET AL. Cao, X. (2013). Connecting families across time zones. In C. Neustaedter, S. Harrison, & A. Sellen (Eds.), Connecting families: The impact of new communication (pp. 127–139). London: Springer. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Christensen, T. H. (2009). ‘Connected presence’in distributed family life. New Media & Society,11, 433–451. doi:10.1177/1461444808101620 Clark, L. S. (2013). The parent app: Understanding families in the digital age. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clifford, J. (1986). Partial truths. Introduction. In J. Clifford & G. E. Marcus (Eds.), The poetics and politics of ethnography: A school of American research advanced seminar (pp. 1–24). Berkeley: University of California Press. Daatland, S. O., & Herlofson, K. (2003). ‘Lost solidarity’or ‘changed solidarity’: A comparative European view of normative family solidarity. Ageing and Society,23, 537–560. doi:10.1017/ S0144686X03001272 Dolničar, V., Hrast, M. F., Vehovar, V., & Petrovčič,A.(2013). Digital inequality and intergenerational solidarity: The role of social support in proxy internet use. Selected Papers of Internet Research 3. Retrieved from http://http://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/734 Eranti, V. & Lonkila, M. (2015). The social significance of the Facebook Like button. First Monday, 20. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5505 Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1993). Negotiating family responsibilities. London: Routledge. Fortunati, L., Vincent, J., Gebhardt, J., Petrovcic, A., & Vershinskaya, O. (Eds.). (2010). Interacting with broadband society.Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Selected essays by Clifford Geertz. New York: Basic Books. Gergen, K. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact (pp. 227–241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hampton, K. N., Sessions, L. F., & Her, E. J. (2011). Core networks, social isolation, and new media: How internet and mobile phone use is related to network size and diversity. Information, Communication & Society,14, 130–155. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2010.513417 Hanifi,R.(2015). Yksin oleminen on lisääntynyt. In A. H. Anttila, T. Anttila, M. Liikkanen, & H. Pääkkönen (Eds.), Ajassa kiinni ja irrallaan: yhteisölliset trytmit 2000-luvun Suomessa (pp. 123– 134). Helsinki: Tilastokeskus. Hänninen, R. (2012). Puuterilumen lumo: tutkimus lumilautailukulttuurista (Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 191). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Hurme, H., Westerback, S., & Quadrello, T. (2010). Traditional and new forms of contact between grandparents and grandchildren. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships,8(3), 264–280. doi:10.1080/15350770.2010.498739 Kennedy, T. L., & Wellman, B. (2007). The networked household. Information, Communication & Society,10, 645–670. doi:10.1080/13691180701658012 Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist,39, 1123–1134. Kivinen, O., Hedman, J., & Kaipainen, P. (2012). Koulutusmahdollisuuksien yhdenvertaisuus Suomessa. Eriarvoisuuden uudet ja vanhat muo Yhteiskuntapoltiikka,77(5), 559–566. Lam, S. S. (2013). ICT’s impact on family solidarity and upward mobility in translocal China. Asian Journal of Communication,23, 322–340. doi:10.1080/01292986.2012.739186 Lassiter, L. E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lassiter, L. E., & Campbell, E. (2010). What will we have ethnography do? Qualitative Inquiry,16, 757–767. doi:10.1177/1077800410374444 Lee, S.-J. (2013). Parental restrictive mediation of children’s internet use: Effective for what and for whom? New Media & Society,15, 466–481. doi:10.1177/1461444812452412 Leira, A. (2002). Working parents and the welfare state: Family change and policy reform in Scandinavia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Licoppe, C. (2004). ‘Connected’presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,22, 135–156. JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 15 Licoppe, C., & Smoreda, Z. (2005). Are social networks technologically embedded? How networks are changing today with changes in communication technology. Social Networks,27, 317–335. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.001 Ling, R., & Lai, C. H. (2016). Microcoordination 2.0: Social coordination in the age of smartphones and messaging apps. Journal of Communication,66, 834–856. doi:10.1111/jcom.12251 Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2002). Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In J. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 139–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., Dreier, M., Chaudron, S., & Lagae, K. (2015). How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: The role of income, education and parental style. London: EU Kids Online, LSE. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/ EUKidsOnline/EUKidsIV/PDF/Parentalmediation.pdf Madianou, M. (2016). Ambient co-presence: Transnational family practices in polymedia environments. Global Networks,16, 183–201. doi:10.1111/glob.12105 Malinowski, B. (1923/1994). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 435–496). London: Routledge. Marcus, G. (1998). Ethnography through thick & thin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review,71, 353–375. doi:10. 1177/000312240607100301 Mesch, G. S. (2006). Family relations and the internet: Exploring a family boundaries approach. Journal of Family Communication,6, 119–138. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0602_2 Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. CyberPsychology & Behavior,12, 387–393. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0068 Madianou, M., & Miller, D. (2012). Migration and new media, transnational families and polymedia.New York: Routledge. Miller, T., & Bell, L. (2002). Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-keeping and ‘informed’ consent. In M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, & T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative research (pp. 54–70). London: SAGE. Nedelcu, M., & Wyss, M. (2016). ‘Doing family’through ICT-mediated ordinary co-presence: Transnational communication practices of Romanian migrants in Switzerland. Global Networks,16(2), 202–218. Neustaedter, C., Harrison, S., & Sellen, A. (Eds.) (2013). Connecting families: The impact of new communication. London: Springer. Nie, N. H. (2001). Sociability, interpersonal relations, and the Internet: Reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 3, 420–435. Nie, N. H., & Hillygus, D. S. (2002). The impact of Internet use on sociability: Time-diary findings. IT&Society,1,1–20. O’Hara, K., Massimi, M., Harper, R., Rubens, S., & Morris, J. (2014). Everyday dwelling with WhatsApp. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 1131–1143). New York: ACM. Oksman, V. (2006). Young people and seniors in Finnish ‘mobile information society’.Journal of Interactive Media in Education,2005(2), 24. Retrieved from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/articles/ 10.5334/2006-3/ Powdermaker, H. (1967). Stranger and friend: The way of an anthropologist. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Punamäki, R. L., Wallenius, M., Hölttö, H., Nygård, C. H., & Rimpelä, A. (2009). The associations between information and communication technology (ICT) and peer and parent relations in early adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development,33, 556–564. doi:10.1177/ 0165025409343828 Racz, S. J., Johnson, S. L., Bradshaw, C. P., & Cheng, T. L. (2017). Parenting in the digital age: Urban black youth’sperceptions about technology-based communication with parents. Journal of Family Studies,23, 198–214. 16 R. HÄNNINEN ET AL. Rappaport, J. (2008). Beyond participant observation: Collaborative ethnography as theoretical innovation. Collaborative Anthropologies,1,1–31. doi:10.1353/cla.0.0014 Reczek, C. (2014). Conducting a multi family member interview study. Family Process,53, 318–335. doi:10.1111/famp.12060 Repo, K., & Nätti, J. (2015). Televisio ja tietokone lasten ja nuorten ajankäytön rytmittäjinä. In A. H. Anttila, T. Anttila, M. Liikkanen, & H. Pääkkönen (Eds.), Ajassa kiinni ja irrallaan: yhteisölliset rytmit 2000-luvun Suomessa (pp. 135–152). Helsinki: Tilastokeskus. Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Share, M., Williams, C., & Kerrins, L. (2017). Displaying and performing: Polish transnational families in Ireland Skyping grandparents in Poland. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. doi:1461444817739272 Shepherd, C., Arnold, M., & Gibbs, M. (2006). Parenting in the connected home. Journal of Family Studies,12, 203–222. doi:10.5172/jfs.327.12.2.203 Statistics Finland. (2015). Families: Annual review. Retrieved from http://www.stat.fi/til/perh/2014/ 02/perh_2014_02_2015-11-27_en.pdf JOURNAL OF FAMILY STUDIES 17