Forthcoming in Information, Communication and Society
Tracy L. M. Kennedy
& Barry Wellman
NetLab, University of Toronto
April 8, 2007
Abstract
We argue that individuals, rather than
family solidarities, have become the primary unit of household connectivity. Many
households do not operate as traditional densely-knit groups but as more
sparsely-knit social networks where individuals juggle their somewhat separate
agendas and schedules. At
a time when many people enact multiple, individual roles at home, in the community
and at work, we ask: how do adult household members communicate with each other? How do adult household members use information
and communication technologies (ICTs) to organize, communicate and coordinate
their leisure and social behavior both inside and outside the home? Interviews and surveys conducted in 2004-2005 in the
Acknowledgements
Our
thanks to the other principal members of the Connected Lives team: Kristen Berg, Bernie Hogan, Jeffrey
Boase, Juan Antonio Carrasco, Rochelle Côté and Jennifer Kayahara, who together
with the authors, developed the survey and interview schedules and did the
interviewing. We have also benefited from the advice of Wenhong Chen, Paul
DiMaggio, Bonnie Erickson, Inna Romanovska, Irina Shklovski, Beverly Wellman,
Sandy Welsh, and
Away from Pleasantville – Households Becoming Doubly Networked
When Hillary Clinton asserted, “it takes a
village to raise a child” (1996), she admirably pointed to the involvement of
social networks in household relations. We go further to argue that
contemporary households are doubly networked.
Although this trend to networked households began
before the proliferation of Internet and mobile phone communication, the
intrinsically individual nature of
these media – as contrasted with calls to wired household phones and in-person
visits to homes – has facilitated the transmutation of households into networks,
just as cars and phones have led personal communities to become far-flung
social networks rather than locally-bounded villages and neighborhoods (Wellman 2001).
With pioneering foresight, Elizabeth Bott argued more than fifty
years ago that “no urban family could survive without its network of external
relationships” (1957; p. 281). She showed that networked households had
different types of relations with kinship than did solidary households. Since
then, household organization has
been changing towards more individual agendas and trajectories – even before
the ICT revolution. Where married or common law couples
with children accounted for 55 percent of all Canadian households in 1981, they
accounted for only 44 percent of such households in 2001 (Statistics Canada 2001).
As well, the prevalence of living common-law (unmarried long-term cohabiting
couples) has increased: Where 6 percent of couples lived common-law in 1981,
this more than doubled to 14 percent in 2001 (Statistics Canada 2001).
Households have become less stable in composition and role relationships. While Canada’s divorce rate has remained constant at approximately 38 percent over the last few years, the percentage of repeat divorces involving remarried divorced women tripled from 5 percent in 1973 to 15 percent in 2003 (Statistics Canada 2003a). Similarly, the divorce rate for previously married men tripled from 5 percent in 1973 to 16 percent in 2003.
Households have become smaller, making the need for
centralized control less crucial. Single-person households have increased
steadily from 20 percent in 1981 to 33 percent in 2001. By 2001, there were
about as many one-person households as there were households with four or more
persons (Statistics Canada 2001). Two-person households have also increased
from 29 percent in 1981 to 33 percent in 2001. This, the fastest growing household
type in
Therefore, it is not surprising that Canadian households contain
fewer children than before. The decrease in household size is partially related
to women having fewer (or no) children, with the fertility rate decreasing from
1.6 children per woman 1976-1981 to 1.5 children per woman 1996-2001. A higher
percentage of young adults are postponing having children in order to pursue
educational interests and establish their careers.
With 73 percent of men and 62 percent of women participating in the
labor force (Statistics Canada 2005), more spousal households contain
dual-earners (Jacobs & Gerson 2001). North Americans work longer weeks with less time for home life (Fagan
2001), the average age of married couples has increased, and women are staying
childless longer – with a higher percentage not having children at all
(Statistics Canada 2003b; 2005; 2006).
The time that both men and women spend with
other household members has declined in the past twodecades. When Statistics
Canada examined women and men doing paid work, it found that where 23 percent
of workers spent six hours or more in a workday with other household members in
1985, only 14 percent did so in 2005. Where women workers’ time with other
household members averaged 248 minutes during workdays in 1986, it declined 15
percent (39 minutes) to 209 minutes in 2005. There was a slightly greater
decline of 18 percent (45 minutes) for men, from 250 to 205 minutes. An
increase from 8.4 to 8.9 hours (30 minutes) in the typical Canadian workday is
responsible for most of this decline (Turcotte 2007).
Not only have people been spending more time
doing paid work, they have been spending less time on household work, abetted
by the proliferation of inexpensive restaurants, take-out facilities, and
kitchen aids (Michelson 1985; Robinson & Godbey 1997; Cheng et al. 2007). The
frequency of people saying they usually have family dinners together “has
declined by a third over the last twenty years, from about 50 percent to 34
percent” (Putnam 2000: 100).
Taken together, these data suggest that the supposedly “traditional”
post World War II Canadian family has changed considerably over the last 30
years. To be sure, in the
traditional model of the children’s primer Fun
with Dick and Jane (Anonymous 1940), husbands and wives went their separate
ways: husbands off to paid work as “breadwinners”; wives staying behind to do
unpaid “homemaking” (also depicted in the movie, Pleasantville, Ross 1998). They were rarely able to communicate
while apart. However, the traditional model also assumed that husbands, wives
and children would spend most of their leisure time on evenings and weekends
together. The upshot is that while “love conquered marriage” (to quote Coontz’s
book subtitle, 2005), husbands, wives and children have been charting individualized
daily lives in far-flung cities and suburbs. Family cars have multiplied into
each-adult cars (Putnam 2000), as have television sets: where 28 percent of
Canadian workers’ households had two or more TVs in 1987, 63 percent have
multiple sets in 2005 (Turcotte 2007). Household television watching has become
personal television. More generally, media use and consumption have become
personalized and individual.
These interrelated changes in the composition
of North American households, the life-cycle complexities of marriage and
divorce, homemaking and paid work, and decisions to have children or not (and
how many) mean that the nature of these households is varied, complex and
evolving. The structural and demographic complexities of contemporary North
American life have increased tensions and opportunities (Hochschild 1997). Household
life has sped up and people multitask or rush from task to task, feeling they
have too much to do and too little time to do it (Menzies 2005). Contentions
between home life and work life are high, as the work day has lengthened,
teleworkers do all or part of their jobs at home, and managers and
professionals bring work.
Since the early 1990s, personal communication systems – mobile
phones and personal computers at home and at work – have greatly facilitated people’s networking capabilities
inside and outside their homes (Venkatesh et al 2003; Wellman & Haythornthwaite
2002; Lally 2002). Not only do many people use the Internet at work, a majority
of North American Internet users connect from their homes (Madden 2006; CIP
2005; Statistics Canada 2005). For example, 72 percent of Canadians use the
Internet from home, work or other locations. While the prevalence of home
computing has aided connectivity, many people are not rooted to a single
personal computer in the home (or at work) – or for that matter, to their
wired-in telephones. Instead, they take their communications with them, using
mobile phones, portable laptops, or Internet access through home, work and
public venues.
At a time when ICTs have become domesticated in
the household (Haddon 1992; 2006; Cumming & Kraut 2001), we are
particularly interested in the implications of ICTs for the interplay of individualism
and functional integration within households (Mesch 2003; Mezaros 2004). The
household’s technological systems must be studied within the context of
household social relations; on the other hand, the pervasiveness of ICTs is so
great (and we argue, important), that it is crucial for understanding
contemporary household relations.
We use survey and interview data to analyze how
167 adults living with partner in households keep in touch with each other.[1] We
examine whether there are differences in how women and men use ICTs in their
homes, negotiate family matters, and share Internet information.[2] Although
many factors have affected the turn towards networked households, we focus on
comparing people with different amounts of home Internet use, from none to
heavy. Our basic questions are:
The Connected Lives Project
The Locale: Data collected for our Connected Lives project come from East York, a primarily urban
residential area located 30-45 minutes from downtown
Data Collection: We randomly sampled English-speaking non-frail
adults (18+) and collected 350 completed 32-page surveys that were hand
delivered between July 2004 and March 2005, for a response rate of 56 percent.
The survey provides information about how people in
Connected Lives doctoral students conducted lengthy (2-4 hour) in-home interviews, February-April, 2005,
with a 25 percent subsample of the survey respondents. The interviews yielded
information about daily work, leisure, household relations, social networks, social
routines, and ICT use (Hogan, Carrasco & Wellman 2007).
Internet Use: Our data show that East Yorkers use the Internet
somewhat more frequently than the average Canadian, consistent with urban,
anglophone Canadians having higher rates of Internet use (Fong, et al., 2001;
Ekos, 2004). Only 6 percent of partnered respondents never use the Internet
from their homes (non-users, although some use it from work or other locales); 24
percent are light users, connected to the Internet from home 1 to 2 hours
per week (mean = 1.6 hours per week); 35 percent are moderate users connected
3 to 7 hours per week (mean = 4.6 hours per week); while 35 percent are heavy
users, connected more than 7 hours per week (mean = 20.5 hours/week, or
almost 3 hours per day).
<Insert Table 1 about
here>
East Yorkers are most likely to connect to the
Internet from home between six and eleven in the evening; the usual time when
people are home from work. Four-fifths (82 percent) go online during this
period. They were least likely to use the Internet between five and eight in
the morning (17 percent).
It is striking that about the same percentage
of non-users as users have a computer at home, and that most of the non-users
have more than one computer at home. Even though these non-users do not use a home computer, their partners or children
do. Indeed, more than one-third (37 percent) of the respondents have more than
one home computer (Table 1).
More than two-thirds of the survey respondents
have mobile phones (68 percent). As is the case for the Internet, this is a
higher percentage than the adult Canadian percentage of 61 percent in 2006 (Ipsos
2006), probably because urban mobile phone coverage is better than rural
coverage.
Most East Yorkers are connected online and have
been online for many years. They are rarely newbies. The digital divide has
narrowed in East York: the four user types (from non-users to heavy users) have
similar mean ages, most have at least an undergraduate degree, most have paid
employment, and each type has been online for an average of approximately seven
years (Table 1), except for non (home) users who have been online slightly less
– albeit from their workplaces, libraries, etc. Only a minority of Internet
users work at home, ranging from 23 percent of the light users to 32 percent of
the heavy users.
Although there are no significant gender differences between each of the three user groups in the amount of time that people spend online, non-users and light users are more apt to be women. Moreover, women who do not use the Internet almost always have children living at home and have less formal education than women who do use the Internet. These differences may be related to the domestic division of labour, child care, husband care, and other time constraints (Shelton & John 1996; Hochschild 1989; Luxton 1980).
Communicating, Coordinating and Sharing in
Networked Households
How do Household Members
Communicate with Each Other?
Voice dominates fingers: phones are used more
than the Internet (Table 2). Traditional landline telephones are used more than
mobile phones, and email is used more than instant messaging (IM). Internet
communication has not replaced other modes of communication; landlines and mobile
phones are integral ways that people connect with each other (this finding is
consistent with Quan-Haase et al 2002; Boase et al 2005; Wellman, Hogan et al
2006). The main gender difference is that mothers contact their children more
than fathers do.
<Insert Table 2
about here>
Landline Phone: Landline phones continue to be the most
frequent medium that East Yorkers use to communicate with partners and
children. The East Yorkers call their partners almost every business day: about
20 times per week. Without home Internet access, non-Internet users call their
partners on landlines almost daily. Women who do not use the Internet at home make
the most landline calls, but the relationship between phone and Internet use is
complex, with no significant variation by gender or frequency of Internet use.
The evidence shows that the Internet adds on to
landline telephone contact, rather than replacing it. Nor does the amount of
Internet use significantly reduce the amount of landline phoning. Internet
using men use landlines at least as often as do male non-users, while female
Internet users call somewhat less often than non-users.
Although East Yorkers use landline phones less often
to connect with their children than with their partners, landlines are still
the most frequently used communication medium to contact children. Similar to communication
between partners, the frequency of Internet use between parents and children is
not significantly related to the frequency of landline phone calls. Mothers may
call their children more than fathers do, although the gender difference is not
significant. For example, women who are light Internet users call their
children an average of twice a week while men call about weekly.
Mobile Phone: Mobile phones are second only to landline
phones as a way for household members to communicate. (Like almost all North
Americans, they use their mobile phones to talk rather than to text.) As is the
case for landlines, Internet use is not associated
with lower mobile phone use. Both heavy and light Internet users call their
partners with their mobile phones every other day, with moderate users calling
on their mobiles slightly less. Although none of these differences are
statistically significant, non Internet users use mobile phones the least to
call their partners, calling slightly more than weekly. There is a similar
pattern in mobile phone calls to children, with light and heavy Internet users
calling children on mobile phones weekly, whereas non-Internet users and moderate
Internet users call less than weekly. The low rate of mobile use by
non-Internet users suggests that rather than using mobile phones to compensate
for non-Internet use, some people avoid mobile phones as well as the Internet, possibly
for reasons of cost, technological aversion or lack of perceived need. Some
non-users prefer to not use telephony at all (including now-traditional
landlines) and favor face-to-face contact instead. As one interview participant
told us:
I’m not a great telephone person.
In person is better for me. I’m not a great telephone person compared to
Irene…like Irene will get on the phone for an hour and a half…I don’t
understand it. I get on the telephone just to make an appointment. I don’t tell
my stories over the phone. I’d rather talk in person. (#852 non-Internet user)
Women tend to use mobile phones to call their
partners and children more frequently than men do. Indeed, male non-Internet
users have the lowest rate of mobile phone use. Yet, the overall sample shows men
using mobiles more because male light users call on their mobiles twice as frequently
as women. This is a marginally significant difference, with such men calling on
average almost daily and women slightly more than weekly.
Email: Household members also use email to communicate,
although less frequently than they use landline and mobile phones: once or
twice per week on average. However, they rarely email partners when they are
both home: light and moderate users do not do this at all and heavy users do so
less than monthly.[3]
There is less email to children then there is
telephoning. Moreover, hardly anyone emails their children when they are at
home together. No gender difference is statistically significant, but Table 2
shows that men email their partners as often as women do, while mothers email
their children more often than do fathers.
Instant Messaging: Several media stories have announced that
household members are increasingly using instant messaging (IM) to stay in
contact (e.g., Schwartz 2004). Presumably, these stories were in response to
the great use of IMs among children and teens (Lenhart 2002). Yet what is
commonplace among teens and trendy among the media, is rare when adults are
involved. On average, people IM partners much less than once per week, although
the average hides lumpiness: many never IM, while a few IM more frequently. Parents
almost never IM their children: this is a medium for child-to-child chat
only. Moreover, hardly any East Yorkers use
IM to communicate with their spouses/partners or children while they are at
home together. This could be because IM users are usually young adults and
teens, while the East Yorkers are usually middle-aged.
How do Household Members use ICTs
to Organize their Leisure and Social Behavior?
The East Yorkers’ schedules, routines and
leisure are often full, busy, complex and mobile. In addition to their routine
involvement in paid work and unpaid domestic work, many/some are also are busy
with hobbies: 9 percent of partnered participants are active in hobby groups, 9
percent in professional associations, 13 percent are active in religious
organizations, and 7 percent are active in sports leagues - in addition to less
organized leisure activities such as exercising, taking walks, and doing
various sports (swimming, biking, golfing, etc.). For those with children,
there is the added responsibility and time taken with their children’s
extracurricular activities such as sports, ballet, and scouts. To accomplish
their day, household members must organize not only their own schedules, but
also take into account the schedules of others in their homes. One interview participant
says she “feels like she is a taxi” for her children’s hobbies, driving from one
activity to another, while a male moderate user emails his wife about
sports
schedules, stuff like that: I’m going here, we’re going there; they have to go
here, they have to go there: “can you take them?” You know? Dental appointments:
“Well, now I’m taking them to dentist at
such and such, [so] put this in your schedule at work” (#455).
Emailing
Household Members from Home: Emailing
partners from home helps to mediate the East Yorkers’ hectic routines. Yet, not
all households are alike. Moderate Internet users email their partner an
average of about once per week, while heavy users do so an average of about
three times per week, while light Internet users generally do not email their
partners from home (Table 3). There are some gender differences as well,
although patterns are mixed and the differences not significant.
<Insert Table 3
about here>
Keeping connected with household members is vital.
While people may use various communication tools, the social affordances that ICTs
– email in particular – provide is important.
It’s faster,
so when you have a busy work day, to quickly send an email and say, “Does this
work for you?” versus me picking up the phone and calling (#442).
There is no question that household members are
keeping connected when they are apart. While the East Yorkers can sometimes
travel to meet face-to-face, and they can often use landline, mobile, IM or
email to connect, some deliberately use email as their tool of choice. One moderate
user describes her media choices:
I: Do you ever
email your husband from here? … And send a message to his work?
P:
It’s usually because when we’re here, there’s a thousand things going on and
then the daytime comes; the girls are at school, he’s out of the way, Adam’s
sleeping, and I think, “OK, we need to do this, this, this and this”. So I’m
not going to pick up the phone ‘cause he’s at work and I don’t want to do that
- but let me just send it so that way it’s out of my head. I’ve communicated,
and when we get together tonight, “oh yeah, that email you sent me.” (#421).[4]
Emailing Household Members from Work: While light Internet home users rarely email
their partners from home, they send an average of three emails per week from
work (Table 3). Moderate users do email from home, and also send an average of
three emails per week from work. Although heavy Internet users email slightly
less often from work (an average of twice per week) than home, when combined
with their home emailing, heavy Internet users email their partners the most
frequently: an average of 4.6 messages per week. Women email household members
from work more than men do, even though they often work less hours per week (33)
then men (44). While the workday has increased over the last twenty years, so
has the length of coffee breaks and lunches (Statistics Canada 2005).
Email helps household members stay on top of
the work day, especially when the work day might interfere with the
communication between partners. One heavy male user notes how he lets his wife
know via email that he’s in a meeting and not reachable:
Convenience: it’s less troubling, distracting. She doesn’t know when I’m
in a meeting or anything like that (#561).
Similarly,
a light user notes:
I do it from
work all the time - to my husband in particular, because my kids during the day
are not online - in school. But to my husband…I know he’s honestly on the
computer a lot during the day. Not all day, but a lot, and I know he checks his
emails frequently, so I can usually catch him there. Not that he doesn’t have a
mobile phone all the time with him and stuff like that, but I’d rather just zip
off an email to him…I emailed him today, I can’t even think what it’s about –
like, “are you going to be home today after school to take the dog out?” You know - that type of thing (#432).
How do Household Members Use ICTs
to Share Things with Each Other?
Sharing Online Experiences with Partners: In days gone by, families used to gather around
the piano. More recently, families gathered to watch television shows. Now,
many
<Insert Table 4
about here>
The more the Internet is used, the more time
that partners spend together online: heavy users spend 1.8 as much time online
with partners than moderate users and 2.3 times as much than light users. Yet, lighter
Internet users spend proportionately more of their online time with their
partners than do heavier users: Three-quarters (75 percent) of the light users
online time is with partners as compared to one-third (35 percent) of the
moderate users’ Internet time and one-sixth (14 percent) of the heavy users’
time. As people spend more time online, household interactions increase but not
at as great a rate as interactions that do not include sharing with partners at
home.
The East Yorkers use the Internet to show or
share things of interest. They sometimes use the Internet together when
planning activities such as movies, concerts and vacations – or even just for
fun, but they also use it to complement other leisure activities they engage in
together such as television (Heavy, moderate and light Internet users also spend
on average about three hours per week watching television with their partners.)
One heavy user explains how the time that she
and her husband each spend online on things that interests them yields Internet
togetherness:
My husband: the
one thing that he does do…on the Internet is look at real estate, all over the
place. Just the other night we were both sitting and looking at condos in
Similarly, a moderate user notes that he and his wife look at online
travel information together:
Especially, it happens
with what sounds like a TV commercial with travel stuff; we’ll discuss: “what
does this hotel look like to you?” (#844)
Household members use the Internet together not
only to explore and share personal interests, but also to find help for tasks, such
as home renovations. A heavy user explains:
We’re doing research
together on various different things we both like; we’ve been doing a major
renovation project so we’re researching what kind of toilet to buy… (#383)
A moderate user talks about a television show
they enjoy watching together and how that spills into their joint Internet use:
Researching
anything that we need to make a decision on, like comparing cars or…we’re huge “Amazing
Race” fans… after the show we’d go down and check clips for the next thing to
try to choose. (#421)
In addition to sharing information with each
other, household members often use the Internet to communicate jointly with
relatives, both locally and globally, using IM, Internet phone and webcams. One
moderate user comments that he chats online with his distant family members
while his wife is with him:
When I chat
with my family, my wife sits with me. She also chats with them. I chat with her
family too. Then, she sits with me, and she chats with her family (#343).
Sharing Online Experiences with Children: Stories abound about how children have become
the computer experts, often isolating themselves so they can IM with their
friends or surf through MySpace (Shiu
& Lenhart 2004; boyd 2006). While
there is much truth to these stories, they tell only part of the tale. Couples
are spending time online with their children as well as with each other. Women
spend more hours with their children online than do men (Table 4). Women who
are heavy Internet users are especially noteworthy, spending on average 4.6 hours
per week online with their children, compared to male heavy users who spend
only a third as much time, 1.5 hours per week.
Using the Internet with children is a new way
of spending time with children, and it is often linked to women’s domestic responsibilities
and caregiving. As one light user woman notes:
Well, we go on the Treehouse TV [website]. It’s like the kids’ TV station: they have a
website and they have games and music so… If I’m on there and she’s coming
around, I’ll type in the Treehouse TV
website and look at some stuff with her. (#263)
Not
only do mothers spend leisure time online with their children, they also use
the Internet instrumentally as a learning and educational tool with their
children. A female heavy user explains:
We have access to the Winnie the Pooh site for counting and
alphabet and stuff. So those kinds of educational games are not game games but
are like counting or alphabet or you know: Dora
and Blues Crews - like nursery rhymes
and stuff. (#341)
Parents spend time online with older – and even
adult – children as well as younger children. One female heavy user notes that:
My youngest [adult] son
and myself will spend more time finding fascinating things on the computer like
“oh, come and look at this!” You know? Whatever, right? So sometimes we will
sit side by side at the computer and do stuff (#174).
Using the Internet jointly or at the same time
allows household members to spend time together, even if they are otherwise doing
different things.[5] As has
been true for TV watching (Silverstone 1994), Internet togetherness is much
easier when computers are located in household spaces that are conducive to
social interaction. Nearly half (43 percent) of partnered East Yorkers report
having Internet access in communal areas, although even more (64 percent) Internet
access points are in more segregated spaces such as personal offices and
bedrooms.[6]
Communal areas – such as the dining room, living room, family room, spare room
and basement/recreation room – not only provide easy access to the Internet,
they also facilitate easy communication with others in the household, providing
a place where people can congregate:[7]
There’s [only]
one desk chair, but then there’s another chair that we can pull up close. We
usually do that, and it’s also where we have the kids’ toys and stuff on the
other part of the room. We’re always climbing over toys to get to that (#421
moderate user).
Sharing Information: While some East Yorkers spend time online
together with partners or children, others do not. Going online from home is
can be a solitary activity; connecting with friends and family, searching for
information, banking and so forth are often things that people do by
themselves. However, the household Internet also aids sharing information that
people find online. Many interview participants note the “hey, look at this!”
scenario, where they find something interesting online and want to show and
share it with one another, either in person, by IM or by emailing. For example:
If there’s something
interesting that comes up, like on the news that might have related to some
spot we visited on our trip, I will call her and say: “Look at this story here,”
or something like that. (#815 heavy user)
[My husband] will sometimes print it off or
sometimes show me. Sometimes he’ll just talk about what he found out. (#832
moderate user)
In
homes with more than one computer, people send interesting notes and web items to
each other. One of the few IMing participants uses it to alert other members of
his household, “if it’s something I want my wife or kids to see” (#883). A
moderate user comments:
We do a lot of
stuff in parallel and then bring the results back and say: “Oh yeah, guess what
I did find!” or “I get can’t anywhere, can you come give me a hand?” You know:
“You said you found something last time, where did you get it?” Stuff like that
(#373).
Networking Households
Multiple Media Mavens
While some commentators (e.g., Nie, Hillygus
& Erbring 2002) have suggested that computer use is partly responsible for
the decline of social interaction among household members, systematic evidence
has challenged this assertion (Katz & Rice 2002; Gershuny 2003; Mesch
2006). Like these other studies, we have found that Internet does not replace
face-to-face contact with family or friends. Instead, it adds to it and
enhances it.
The East Yorkers’ complex lives – coupled with
their personal mobility and mobile connectivity – means that most people use
the Internet and phones to orchestrate their household schedules and tasks. The
widespread availability of Internet connectivity – coupled with evolving
information and communication facilities – enables them to use the Internet in
many different ways: from communication with family and friends and obtaining
general information to more context specific tasks such as seeking health
information for children, looking for recipes for dinner and planning family
vacations (Kayahara & Wellman 2007; Kennedy 2007). Communication – by email
and IM – and information searching on the web are both individual and household
affairs. The East Yorkers communicate frequently with their partners and
children.
Despite widespread hype about the Internet and
mobile phones, landline phones remain the pre-eminent mode of communication.
Mobile phones are next most used by East Yorkers, followed by email and
IM. There are few gender differences in
how – and how often – the Internet is used, except that mothers have expanded
their traditional childcare roles to the Internet.
One might imagine that the absence of the
household Internet would encourage non-users to use the telephone more to stay
connected. Yet, to our surprise, non-Internet users do not use landline and
mobile phones more frequently than do Internet users, and some are averse to
using another form of ICT: mobile phones.
Except for such non-users, media multiplexity
is the rule. The East Yorkers use whatever means of communication is handy and
appropriate for reaching partners and children at home, at work, or on the move
(Haythornthwaite & Wellman 1998). Household members have complex and media-rich
lives. All but the few non-users use email to communciate with partners and
children, valuing its asynchronousness and lack of intrusiveness.
Light Internet users present some unexpected
results. While the light Internet users spend less time on the Internet
overall, they use the Internet to communicate with household members more so
then do heavier users. They send emails to their partners more often than the
other groups, they IM their partners more often, they send emails to their
children – both when they are under the same roof and otherwise – more often,
and they IM their children more often as well. Households remain the core for
light Internet users, while moderate to heavy users use the Internet to reach
outward for information and communication, building from their household communication
base.
This pattern of light Internet use focused on
contact with family and friends is partly related to gendered communication
patterns. Seventy percent of light Internet users are women. Previous research
has shown that women tend to use the Internet to reinforce existing personal
relationships with family and friends (Boneva & Kraut 2002; Kennedy,
Wellman & Klement 2003; Shade 2004). Similar to how women have used the
telephone (Rakow 1992; Moyal 1992: Fischer 1992), Internet communication allows
the East Yorkers who are home, preeminently women, to overcome isolation (see
also Miyata 2002).
Although computer users are often pictured as
staring into their screens without regard to their surroundings, our research
has found much shared Internet use in
Toward Networked Individualism
The coupling of personally operated cars with
personalized ICTs – such as the Internet and mobile phones – helps East Yorkers
to negotiate the complexities of their routines, schedules and family life. They
are frequently on the move: mediating and negotiating work, school, spousal,
parental, social relations, and organizational activities. The result is both less connectivity in
person at home and more connectivity by ICTs. While ICTs afford physical
separation from other household members, ICTs also keep people connected and
networked as they communicate socially and instrumentally while they coordinate
household schedules and tasks.
Although East Yorkers rarely report keeping communications
secret from household members, each person has more autonomy in communication,
agenda setting, and even decision making about which ICTs to adopt and use. Their
mobile phone is personal, unlike the household’s landline. Even when they share
a computer, they logon personally to email and IM. They can communicate with
others and negotiate their own schedules with less likelihood that other
household members will know when and with whom they are communicating. They
email, chat, call, or message someone’s Internet address or mobile phone number
without knowing where the other person is.
It might seem that because of the pervasiveness
of ICTs in today’s households that there is less communal activity between
household members. However, our data show that despite often-individual
Internet use at home, East Yorkers show and share what they find online with
one another and they spend time online together. There is a great deal of communication
among household members, so much so that they carry household communication and
concerns with them through the day. ICTs do not replace in-person (and wired
phone) contact among household members. Yet, they complement such contact by
filling in the gaps throughout the day and helping to make arrangements. They
often bring household members together through spending time online together
and sharing information.
Were the East Yorkers’ households as socially networked
before ICTs? Some undoubtedly were (Wellman & Wortley 1990). But ICTs have
paradoxically afforded household members the ability to go about on their
separate ways while staying more connected. In such ways, rather than pulling
households apart, ICTs have afforded mutual awareness, integration, and support.
References
Anonymous. (1940) Fun with
Dick and Jane. Scott,
Bianchi, S., Robinson, J.
& Milkie, M. (2006) The Changing
Rhythms of American Family Life, Russell Sage Foundation,
Boase, J., Horrigan, J.,
Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2005) The Strength of Internet Ties, Pew Internet and American Life Project,
Bott, E. (1957) Family
and Social Network. Tavistock.,
Boneva, B. & Kraut, R. (2002) ‘Email, gender and personal relationships’, The Internet in Everyday Life, eds. B. Wellman and C Haythornthwaite, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 372-403.
boyd, d. (2006) ‘Friends,
friendsters, and MySpace Top 8’, First
Monday, vol. 11, no.12, http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_12/boyd/index.html
Cheng, S.-L., Olsen, W.,
Southerton, D. & Warde, A. (2007) ‘The changing practice of eating:
evidence from
Clinton, H. (1996) It Takes a Village. Simon & Schuster, New York.
Coontz, S. (2005) Marriage, a History. Penguin,
Cumming, J., &
Kraut, R. (2001) Domesticating computer and the Internet, The Information society, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 221-231.
Ekos (2004) The Dual Digital Divide IV. Ekos Research Associates, Ottawa.
Fagan, C. (2001) ‘The temporal reorganization of employment and the household rhythm of work schedules’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 1199-1212.
Fischer, C. (1992)
Fong, E., Wellman, B., Wilkes, R. & Kew, M. (2001) ‘Is there a double digital divide? Neighbourhood and individual effects in access to the internet’, Proceedings of Urban and Regional Development Conference, International Sociological Association. Amsterdam.
Gershuny J. (2003) Web-use and net-nerds: a neo-functionalist analysis of the impact of information technology in the home. Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Haddon, L. (1992) ‘Explaining ICT consumption: The case
of the home computer’, Consuming Technologies, eds. R. Silverstone and E. Hirsch, Routledge, London, pp.
82–96.
Haddon, L. (2006) ‘The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing and media consumption’, The Information Society, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 195–203.
Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1998) ‘Work, friendship and media use for information exchange in a networked organization’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 1101-14.
Hochschild, A.R. (1989) The Second Shift, Viking Penguin,
Hochschild, A.
(1997) The Time Bind, Metropolitan,
Hogan, B., Carrasco, J.A. & Wellman, B. (2007) ‘Visualizing personal networks’, Field Methods, vol. 19, no. 2, May: in press.
Ipsos Insight. (2006) ‘Mobile phones could soon rival the PC as world’s dominant internet platform’. April 18. URL http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3049
Jacobs, J.A., & Gerson, K. (2001) ‘Overworked individuals or overworked families? explaining trends in work, leisure, and family time’, Work and Occupations, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 40-63.
Katz J. & Rice, R.
(2002) Social Consequences of Internet Use. MIT Press,
Kayahara, J. & Wellman, B. (2007) ‘Searching for culture high and low’, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, vol. 12, no. 4, www.jcmc.edu/vol12/issue3/
Kennedy, T., Wellman, B. & Klement, K. (2003) ‘Gendering the digital divide,’ IT & Society, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 149-172.
Kennedy, T. (2007) ‘Working @ home: negotiating space & place’, in ICTs and Emerging Business Practices, eds. Y. Washida & S. van der Graaf, Idea, Hershey, PA, pp. 257-279.
Lally, E. (2002) At Home with Computers. Berg, Oxford.
Lenhart, A. (2002) ‘Teenage life online’, Pew Internet & American Life Project. URL: www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Teens_Report.pdf
Luxton, M. (1980) More Than a Labour of Love. Women's Press, Toronto.
Madden, M. (2006) ‘Internet penetration and impact’, Pew Internet & American Life Project. URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/182/report_display.asp.
Mesch, G. (2003) ‘The family and the Internet’, Social Science Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 1038-1050.
Mesch, G. (2006) ‘Family relations and the Internet’, Journal of
Family Communication, vol. 6, no.
2, pp. 119-138.
Menzies, H. (2005)
No Time, Douglas & McIntyre.,
Mezaros, P. (2004) ‘The wired family living digitally in the postinformation age’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 377-390.
Michelson,
W. (1985) From Sun to
Miyata, K. (2002) ‘Social supports for Japanese mothers online and offline’, The Internet in Everyday Life, eds. B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite, Blackwell, Oxford, pp 520-548.
Moyal, A. (1992) ‘The gendered
use of the telephone’, Media, Culture
& Society, vol.14, no. 1, pp. 51-72.
Nie, N., Hillygus, D. S., & Erbring, L. (2002) ‘Internet use, interpersonal relations and sociability’, The Internet in Everyday Life, eds. B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 215-243.
Quan-Haase,
A., Wellman, B., & Hampton, K. N. (2002) “Capitalizing on the net’, The Internet in Everyday Life, eds. B.
Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 291-324.
Rakow, L. (1992) Gender on the Line, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Robinson, J.P, & Godbey, G. (1997) Time for Life, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.
Ross, G. (1998). Pleasantville. Hollywood: Larger Than Life.
Schwartz, J. (2004) ‘That parent-child conversation is becoming instant and online’, New York Times, January 3.
Shade, L. (2004) ‘Bending gender into the net,’ Society Online, eds. P.N. Howard & S. Jones, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 57-83.
Shiu, E., & Lenhart, A. (2004) ‘How Americans use instant messaging’. Washington: Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Instantmessage_Report.pdf
Silverstone, R. (1994). Television and Everyday Life. Routledge, London.
Statistics
Statistics Canada (2003a) ‘Divorce’, Ottawa. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050309/d050309b.htm.
Statistics
Statistics Canada (2005) ‘Labour force and participation rates by sex and age group’, Ottawa. http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labor05.htm.
Statistics
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-503-XIE/0010589-503-XIE.pdf.
Turcotte, M. (2007) ‘Time spent with family during a typical workday,
1986-2005’, Canadian Social Trends, No.
83 (February 13), pp. 2-11.
Venkatesh. A., Kruse, E., & Shih, E. C. F. (2003) ‘The Networked Home’, Cognition, Technology and Work, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 23–32.
Wellman, B. (2001) ‘Physical place and cyberspace’, International Urban and Regional Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 227-252.
Wellman, B., &
Haythornthwaite, C. (eds.) (2002) The Internet in Everyday Life, Blackwell,
Wellman, B. & Hogan, B. with Berg, K., Boase, J., Carrasco, J., Côté, R., Kayahara, J., Kennedy, T. & Tran, P. (2006) ‘Connected Lives: The Project’, in Networked Neighbourhoods, ed. P. Purcell, Springer, Guildford, UK: pp. 157-211.
Wellman, B. & Wortley, S. (1990). ‘Different strokes from different folks.’ American Journal of Sociology, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 558-88.
Zamaria, C., Caron, A.
& Fletcher, F. (2005) ‘
Table 1: Characteristics of Partnered East Yorkers by Hours
of Internet Use
|
|
Non
Home Users |
Light 1-2
hrs |
Mod 3-7
hrs |
Heavy 8+
hrs |
|
Sig. |
|
Sample
size |
n=10 |
n=40 |
n=58 |
n=59 |
n=167 |
|
|
Percentage
of all users |
6 |
24 |
35 |
35 |
|
|
|
Mean
Age |
41 |
44 |
45 |
42 |
43 |
.510 |
|
n= |
9 |
39 |
57 |
59 |
164 |
|
|
%
Women |
75 |
70 |
49 |
53 |
57 |
.126 |
|
n= |
8 |
40 |
57 |
59 |
164 |
|
|
%
with Children |
90 |
70 |
74 |
78 |
75 |
.564 |
|
n= |
10 |
40 |
58 |
59 |
167 |
|
|
%
Employed |
80 |
78 |
74 |
55 |
69 |
.051 |
|
n= |
10 |
37 |
57 |
58 |
162 |
|
|
%
Working at home |
0 |
23 |
30 |
32 |
27 |
.260 |
|
n= |
8 |
31 |
43 |
34 |
116 |
|
|
%
with Undergrad. Degree Only |
56 |
46 |
37 |
32 |
38 |
.580 |
|
%
with Graduate Degree |
11 |
21 |
26 |
25 |
24 |
|
|
n= |
9 |
39 |
57 |
59 |
164 |
|
|
%
with > 1 Home Computer |
67 |
36 |
37 |
33 |
37 |
.457 |
|
n= |
6 |
33 |
57 |
57 |
153 |
|
|
Mean
number of years online |
6.2 |
7.2 |
6.6 |
7.9 |
7.2 |
.103 |
|
n= |
9 |
37 |
58 |
57 |
161 |
|
Table
2: Mean Media Use (Times Per Month) by Frequency of Internet Use and Gender
|
|
|
Non Users |
Light 1-2
hrs |
Mod 3-7
hrs |
Heavy 8+
hrs |
All |
|
|
||||||
|
Between Partners |
||||||
|
Landline
calls to partner |
Women |
26.0 |
18.5 |
23.2 |
20.4 |
21.0 |
|
|
Men |
18.0 |
18.9 |
18.5 |
23.6 |
20.5 |
|
n=162 |
All |
22.3 |
18.6 |
20.7 |
21.9 |
20.8 |
|
Mobile
phone calls to partner |
Women |
11.3 |
10.3 |
13.6 |
17.0 |
13.5 |
|
|
Men |
3.0 |
22.1 |
11.4 |
14.5 |
14.3+ |
|
n=132 |
All |
9.3 |
14.1 |
12.4 |
15.8 |
13.8 |
|
Emails
partner |
Women |
- |
8.2 |
9.2 |
5.1 |
7.3 |
|
|
Men |
- |
9.0 |
4.1 |
9.6 |
7.3 |
|
n=130 |
All |
- |
8.5 |
6.4 |
7.2 |
7.3 |
|
Emails
partner when in house together |
Women |
- |
0 |
1.3 |
1.5 |
1 |
|
|
Men |
- |
0 |
0 |
1.8 |
1 |
|
n=122 |
All |
- |
0 |
<1 |
1.6 |
1 |
|
IMs
partner |
Women |
- |
4.9 |
4.3 |
1.8 |
3.4 |
|
|
Men |
- |
3.3 |
1.9 |
7.0 |
4.3 |
|
n=121 |
All |
- |
4.4 |
2.8 |
4.3 |
3.8 |
|
|
||||||
|
Parent – Child(ren) |
||||||
|
Landline
calls to children |
Women |
12.6 |
9.0 |
15.4 |
13.3 |
12.9 |
|
|
Men |
6.0 |
12.0 |
11.7 |
13.0 |
12.3 |
|
n=108 |
All |
8.7 |
10.0 |
13.4 |
13.2 |
12.6 |
|
Mobile
phone calls to children |
Women |
7.2 |
7.0 |
8.3 |
9.5 |
8.4 |
|
|
Men |
0 |
9.8 |
3.5 |
7.7 |
6.0 |
|
n=87 |
All |
5.1 |
7.7 |
5.8 |
8.6 |
7.3 |
|
Emails
children |
Women |
- |
5.1 |
1.2 |
4.8 |
3.8 |
|
|
Men |
- |
6.8 |
<1 |
2.6 |
2.5 |
|
n=79 |
All |
- |
5.8 |
1.0 |
3.7 |
3.2+ |
|
Emails
children when in house together |
Women |
- |
<1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Men |
- |
6.0* |
0 |
0 |
<1 |
|
n=69 |
All |
- |
2.5 |
0 |
0 |
<1+ |
|
IMs
children |
Women |
- |
3.3 |
0 |
0 |
1.1 |
|
|
Men |
- |
5.0+ |
0 |
0 |
1.0+ |
|
n=73 |
All |
- |
3.9 |
0 |
0 |
1+ |
*indicates
significant <p=.05
+indicates
significant <p=.10
Never=0;
>Monthly=1; About Monthly=3; About weekly=6; About daily=30
Table 3: Mean Number of
Emails Sent from Home and Work per Week
by Frequency of Internet
Use and Gender
|
|
|
Light 1-2 hrs |
Mod 3-7 hrs |
Heavy 8+ hrs |
Sig. |
|
Mean
# of Emails Sent to HH Members from Home |
Women |
0 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
.093 |
|
n= |
|
26 |
28 |
31 |
|
|
|
Men |
1.1 |
0 |
3.1 |
.004 |
|
n= |
|
11 |
27 |
28 |
|
|
|
All |
<1 |
1.4 |
2.8 |
.010 |
|
n= |
|
37 |
56 |
59 |
|
|
|
sig=.905 |
|
|
|
|
|
Mean
# of Emails Sent to HH members from Work |
Women |
4.0 |
5.1 |
0 |
.342 |
|
n= |
|
17 |
17 |
10 |
|
|
|
Men |
1.7 |
1.1 |
2.7 |
.369 |
|
n= |
|
7 |
16 |
13 |
|
|
|
All |
3.3 |
3.2 |
1.8 |
.634 |
|
n= |
|
24 |
33 |
23 |
|
|
|
sig=.202 |
|
|
|
|
Table
4: Mean Number of Hours Spent with Partner and Children Online Per Week
by Frequency of Internet Use and Gender
|
|
|
Light 1-2 hrs |
Mod 3-7 hrs |
Heavy 8+ hrs |
Sig. |
|
Mean
# of Hours per Week Spent with Partner Online |
Women |
1.2 |
1.5 |
3.1 |
.103 |
|
n= |
|
26 |
26 |
31 |
|
|
|
Men |
1.2 |
1.7 |
2.6 |
.306 |
|
n= |
|
12 |
29 |
28 |
|
|
|
All |
1.2 |
1.6 |
2.8 |
.031 |
|
n= |
|
38 |
56 |
59 |
|
|
|
sig=.784 |
|
|
|
|
|
Mean
# of Hours per Week Spent with Children Online |
Women |
2.1* |
2.2 |
4.6 |
.201 |
|
n= |
|
17 |
19 |
24 |
|
|
|
Men |
1.5 |
1.3 |
1.5 |
.933 |
|
n= |
|
6 |
24 |
20 |
|
|
|
All |
2.0 |
1.7 |
3.2 |
.203 |
|
n= |
|
23 |
43 |
44 |
|
|
|
sig=.038 |
|
|
|
|
*Note: Participants were asked to check off a category
of how many hours they spend on the following. Categories (such as 1-4) were
coded at the mid-point (2.5) and may explain why it appears that light users
spend all their time online with their children. Also, the question itself
might be problematic because participants might include time spent online with
their children at other locations (such as library or other family members).
[1]
“Partners” are either officially married or living together as common-law
spouses:
[2] The study’s sample size and geographic specificity limits the generalizability of our research findings, although we believe they represent a broader situation. Our analysis focuses primarily on gender and type of internet use and does not include such demographics as ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
[3] This is in contrast to the experience of both (heavy user) authors
of this paper who send emails to their loved ones daily, pointing out
interesting things on the web, forwarding messages from third parties,
including attachments of photos, etc.
[4] “I” refers to Interviewer, and “P” refers to
Participant. The number after each quotation is the participant’s ID number in
the Connected Lives study.
[5] See
Bianchi, Robinson & Milkie’s (2006) discussion of how parents multitask and
incorporate children into their leisure activities. They also argue that
parents are spending as much, if not more time with their children than parents
in 1965.
[6] The percentages are greater than 100 because many homes have two computers, and many people use computers at home and at work.
[7] We have found this in our own experiences as
well: One of the authors wrote this paper sitting side-by-side with
his wife on dual home computers, while the other author wrote while sitting
with her son on dual home computers.
[W1]Version adds population and household size to that sent to Information, Communciation and Society, April 3, 2007