Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAdorjan, Michael
dc.contributor.authorRicciardelli, Rosemary
dc.contributor.authorSaleh, Tina
dc.description.abstractResearch on parental mediation of children’s online engagements situate historically longstanding anxieties within the dynamics of present-day information communications technologies (i.e., concerns over new “cyber risks,” as well as opportunities). Yet, there remains a lack of emphasis on children’s reactions to and experiences with parental strategies and responses. In the current article, we highlight research involving semi-structured focus groups (n=35) with Canadian teenagers (n=115). We highlight themes directly related to parental digital mediation, including the role of ICTs in driving addictive behaviors, social connection, differences in parental responses between sons and daughters, and differences concerning age and birth order. Disrupting cultural discourses of young people who lack agency in relation to their use of ICTs, our discussions with teens reveal qualified support, even degrees of sympathy, for parental efforts to restrict access and use of digital technologies, but illuminate multifaceted reasons for resistance: their vital role not only for social connection but access to crucial information and knowledge.en
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesQualitative Sociology Review;2en
dc.subjectDigital Parentingen
dc.subjectParental Online Governance and Mediationen
dc.subjectInformation Communications Technologiesen
dc.subjectYouth and Teenagersen
dc.subjectCyber Risken
dc.titleParental Technology Governance: Teenagers’ Understandings and Responses to Parental Digital Mediationen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationAdorjan, Michael - University of Calgary, Canadaen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationRicciardelli, Rosemary - Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canadaen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationSaleh, Tina - McGill University, Canadaen
dc.referencesAdorjan, Michael and Rosemary Ricciardelli. 2019. Cyber-Risk and Youth: Digital Citizenship, Privacy and Surveillance. London: Routledge.en
dc.referencesAdorjan, Michael and Rosemary Ricciardelli. 2021. “Smartphone and Social Media Addiction: Exploring the Perceptions and Experiences of Canadian Teenagers.” Canadian Review of Sociology 58(1):45-64. doi:
dc.referencesAgatston, Patricia, Robin Kowalski, and Susan Limber. 2007. “Students’ Perspectives on Cyber Bullying.” Journal of Adolescent Health 41(6):S59-S60.en
dc.referencesAllen, Kathleen. 2012. “Off the Radar and Ubiquitous: Text Messaging and Its Relationship to ‘Drama’ and Cyberbullying in an Affluent, Academically Rigorous US High School.” Journal of Youth Studies 15(1):99-117.en
dc.referencesBailey, Jane and Valerie Steeves. 2013. “Will the Real Digital Girl Please Stand Up?: Examining the Gap between Policy Dialogue and Girls’ Accounts of Their Digital Existence.” Pp. 41-66 in New Visualities, New Technologies: The New Ecstasy of Communication, edited by J. M. Wise and H. Koskela. Farnham: Ashgate.en
dc.referencesBailey, Jane and Valerie Steeves, eds. 2015. eGirls, eCitizens. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.en
dc.referencesBailey, Jane et al. 2013. “Negotiating with Gender Stereotypes on Social Networking Sites: From ‘Bicycle Face’ to Facebook.” Journal of Communication Inquiry 37(2):91-112.en
dc.referencesBarron, Carol. 2014. “‘I Had No Credit to Ring You Back’: Children’s Strategies of Negotiation and Resistance to Parental Surveillance via Mobile Phones.” Surveillance & Society 12(3):401-413.en
dc.referencesBenedetto, Loredana and Massimo Ingrassia. 2020. “Digital Parenting: Raising and Protecting Children in Media World.” Pp. 127-148 in Parenting-Studies by an Ecocultural and Transactional Perspective, edited by L. Benedetto and M. Ingrassia. London: IntechOpen.en
dc.referencesboyd, dana. 2008. “Why Youth ♥ Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” Pp. 119-142 in Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, edited by D. Buckingham. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en
dc.referencesboyd, dana. 2014. It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. London: Yale University Press.en
dc.referencesboyd, dana and Eszter Hargittai. 2013. “Connected and Concerned: Variation in Parents’ Online Safety Concerns.” Policy & Internet 5(3):245-269.en
dc.referencesCabello-Hutt, Tania, Patricio Cabello, and Magdalena Claro. 2018. “Online Opportunities and Risks for Children and Adolescents: The Role of Digital Skills, Age, Gender and Parental Mediation in Brazil.” New Media & Society 20(7):2411-2431. doi:
dc.referencesEastin, Matthew S., Bradley S. Greenberg, and Linda Hofschire. 2006. “Parenting the Internet.” Journal of Communication 56(3):486-504. doi:
dc.referencesFisk, Nathan. 2016. Framing Internet Safety: The Governance of Youth Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en
dc.referencesGabriel, Fleur. 2014. “Sexting, Selfies and Self-Harm: Young People, Social Media and the Performance of Self-Development.” Media International Australia 151(1):104-112.en
dc.referencesGabriels, Katleen. 2016. “‘I Keep a Close Watch on This Child of Mine’: A Moral Critique of Other-Tracking Apps.” Ethics and Information Technology 18(3):175-184.en
dc.referencesGarland, David. 1996. “The Limits of the Sovereign State.” British Journal of Criminology 36(4):445-471.en
dc.referencesGoffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.en
dc.referencesHargittai, Eszter. 2002. “Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Online Skills.” First Monday 7(4). Retrieved January 19, 2022
dc.referencesHays, Sharon. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.en
dc.referencesHinduja, Sameer and Justin Patchin. 2009. Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.en
dc.referencesHinduja, Sameer and Justin Patchin. 2014. Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard: Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.en
dc.referencesHolloway, Donell. 2017. “The Panopticon Kitchen: The Materiality of Parental Surveillance in the Family Home.” Pp. 1-11 in Refereed Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Conference 2017—Communication Worlds: Access, Voice, Diversity, Engagement. Retrieved February 17, 2022
dc.referencesJeffery, Catherine Page. 2018. “Too Sexy Too Soon, or Just Another Moral Panic? Sexualization, Children, and ‘Technopanics’ in the Australian Media 2004-2015.” Feminist Media Studies 18(3):366-380. doi:
dc.referencesJeffery, Catherine Page. 2020. “‘It’s Really Difficult. We’ve Only Got Each Other to Talk to.’ Monitoring, Mediation and Good Parenting in Australia in the Digital Age.” Journal of Children and Media 15(2):202-217. doi:
dc.referencesJeffery, Catherine Page. 2021. “Parenting in the Digital Age: Between Socio-Biological and Socio-Technological Development.” New Media & Society 23(5):1045-1062. doi:
dc.referencesJenkins, Henry et al. 2018. By Any Media Necessary: The New Youth Activism, vol. 3. New York: New York University Press.en
dc.referencesJohnson, Matthew. 2015. “Digital Literacy and Digital Citizenship: Approaches to Girls’ Online Experiences.” Pp. 339-360 in eGirls, eCitizens, edited by J. Bailey and V. Steeves. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.en
dc.referencesKeegan Eamon, Mary. 2004. “Digital Divide in Computer Access and Use between Poor and Non-Poor Youth.” The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 31(2):91-112.en
dc.referencesKerr, Margaret and Håkan Stattin. 2000. “What Parents Know, How They Know It, and Several Forms of Adolescent Adjustment: Further Support for a Reinterpretation of Monitoring.” Developmental Psychology 36(3):366-380.en
dc.referencesLau, Wilfred and Allan Yuen. 2013. “Adolescents’ Risky Online Behaviours: The Influence of Gender, Religion, and Parenting Style.” Computers in Human Behavior 29(6):2690-2696.en
dc.referencesLee, Sook-Jung. 2013. “Parental Restrictive Mediation of Children’s Internet Use: Effective for What and for Whom?” New Media & Society 15(4):466-481.en
dc.referencesLi, Caina et al. 2014. “Internet Addiction among Chinese Adolescents: The Effect of Parental Behavior and Self-Control.” Computers in Human Behaviour 41:1-7.en
dc.referencesLivingstone, Sonia, ed. 2002. Young People and New Media: Childhood and the Changing Media Environment. London: Sage.en
dc.referencesLivingstone, Sonia. 2008. “Taking Risky Opportunities in Youthful Content Creation: Teenagers’ Use of Social Networking Sites for Intimacy, Privacy and Self-Expression.” New Media &Society 10(3):393-411.en
dc.referencesLivingstone, Sonia. 2009. Children and the Internet: Great Expectations, Challenging Realities. Malden, MA: Polity Press.en
dc.referencesLivingstone, Sonia. 2020. “Digital by Default: The New Normal of Family Life under COVID-19.” British Politics and Policy at LSE. Retrieved January 19, 2022
dc.referencesLivingstone, Sonia and Alicia Blum-Ross. 2021. Parenting for a Digital Future: How Hopes and Fears about Technology Shape Children’s Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en
dc.referencesLivingstone, Sonia and Ellen Helsper. 2008. “Parental Mediation of Children’s Internet Use.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 52(4):581-599.en
dc.referencesLivingstone, Sonia and Julian Sefton-Green. 2016. The Class: Living and Learning in the Digital Age. New York: New York University Press.en
dc.referencesLoader, Ian. 2006. “Fall of the ‘Platonic Guardians’: Liberalism, Criminology and Political Responses to Crime in England and Wales.” British Journal of Criminology 46(4):561- 586.en
dc.referencesMadianou, Mirca and Daniel Miller. 2011. “Mobile Phone Parenting: Reconfiguring Relationships between Filipina Migrant Mothers and Their Left-Behind Children.” New Media & Society 13(3):457-470.en
dc.referencesMadriz, Esther. 1997. Nothing Bad Happens to Good Girls: Fear of Crime in Women’s Lives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.en
dc.referencesMarker, Brandon. 2011. Sexting as Moral Panic: An Exploratory Study into the Media’s Construction of Sexting. Masters of Science. Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky.en
dc.referencesMarwick, Alice and dana boyd. 2014. “Networked Privacy: How Teenagers Negotiate Context in Social Media.” New Media & Society 16(7):1051-1067.en
dc.referencesMarx, Gary and Valerie Steeves. 2010. “From the Beginning: Children as Subjects and Agents of Surveillance.” Surveillance & Society 7(3/4):192-230.en
dc.referencesMorgan, David. 1997. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.en
dc.referencesNagata, Jason, Hoda Abdel Magid, and Kelley Gabriel. 2020. “Screen Time for Children and Adolescents during the COVID‐19 Pandemic.” Obesity 28(9):1582-1583. doi:
dc.referencesNathanson, Amy. 1999. “Identifying and Explaining the Relationship between Parental Mediation and Children’s Aggression.” Communication Research 26(2):124-143.en
dc.referencesNelson, Margaret. 2010. Parenting Out of Control: Anxious Parents in Uncertain Times. New York: New York University Press.en
dc.referencesNotten, Natascha and Peter Nikken. 2016. “Boys and Girls Taking Risks Online: A Gendered Perspective on Social Context and Adolescents’ Risky Online Behavior.” New Media & Society 18(6):966-988.en
dc.referencesOberst, Ursula et al. 2017. “Negative Consequences from Heavy Social Networking in Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Fear of Missing Out.” Journal of Adolescence 55:51-60. doi:
dc.referencesOrgilés, Mireia et al. 2020. “Immediate Psychological Effects of the COVID-19 Quarantine in Youth from Italy and Spain.” SSRN. doi:
dc.referencesPrzybylski, Andrew et al. 2013. “Motivational, Emotional, and Behavioral Correlates of Fear of Missing Out.” Computers in Human Behavior 29(4):1841-1848.en
dc.referencesRacz, Sarah and Robert McMahon. 2011. “The Relationship between Parental Knowledge and Monitoring and Child and Adolescent Conduct Problems: A 10-Year Update.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 14(4):377-398.en
dc.referencesRamsetty, Anita and Cristin Adams. 2020. “Impact of the Digital Divide in the Age of COVID-19.” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 27(7):1147-1148. doi:
dc.referencesRanson, Gillan. 2018. The Parents and Children Project: Raising Kids in Canada Today. Rock Mills Press.en
dc.referencesSanders, Wesley et al. 2016. “Parental Perceptions of Technology and Technology-Focused Parenting: Associations with Youth Screen Time.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 44:28-38.en
dc.referencesShin, Wonsun. 2015. “Parental Socialization of Children’s Internet Use: A Qualitative Approach.” New Media & Society 17(5):649-665.en
dc.referencesShin, Wonsun and May Lwin. 2017. “How Does ‘Talking about the Internet with Others’ Affect Teenagers’ Experience of Online Risks? The Role of Active Mediation by Parents, Peers, and School Teachers.” New Media & Society 19(7):1109-1126. doi:
dc.referencesSparks, Richard, Evi Girling, and Ian Loader. 2001. “Fear and Everyday Urban Lives.” Urban Studies 38(5-6):885-898.en
dc.referencesSpencer, Jack. 2005. “It’s Not as Simple as It Seems: Ambiguous Culpability and Ambivalent Affect in News Representations of Violent Youth.” Symbolic Interaction 28(1):47-65.en
dc.referencesStanko, Elizabeth. 1997. “Safety Talk: Conceptualising Women’s Risk Assessment as a Technology of the Soul.” Theoretical Criminology 1(4):479-499.en
dc.referencesStattin, Håkan and Margaret Kerr. 2000. “Parental Monitoring: A Reinterpretation.” Child Development 71(4):1072-1085.en
dc.referencesSteeves, Valerie. 2014. Young Canadians in a Wired World, Phase III: Life Online. Ottawa: MediaSmarts.en
dc.referencesStewart, David, Prem Shamdasani, and Dennis Rook. 2007. Focus Groups, Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. London: Sage.en
dc.referencesStrauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.en
dc.referencesTaylor, Emmeline and Tonya Rooney. 2016. Surveillance Futures: Social and Ethical Implications of New Technologies for Children and Young People. London: Routledge.en
dc.referencesTripp, Lisa. 2011. “‘The Computer Is Not for You to Be Looking Around, It Is for Schoolwork’: Challenges for Digital Inclusion as Latino Immigrant Families Negotiate Children’s Access to the Internet.” New Media & Society 13(4):552-567.en
dc.referencesTwinn, Sheila. 1998. “An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Focus Groups as a Method of Qualitative Data Collection with Chinese Populations in Nursing Research.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 28(3):654-661.en
dc.referencesValkenburg, Patti et al. 1999. “Developing a Scale to Assess Three Styles of Television Mediation: ‘Instructive Mediation,’ ‘Restrictive Mediation,’ and ‘Social Coviewing.’” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 43(1):52-66.en
dc.referencesVandebosch, Heidi and Katrien Van Cleemput. 2008. “Defining Cyberbullying: A Qualitative Research into the Perceptions of Youngsters.” Cyberpsychology and Behavior 11(4):499- 503.en
dc.referencesVickery, Jacqueline. 2017. Worried about the Wrong Things: Youth, Risk, and Opportunity in the Digital World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en
dc.referencesWall, Glenda. 2021. “Being a Good Digital Parent: Representations of Parents, Youth and the Parent–Youth Relationship in Expert Advice.” Families, Relationships and Societies. doi:
dc.referencesWartella, Ellen et al. 2013. “Parenting in the Age of Digital Technology.” Report for the Center on Media and Human Development, School of Communication, Northwestern University. Retrieved February 17, 2022
dc.referencesYardi, Sarita and Amy Bruckman. 2012. “Income, Race, and Class: Exploring Socioeconomic Differences in Family Technology Use.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:
dc.contributor.authorEmailAdorjan, Michael -
dc.contributor.authorEmailRicciardelli, Rosemary -
dc.contributor.authorEmailSaleh, Tina -

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as