Technical ReportPDF Available
A review of the European evidence base
September 2014 (Revised edition)
Children’s Use of Online
Technologies in Europe
Kjartan Ólafsson, Sonia Livingstone & Leslie Haddon
with members of the
EU Kids Online
network
ISSN 2045
-
256X
www.eukidsonline.net
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
2
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base (Revised
edition). This report reviews recent research on children’s use of internet and mobile technologies identified
by the EU Kids Online network.
Please cite as: Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2014). Children’s Use of Online Technologies in
Europe. A review of the European evidence base. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. Revised edition.
Previous reports and publications from EU Kids Online include:
O'Neill, B., Staksrud, E. with members of the EU Kids Online network (2014) Final recommendations for
policy. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/59518/
Smahel, D. and Wright, M. (2014). The meaning of online problematic situations for children: Results of
cross-cultural qualitative investigation in nine European countries.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/56972/
Vandoninck, S., d’Haenens, L., & Smahel, D. (2014). Preventive measures: How youngsters avoid online
risks. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/55797/
Barbosa, A., O’Neill, B., Ponte, C., Simões, J., & Jereissati, J. (2013). Risks and safety on the internet:
Comparing Brazilian and European findings. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54801/
Barbovschi, M., Green, L., & Vandoninck, S. (2013). Innovative approaches for investigating how young
children understand risk in new media: Dealing with methodological and ethical challenges.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/53060/
EU Kids Online (2013). Response to the Green Paper: Preparing for a fully converged audiovisual world:
Growth, creation and values. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/53059/
Holloway, D., Green, L., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Zero to eight. Young children and their internet use.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52630/
Helsper, E.J., Kalmus, V., Hasebrink, U., Sagvari, B., & de Haan, J. (2013). Country classification:
Opportunities, risks, harm and parental mediation. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52023/
Livingstone, S., Kirwil, L., Ponte, C., & Staksrud, E., with the EU Kids Online Network (2013). In their own
words: What bothers children online? http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48357/
D’Haenens, L., Vandonink, S., & Donoso, V. (2013). How to cope and build resilience.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48115/
Smahel, D., Helsper, E., Green, L., Kalmus, V., Blinka, L., & Ólafsson, K. (2012). Excessive internet use
among European children. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/47344/
Dürager, A. and Livingstone, S. (2012). How can parents support children’s internet safety?
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/42872/
Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., O’Neill, B., & Donoso, V. (2012). Towards a better internet for children:
Findings and recommendations from EU Kids Online to inform the CEO coalition.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/44213/
Haddon, L., Livingstone, S., & the EU Kids Online network (2012). EU Kids Online: National perspectives.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/46878/
The EU Kids Online network has been funded by the EC Safer Internet Programme in three successive
phases of work from 2006-14 to enhance knowledge of children’s and parents’ experiences and practices
regarding risky and safer use of the internet and new online technologies.
As a major part of its activities, EU Kids Online conducted a face-to-face, in home survey during 2010 of 25,000
9-16 year old internet users and their parents in 25 countries, using a stratified random sample and self-
completion methods for sensitive questions. Now including researchers and stakeholders from 33 countries in
Europe and beyond, the network continues to analyse and update the evidence base to inform policy.
For all reports, findings and technical survey information, as well as full details of national partners, please visit
www.eukidsonline.net
3
CONTENTS
Contents3
Executivesummary4
BACKGROUND...................................................................4
THEEUROPEANEVIDENCEDATABASE.....................................4
FEATURESOFTHEAVAILABLERESEARCH.................................4
KEYRESEARCHGAPS...........................................................5
1.Introduction6
1.1.CONTEXT...............................................................6
1.2.THEPOLICYAGENDA................................................6
1.3.THEEUKIDSONLINENETWORK................................7
1.4.REVIEWINGTHEEVIDENCE........................................9
1.5.IDENTIFYINGRESEARCH..........................................10
1.6.THISREPORT........................................................12
2.Availabilityofresearch14
2.1.HOWMUCHRESEARCHISAVAILABLE?.......................14
2.2.INWHICHCOUNTRIESISRESEARCHAVAILABLE?...........16
2.3.ISTHERESCOPETOCOMPAREOVERCOUNTRIESOR
TIME?17
2.4.ARERESEARCHFINDINGSPUBLICLYAVAILABLE?...........17
2.5.WHATLANGUAGEISRESEARCHPUBLISHEDIN?...........18
3.Patternsofresearch20
3.1.AGEOFCHILDREN.................................................20
3.2.TOPICSRESEARCHED..............................................21
3.3.FUNDINGANDORIGINSOFRESEARCH........................22
3.4.RESEARCHMETHODS.............................................23
4.Usingtheevidencedatabase24
4.1.ACCESSANDUSE...................................................24
4.2.ACTIVITIES...........................................................25
4.3.RISKSANDHARM...................................................26
4.4.OPPORTUNITIESANDBENEFITS.................................26
4.5.MEDIATION..........................................................26
4.6EXCESSIVEINTERNETUSE........................................27
4.6.MOBILEPHONES...................................................28
4.7.AUSTRIA..............................................................29
5.Summaryandconclusions31
5.1.KEYFEATURESOFTHEAVAILABLERESEARCH...............31
5.2.SIGNIFICANTGAPSINTHEEVIDENCEBASE...................32
5.3.EMERGINGISSUESANDCHALLENGES.........................32
5.4.THEFUTUREOFTHEEVIDENCEDATABASE..................33
Listoffigures34
Listoftables34
Annex1:EUKidsOnline35
OVERVIEW......................................................................35
WORKPACKAGES.............................................................35
INTERNATIONALADVISORYPANEL.......................................35
Annex2:Thenetwork36
COUNTRY.......................................................................36
NATIONALCONTACTINFORMATION.....................................36
TEAMMEMBERS.............................................................36
Annex3:Codingframe40
VARIABLE.......................................................................40
DESCRIPTION..................................................................40
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The past decade technological change has been
accompanied by a decade of research seeking to
understand the nature of these changes as they
shape everyday life, tracing their social
consequences within the home, for parents and
children, for the peer group, at school, and in the
wider society.
In 2006 the first EU Kids Online network first
constructed its European Evidence database,
providing details in English of empirical research
across Europe on children’s experience of internet
and mobile technologies. Successive EU Kids
Online projects have updated this evidence
database as a searchable resource for use by
researchers, policy makers and others interested
this field.
The European evidence database
This report reviews the availability and contents of
this evidence base, focusing on the availability of
research findings and key research gaps. It
accompanies two online outputs:
European Evidence Database. This now
contains information about over 1500
studies, and is freely searchable online at
www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKids
Online/DB/home.aspx
Frequently Asked Questions: an interactive
resource for researchers and research
users regarding methodological best
practice for studying children’s use of
internet and online technologies in diverse
countries. See
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/50437/
Our recent search for evidence, conducted by
teams from 33 countries, has resulted in over
1,500 studies being entered into the European
Evidence Database. This is some 1,100 more than
the previous total of nearly 400 identified in 2009.
For many of the newer studies (conducted since
2009) the network members have also produced
summaries of the findings and included these in
the searchable database.
Features of the available research
While initially most research focused only on
children, and increasing body of research also
addresses parents and teachers.
Most research exists in Belgium, Germany,
Turkey and the UK. Least research exists in
Iceland, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta and
Switzerland.
Most studies are conducted at a single time point
in one country, making it difficult to compare
findings over countries or over time.
For almost half (45%) of the studies, findings are
published in an online report. This makes it difficult
for research users to find much of the research,
especially when it has been conducted in other
countries. Increasingly though, research is
published in peer-reviewed academic journals,
resulting in a higher quality output overall. A fair
proportion of research, however, is poorly
conducted and poorly reported and disseminated.
Nine in ten studies are reported in just one
language, and only four in ten are published in
or include a summary in English. Language
issues thus continue to impede the free circulation
of knowledge.
Almost half (44%) of research concerns
teenagers only (13+ years); 57% of research
5
includes those aged 12 and under, and just 13%
concerns those under 7 years old.
Most studies focus on internet access and use.
Over half also addresses online risks, but
safety mediation (by parents and others)
receives the least attention.
The biggest source of funding is public money,
funding over four in ten studies.
Around two thirds of studies apply only
quantitative methods and the proportion of
studies that use only quantitative data has
increased in later years. Some 60% of the
quantitative studies use samples that are intended
to be representative on the national level.
To illustrate the kinds of information contained in
the European Evidence Database, the report
highlights selected findings for children’s use of
internet and mobile technologies in the hope of
encouraging research users to visit the database
and search directly according to interest.
Key research gaps
Although the amount of research has more than
doubled since EU Kids reviewed the field in 2009
the key gaps identified then continue to be
pressing:
1. Uneven coverage by age, especially very
young children, despite the rapid rise in their
access to internet and mobile technologies.
2. Overwhelming focus on the fixed internet, to
the neglect of mobile, convergent and
emerging technologies.
3. Too little known of children’s online activities
and how they do or may reap the benefits.
4. Gaps in the evidence for exposure to online
risk, how children respond and which are
vulnerable to harm.
5. Gaps regarding the role of parents and
teachers, along with other forms of safety
mediation, and lack of knowledge of their
effectiveness.
6. Gaps in certain countries. To some extent, it is
possible to generalise across countries but for
many purposes, national research will be
needed.
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
6
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Context
The rapidity with which children and young
people are gaining access to online, convergent,
mobile and networked technologies is
unprecedented in the history of technological
innovation and diffusion. These changes pose
parents, teachers and children the significant task of
acquiring, learning how to use, and finding a
purpose for the internet within their daily lives.
The benefits are to be found in relation to learning,
participation, creativity and communication. Such
online opportunities are also the focus of
considerable public and private sector activity, with
diverse and ambitious efforts underway in many
countries to promote digital learning technologies in
schools, e-governance initiatives, digital
participation and digital literacy.
Along with the benefits, this access has brought
exposure to a wide array of online risks, some of
which are familiar in the offline world (e.g. bullying,
pornography, sexual exploitation) and some of
which are new, or at least substantially reconfigured
in the lives of ordinary children (e.g. grooming,
abuse of personal data and privacy, geo-location
tracking, unwelcome forms of sexual messaging and
harassment, the facilitation of self-harm).
Such rapid adoption of the internet and other online
technologies poses policy makers, governments and
industry the significant task of identifying the
associated risks of internet use. They must also
develop strategies and tools to ensure that any
harm associated with such risks is appropriately
minimised. In recent years, children have gained
access first to dial-up, then broadband and mobile
internet access at home, school and elsewhere,
acquiring new skills and expertise as a result.
In coming years, the nature and use of the internet
can be expected to change yet further, resulting in
new research questions and challenges to be
addressed if the opportunities are to outweigh the
risks of internet use.
1.2. The policy agenda
The more children go online to gain the benefits,
the more they may encounter risks,
inadvertently and, sometimes, knowingly.1
Indeed, children’s everyday contexts of internet use
combine experiences of opportunities and risks.
Increased skills online also tend to increase rather
than decrease the chances of both risks and
opportunities. Online risks may be encountered
when children are naïve or exploited; this especially
seems to occur in ‘new use, new risk’ countries such
as Estonia, Poland and Slovenia, where children are
using the internet before an infrastructure of
awareness-raising, parental understanding,
regulation or safety protection has emerged.2
However, children may also encounter risks when
they are sophisticated or risk-taking internet users,
familiar with technology and embedded in online
social networks.3 Thus, promoting internet use
without attention to safety may also promote online
1 Livingstone, S. and Helsper, E.J. (2010) Balancing
opportunities and risks in teenagers’ use of the internet:
The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New
Media & Society, 12(2): 309-329.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35373/
2 O'Neill, B., Staksrud, E. with members of the EU Kids
Online network (2014) Final recommendations for policy.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/59518/
3 See Helsper, E.J., Kalmus, V., Hasebrink, U., Sagvari,
B., & de Haan, J. (2013). Country classification:
Opportunities, risks, harm and parental mediation.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/52023/
7
risk; conversely, measures to reduce risk may have
the unintended consequence of constraining online
opportunities.
This leaves policy makers facing difficult questions
in managing children’s online experiences. The
promotion of opportunities and digital skills must be
integrated with rather than separate from the effort
to manage children’s online risk and safety.
Celebrating young people’s enterprise and
enthusiasm while failing to engage with or support
their online activities or their experience of
associated online harm will surely fail to bring to
fruition the great expectations that society holds out
in general and for young users in particular.
In response to this challenge, the regulatory regime
is developing fast, at times permitting little
opportunity to weigh evidence, explore alternative
solutions, allow domestic practices to settle, or wait
for unintended consequences to unfold. Some
regulatory practices attempt to manage conditions of
accessibility, designing into websites and services
enablers and constraints on what (or who) children
(and others) can access and how. Examples include
provision of filters, specification of child-friendly
default settings, age verification systems, content
rating and labelling, design standards or opt-in/opt-
out points (e.g., for ‘adult’ content). Others focus on
the conditions of children’s internet use – building
skills, advising parents, training teachers etc.
Recently, such initiatives have been brought
together by the European Commission’s Better
Internet for Kids, as part of the European Digital
Agenda.4 But many questions remain. How far
should policy-makers resource efforts to improve
online education, participation and creativity? Can
youthful digital literacy be relied upon for judicious
navigation of the internet? Can parents be relied
upon to act to meet the specific needs of their child?
4 See http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/creating-
better-internet-kids
Do available policy and technical tools work
effectively? Are online risks best addressed by
particular agencies, national or international?
1.3. The EU Kids Online network
Since 2006, EU Kids Online has represented a focal
point for new research findings on children’s use of
the internet and online technologies. Information
about the national teams and key findings,5 together
with a recent country by country report,6 are
available on our website.
In its first phase, the network identified and
critically evaluated the findings of around 400
research studies, drawing substantive,
methodological and policy-relevant conclusions.
In its second phase, the network surveyed
children and parents across Europe in a major
25 country, in-home survey of a representative
sample of 25,142 children.7
Due to be completed at the end of 2014, the
third phase of EU Kids Online is building on the
success of these two previous projects, as well
as on the longer tradition of research on
children’s media use, in order to deepen and
broaden its analysis of the changing array of
opportunities, risks and safety dimensions of
children’s online experiences.
The past decade of technological change has been
accompanied by a decade of research seeking to
understand the nature of these changes as they
shape everyday life, tracing their social
consequences within the home, for parents and
children, for the peer group, at school, and in the
wider society. However, technological innovations
will continue to develop and social practices among
youth will continue to creatively adjust around them;
5 See country team information at
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/
ParticipatingCountries/Home.aspx
6 See National Perspectives at
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/46878/
7 See Full Findings at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
8
policy initiatives at all levels from local to
international will also continue to develop.
The EU Kids Online network now encompasses
33 countries, including all EC member states:
Table 1: Countries in EU Kids Online
Country Two letter country code
Austria AT
Belgium BE
Bulgaria BG
Croatia HR
Cyprus CY
Czech Republic CZ
Denmark DK
Estonia EE
Finland FI
France FR
Germany DE
Greece EL
Hungary HU
Iceland IS
Ireland IE
Italy IT
Latvia LV
Lithuania LT
Luxembourg LU
Malta MT
Netherlands NL
Norway NO
Poland PL
Portugal PT
Romania RO
Russia RU
Slovakia SK
Slovenia SI
Spain ES
Sweden SE
Switzerland CH
Turkey TR
United Kingdom UK
Sustaining a critical research overview is vital to
underpin evidence-based policy. This must
encompass the activities and outputs of the rapidly
growing research community now investigating
issues concerning children and young people’s
internet and mobile technology use. There are new
phenomena gaining research attention (e.g. online
addiction), innovative methods emerging (e.g. online
methods), specialist groups forming (e.g. around
mobile use, digital gaming) and an increasingly
global scope to a research enterprise which, until
recently, was largely Northern European and North
American.
A major conclusion in the EU Kids Online I project
was that a robust, comparable and up to date
portrait of online risks encountered by European
children is lacking. The available evidence base
regarding users and their needs then contained
serious gaps; the methods used were often non-
comparable across projects or countries; and the
available research dates quickly, given the pace of
both technological and social change. The EU Kids
Online II project was organised directly to address
the need for comparable research findings across
countries on the basis of which recommendations
for child safety, media literacy and awareness could
be formulated.
Keeping up with, and critically evaluating, the
latest findings and arguments is, and remains,
therefore, a substantial task. It cannot be
completed as a one-off step prior to policy
development. Even having conducted a major pan-
European survey, the task of constructing an
evidence base adequate to informing policy is not
over. Rather, the evidence base requires continual
updating and rethinking, drawing on the expertise of
researchers from multiple disciplines and countries,
developed in active dialogue with educators,
awareness raisers, child welfare organisations,
governments and industry. Also, the research
9
methods and expertise of those who conduct and
use research needs further improvement.
1.4. Reviewing the evidence
In recent years, the number of studies on children
and internet and mobile technologies has been
growing steadily around the world. However, there
have been problematic gaps in the evidence base,
and research has been unevenly distributed across
countries. As research continues to accumulate, it is
important to maintain an overall picture of the
evidence base. EU Kids Online is meeting this
challenge by identifying, evaluating and publicising
the European Evidence Base. Specific tasks are:
To identify recent evidence about children’s use
of new media across Europe, in each member
state and other participating countries, all coded
and entered in an online public database.
To evaluate the quality of the evidence base,
promoting high quality findings, identifying
significant weaknesses in the evidence base,
and reporting on trends in three annual reviews.
To reflect on methodological good practice for
research on children’s internet use, including
lessons from EU Kids Online II, and promote
these as Frequently Asked Questions online.
These tasks resulted in three outputs:
European Evidence Database. This now
contains information about over 1,500 studies,
and is freely searchable online at
www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnli
ne/DB/
Frequently Asked Questions: an interactive
resource for researchers and research users
regarding methodological best practice for
studying children’s use of internet and online
technologies in diverse countries. See
www.eukidsonline.net
Reports reviewing the availability and contents
of this evidence base. The present report is the
first iteration of this review, focusing on the
availability of research and gaps in the evidence
base. The second report (due in Autumn 2014)
will update this report and focus in more detail
on findings and implications.
By updating and critically evaluating the availability
of research, the present report aims to pinpoint
strengths and gaps in the existing evidence base.
The purpose is to inform the developing research
agenda, identifying significant advances and
drawing out methodological implications. By
updating and extending the evidence base, putting it
online, including summaries of recent findings, and
expanding coverage to include all EU member
states and more, we hope to promote the
identification and value of good quality research
conducted in Europe and beyond. Not only can we
thus make research findings (often published in
different languages) more available but it is also
easier to identify important research gaps.
To complete these tasks, the above objectives were
operationalized into a set of procedures and carried
out by all national teams participating in the EU Kids
Online network:
To locate and code empirical reports of
children’s use of internet and mobile
technologies in each participating country.
To evaluate the quality of the research findings
against agreed quality criteria derived from prior
work on methodological good practices.8
To provide a succinct English-language
summary of the findings of recent studies.
To construct a searchable database of available
evidence and put this online.
Report on the available research findings and
key gaps in the evidence base.
Update and expand EU Kids Online
methodological good practice guide, in the form
of updated FAQs.9
8 See Lobe, B. et al. (2007) Researching children’s
experiences online across countries: Issues and problems
in methodology. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2856/
9 For the previous version of these FAQs, see Lobe, B., et
al. (eds) (2008) Best practice research guide: How to
research children and online technologies in comparative
perspective. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21658/
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
10
1.5. Identifying research
Ideally, one could identify all available research on
children’s use of internet and mobile technologies in
Europe. “Research” however can be defined in
various ways, and before judging the availability of
research it is necessary to define research:
‘In the social sciences, the scientific method
refers to research methodologies that pursue
verifiable knowledge through the analysis of
empirical data.’ 10
As Lobe et al add,
‘In other words, research is designed to answer
questions. Its conduct should conform to
publicly agreed standards regarding ethics,
integrity, objectivity, and so forth. In addition,
research builds on the cumulative wisdom of a
research community, this guiding the decisions
to be taken at all stages of the research
process, from framing the question, selecting
the method, identifying the sample, interpreting
the findings and reporting the conclusions’.11
Within most scientific disciplines, research is
understood as involving the systematic collection of
data, led by a theoretical framework, which are then
analysed and interpreted according to standards of
quality, independence and relevance. To ensure
these standards, academia generally institutes a
strong process of independent (blind) peer review in
order to evaluate research findings before
publication. The quality of the body of research is an
important issue for supporting evidence-based
policy. Single studies hardly provide a solid basis for
formulating policy, and ideally there would be a
robust body of findings pointing in a similar direction
if it is to provide the basis for significant policy.
However, it must be acknowledged that debates
exist regarding the methods, theories and standards
of research, so the reader should apply their own
10 Calhoun, C. (2002). Dictionary of the Social Sciences.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11Lobe, B. et al. (2007) Researching children’s
experiences online across countries: Issues and problems
in methodology. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2856/
critical expertise when approaching the literature
reviewed in this report.
To determine how much research is available, we
could count either studies (i.e. independently
conducted research projects) or outputs (i.e.
publications, presentations, reports). An advantage
of counting outputs is that it provides a good starting
point for the process of summarizing research
findings. However, the more several outputs may
derive from the same research project (and hence
the same source of data), the less this approach
would reflect the availability of research.12
Counting studies overcomes some of the problems
associated with counting the number of outputs but
has its own drawbacks. Many studies have multiple
stages of data collection and many also have
multiple outputs. Merely counting outputs could
underestimate the research activity while also
overestimating the availability of research. 13
The effort undertaken by the EU Kids Online
network between 2006 to 2009 aimed at identifying
all available research on children’s access to and
use of the internet and related online and mobile
technologies, defined the unit of analysis as being
‘an empirical research project (not a publication)
conducted in Europe’.14 By 2009, we had found and
coded nearly 400 studies.15
12 Taking this to the extreme, it is possible to imagine that
all published research in Europe was drawing on a single
study. This single study might of course be of very high
quality but merely counting outputs would clearly
overestimate the amount of research available.
13 Taking this to the extreme, it would be possible to
imagine numerous studies being carried out but with none
of the findings published or a large number of studies
where the quality of the data collected is poor.
14 Staksrud, E., Livingstone, S., and Haddon, L. (2009)
What Do We Know about Children’s Use of Online
Technologies? A Report on Data Availability and
Research Gaps in Europe. 2nd edition
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24367/
15 The focus then and now was on studies where the
findings are publicly available. In other words there has to
be at least one publication from that study and that
11
Unit of analysis: For the purpose of reporting the
availability of research the unit of analysis is the
study – defined as a point of data collection within a
country.16 Thus:
A project conducted in two countries is counted
as two studies in the table.
A project that has both a quantitative and a
qualitative component is counted as two
studies.
A project conducted in one year and then
repeated next year is counted as two studies.
Minimum requirements: The minimum definition of
an original empirical research project, to permit
entry into the European Evidence Database, was
that a report is available (paper or electronic) that
details the methodology used (with sufficient
information to code the project and to evaluate it as
competent and valuable) and the data/findings
obtained (with sufficient information to permit basic
reporting of relevant statistics, observations or other
findings). This would include all academic
publications, most conference presentations, most
commercial or public policy reports, some market
research surveys (where often only the executive
summary or brief statement of findings is available)
and a few press releases (though some can include
detailed statistics plus a note on survey
methodology). In addition, the study must:
Contain information on children (0-17 years
old). Even though the EU Kids Online project
defines children as being those who are under
18 years old, many studies that are not focused
on children include also individuals in that age
group.
Make references to the ‘online/mobile’.
Sometimes data on for example use of online
technologies is collected as a part of a study
which has a focus on other things.
publication must include sufficient methodological details
to evaluate its quality.
16 This differs slightly from the approach used in the first
phase of the EU Kids Online project but comparability is
still feasible.
Be part of the evidence base. It has to be
recognised that the evidence base is much
broader than just what is published in peer
reviewed journals. In fact much valuable
information is available through reports.
Therefore it was thought important to search for
studies both within and outside of academia.
Use a clear methodology. As the aim of the
collection of studies was not only to determine
how much research is available but also to
expand the evidence base by providing
summaries of findings it was important to be
able to evaluate the quality of the findings to
some extent. For this purpose it was important
that there was clear information on the methods
used (e.g. definition of the sample and the
number of children interviewed).
Be accessible. The findings of the study had to
be publicly available and there had to be
sufficient methodological details to evaluate its
quality.
Be recent. Given the rapid development of
online services and devices and the fact that the
period up to 2008 had been included in previous
efforts by the EU Kids Online network it was
decided to focus on data collected in 2006 or
later.
It was clear from the beginning that there would be
more studies in some countries than in others. In
countries where there is very little relevant research
it is obviously easier to reach the goal of including
all research. In countries where a large body of
research has been conducted, national teams might
have to have been more selective, focusing on the
most recent or the most relevant work. The idea
however was to err on the side of inclusion.
A special emphasis was placed on finding studies
which addressed nay of the following topics:
Children and the internet/online world
(including online gaming/mobile phones to go
online). This would include information about
children’s access and usage, their
competencies, their online interests and
activities, their media literacy when interpreting
what they find online, their own interests,
concerns and frustrations when online, their
strategies for finding things, etc. It also includes
learning, games, identity play, advice,
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
12
participation, social networking. If many studies
are available an emphasis was to be put on
notable/recent studies. As this is a topic covered
in most studies the important thing was to
ensure this area is covered for each country,
though not necessarily including all such
studies.
Risks encountered by children online (as
well as research addressing opportunities open
up to them), together with information on safety
strategies, awareness and responses to risk.
Risks were to be defined broadly, to include
exposure to illegal content, online friends,
contact with strangers (paedophiles, grooming
in chat rooms), exposure to harmful or offensive
content, encountering sexual/violent/racist/hate
material, advertising, commercial exploitation,
misinformation, giving out personal information,
invasions of privacy and unwelcome contact
(spam, viruses, etc.), bullying, downloading
(ill/legal), user-generated content, use of
challenging sites (suicide, anorexia, drugs, etc.)
and cyber-stalking and harassment. Coverage
of this area was to be comprehensive, with
nothing left out.
Practices of regulation of online
technologies, from the point of view of
teachers, parents, children, carer’s libraries or
others responsible for children. This should
include research on adults’ knowledge of
children’s practices online, styles of
intervention/regulation of children’s use,
children’s strategies for evading monitoring, or
being able to avoid filters, find ways around
restrictions etc. It also includes research on
media/information literacy, safety/awareness of
online risks, effectiveness of filters or other
technical means of managing the online
environment, passwords, privacy, walled
gardens, etc. Coverage of this topic was to be
comprehensive, with nothing left out
Parents’ internet experience e.g. what are
their online competencies, attitudes to the
internet, concerns about the internet. This
should include notable recent studies of the
adult population as a whole, especially where
specific information on parents is lacking.
Children’s use of other technologies (e.g.
TV, PC, mobile phone), in order to put their
online activities into context, where there is a
notable recent national study, or where online
access and use is compared with other media
access and use. As this is a widely researched
topic the most important thing was to ensure
this area is covered for each country, though not
necessarily including all such studies.
The studies identified in this way were coded in a
simple way to produce an overview of the available
research. The main aim was to find out what has
been studied, where and how. Additionally, findings
were summarised and reported for the more recent
studies identified (approximately 1,100 in all).
The coding frame is provided in Annex3
1.6. This report
This is a revised edition of the report published in
2013 and which focused on studies in the evidence
database collected until spring 2013.
The first aim of this report presents is to evaluate
the availability of data on children’s use of the
internet and mobile technologies. The second is to
describe the development of the research field. The
third is to demonstrate the potential of the available
body of research made accessible through the
online database.
To describe the development of the research field,
the report builds on work published in 2009 by the
EU Kids Online network.17 That report identified five
significant gaps in the evidence base. The present
report will examine whether there is any indication of
developments towards these being addressed by
subsequent research. In 2009, we had identified
the key gaps as the following:
Uneven coverage by age
Overwhelming focus on the fixed internet
Little known of children’s online activities
17 Staksrud, E., Livingstone, S., and Haddon, L. (2009)
What Do We Know about Children’s Use of Online
Technologies? A Report on Data Availability and
Research Gaps in Europe. 2nd edition. See
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24367/
13
Gaps in the evidence for exposure to online
risk and how children respond to this
Gaps regarding the role of parents and
teachers
For the purpose of demonstrating the potential of
systematically building on the existing body of
research, this report uses the summaries of findings
made by the network members and which are part
of the searchable online database. These are both
contrasted with the survey conducted in 25
European countries in 201018 and summarized
further to provide an overview of selected topics.
18 Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., and Ólafsson,
K. (2011) EU Kids Online II: Final Report. See
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/39351/ See also Full Findings at
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
14
2. AVAILABILITY OF RESEARCH
The search for studies conducted since the last
edition of this report in 2013 has yielded more than
300 additional studies, bringing the total number of
studies in the European evidence database to
more than 1,500 (compared with the nearly 400
studies identified in the first edition of the report in
2009). Findings have been summarised for nearly
half of the studies and included in the searchable
database.
This suggests a growing research effort in recent
years, and represents a very substantial body of
literature. However, limitations and gaps persist.
It should be emphasised that studies focused on
children and the internet are very varied in their
nature. Some studies are small in scale, producing a
single report; others are substantial, resulting in a
series of publications. In many studies, the majority
in our database, children and the internet are the
central focus, but in some, they are a minor part of
the research. For example, surveys of public
adoption of media or technology or consumer goods
include some questions about internet access and
use, but may not include much detail.
2.1. How much research is
available?
Figure 1 shows the number of studies by the year in
which data collection was started. The number of
studies found by the network clearly indicates that
research on children and internet and mobile
technologies is increasing year by year.
Figure 1: How many studies on children and the internet/mobile technologies are available in Europe?
20 20 26
56 44 56
86 108 109 121
177 196 184
125
86
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Before
2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Note: Studies are coded according to the year when data collection was started.
15
From 2000 until 2010, the average increase in
the number of studies conducted from one year
to the next is 25 to 30 per cent.
Some of the increase observed might be due to the
fact that the EU Kids Online network has grown in
size (both in countries and persons involved).19
The drop in numbers from 2010 to 2011 and more
dramatically to 2012 and 2013 is by no means a
clear sign of a reduction in research activity. It can
just as well be a sign of the time taken from data
collection to the publication of findings.20
Figure 2 shows the percentage of studies that
include information on particular groups or study
participants.21 Just over half of the studies (52%)
focus on children only and an additional 10%
focus on children and parents.
In all, 84% of studies include or concern children.
The inclusion of parents is greatest in studies which
include the youngest age group (children aged 0-5
years), where 55% of studies include parents as
well. When the children participating in the study are
older, parents are less likely to be included in the
research: for studies that include teenagers aged
15-17 years, only 20% of studies include parents.22
19 The search for studies carried out previously (in 2006
and 2008) was not limited to countries that were at the
time participating in EU Kids Online and therefore the
increase in the number of studies identified cannot be
attributed just to an increase in the number of countries in
the network. The recent search for studies in 2012, 2013
and the first months of 2014 was not limited to the period
since 2009. In fact the network has found more than 200
additional studies for the period from 2000 to 2008.
20 A similar drop was observed in the 2009 report, where
2006 then saw the highest number of studies and 2007
appeared to deliver only two thirds of that number.
21 Note that even though a group has been included in a
study, it does not necessarily mean that individuals from
that group have been interviewed or observed directly.
For example, children might be asked about what their
parents or teachers do and parents might be asked about
their children’s online practices.
22 Teachers are most likely to be included in studies
where children aged 6-8 years are involved; in such cases
14% of the studies include teachers (though this does not
Figure 2: Who is the focus of studies? (%)
21
13
21
84
0 20406080100
Other
Teachers
Parents
Children
Note: Some studies focus on more than one group, hence the
bars sum to more than 100%.
Interestingly, as the number of studies has grown
over years, they have broadened to include a
wider focus than just children (see Figure 3). Out
of the 40 studies identified for the years from before
2000 and until 2001 almost all are coded as
focusing primarily on children. Over time,
researchers have begun to include a focus also on
parents, teachers and others, as well as continuing
to research children directly.
necessarily mean that the teachers were interviewed
themselves).
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
16
Figure 3: Studies focused on children, by year
(%)
97
88 94 90 86 86 83
75 72
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000
and
before
2001-
2002 2003-
2004 2005-
2006 2006-
2007 2008-
2009 2009-
2010 2011-
2012 2013-
2014
Note: The number of studies in each two year period ranges from
39 in the years 2000 – 2001 to 368 in the years 2009 – 2010.
2.2. In which countries is
research available?
Studies on children’s experience of internet and
mobile technologies have been found in all of
the 33 countries participating in the EU Kids
Online network. Table 2 shows that the number of
studies varies considerably across countries.
There are many reasons why more research exists
in some countries than others. The amount of
research conducted tends to reflect the population
size (and, hence, number of research institutions in
a country), the length of time in which the internet
has become widely available and established in a
country, the available funding sources, media
attention, and so forth.23
23 Stald, G. and Haddon, L. (2008) Cross-cultural contexts
of research: Factors influencing the study of children and
the internet in Europe. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24380/
Table 2: Studies available, by country?
Single country studies All studies
(including
multi-country
studies)
Dating from
2008 or earlier All single
country
studies
AT 23 87 105
BE 37 72 95
BG 5 12 23
CH 0 6 14
CY 3 17 22
CZ 13 50 59
DE 83 134 157
DK 28 49 74
EE 18 45 63
EL 41 69 83
ES 18 73 92
FI 29 76 87
FR 10 28 52
HR 2 3 6
HU 4 11 17
IE 11 17 27
IS 2 4 13
IT 25 56 86
LT 0 5 14
LU 0 2 8
LV 0 0 7
MT 0 0 6
NL 30 42 55
NO 16 51 68
PL 5 46 17
PT 29 57 59
RO 15 21 34
RU 7 35 39
SE 30 76 100
SI 6 14 25
SK 3 26 32
TR 17 115 120
UK 64 119 148
Note: The following countries did not participate in the first EU
Kids Online project: CH, FI, HR, HU, LT, LU, LV, MT, RU and TR.
17
In countries where few studies were found, master’s
and doctoral theses are given more weight. Also,
multi-national studies (that include a particular
country) represent a greater proportion of overall
studies in those countries where less national
research is conducted.
Research conducted outside Europe is
sometimes influential within Europe, and it also
helps to provide an ‘outside’ view, especially when
determining which findings are specifically European
and which are more general to children’s internet
use. Thus, although not within the remit of the
evidence database, references to such research are
collected as part of the on-going review of the
literature. Thus a few studies included in the
evidence database, include or are from countries
outside of Europe. These studies can only be
indicative as the aim was not to be comprehensive
for countries other than the 33 included in the EU
Kids Online network. An example is the research
conducted by Pew Internet in the US, valuable for its
high quality, timely and useful surveys of youthful
internet use. Their findings are widely cited in
European policy debates.
2.3. Is there scope to compare
over countries or time?
Table 2 also shows that the vast majority of
studies found are single country studies. On
average, some 5% of studies include more than one
country and the majority of these (54%) include
between two and four countries.
There is no obvious trend over time, either growth or
decline, in the number of multi-country studies
conducted. For the record year of 2010 only 11
studies included more than one country, 5% of the
total number of studies. Moreover the number of
countries included in multi-country studies does not
seem to be increasing.
As the EU Kids Online network knows only too well,
there are numerous obstacles to carrying out
cross national comparative research. One is the
rapid development of the research subject making it
difficult to develop measurements that can be used
across countries or over time. The 25 country
survey carried out by the EU Kids Online network in
2010 was a serious attempt to strengthen the basis
of future comparative research. Having established
a robust benchmark, it is vital that further surveys
are conducted to measure and evaluate changes in
the children’s engagement with online and mobile
technologies in Europe.
2.4. Are research findings
publicly available?
For almost half (45%) of the studies, the findings
are reported online (see Figure 4). Perhaps
counter intuitively, this proportion is higher for the
older studies than for the more recent ones.24 The
accessibility of findings online may reflect an effort
by researchers to make findings available as soon
as possible after data collection – important in this
fast-changing field.
The number of studies whose findings have
been published in journals has also increased
over the years. From 2000 to 2006, fewer than
20% of studies were published in a journal article;
from 2007 to 2013 the average rose above 30%.
This is important since academic publications,
especially in journals, generally include a formal
process of anonymous peer-review and editorial
scrutiny and guidance.
24 From 2000 to 2006 the proportion of studies where
findings are to be found in an online report is between
50% and 65%. From 2007 however the proportion is
always below 50% and down to 37% in 2011. In part this
might reflect the search process whereby national teams
used search engines to find studies. However, this was
only one of several strategies so it appears that a
considerable amount of information is accessible online.
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
18
Figure 4: How are study findings made
available? (%)
11
9
14
15
31
45
0 20406080100
Other or not available
Book chapter
Only a summary
Non published thesis
Journal article
Report is online
Note: Some studies have more than one publication, hence the
bars sum to more than 100%.
One concern is that many, though not all,
reports are largely descriptive, valuable as a
timely snapshot of online use, but lacking the
theoretical framework or critical evaluation of
research required for a deeper analysis or
interpretation of findings.
It is also of concern that for 14% of the empirical
studies only a summary is available, thus omitting
potentially important information needed to evaluate
the research and understand its findings. These
included summaries in which the number of
respondents or the date of fieldwork was missing.
Even in some full reports, key information was
missing – who funded the study, for example, or the
mode of survey administration (e.g. telephone, face-
to-face or other). Sometimes reports do not specify
the age of the participants, but just say that they
were from primary schools or secondary schools
(which can mean different ages in different
countries).
2.5. What language is research
published in?
Generally, the norm is that findings are either
published in the language of the country where the
study has been conducted or in English (see Table
3): 38% of studies have at least part of the
findings published in English (in some cases this
might be only a summary). English is also the most
common language for multi-country studies with
57% of the 56 studies being reported only or also in
English.
Since most studies (90%) are published in just
one language, there is a genuine challenge for
researchers and research users to grasp the
overall contribution of this multi-lingual
evidence base.
Language matters both so that research users can
access findings and also so that researchers can
communicate among themselves, comparing
findings and learning from each other.
The majority of studies (62%) published in peer-
reviewed journals are available in English. The
increase in the publication of findings in journal
articles will thus not only have contributed to a
higher quality in the available findings (following the
editorial process) but also to a wider sharing of
information within the research community.
19
Table 3: Studies of children and internet and
mobile technologies, by language of findings
In all studies In multi country
studies
Bulgarian 14 2
Catalan 1
Croatian 3
Czech 25
Danish 43 3
Dutch 35 2
English 562 46
Estonian 44 1
Finnish 69 2
French 39 5
German 246 11
Greek 56 1
Hungarian 10
Icelandic 5 3
Italian 58 5
Kurdish 0
Lithuanian 0
Maltese 0
Norwegian 59 8
Polish 45 1
Portuguese 54 2
Romanian 22 6
Russian 35
Slovak 26
Slovene 16 2
Spanish 68
Swedish 60 3
Turkish 60
Note: Spanish here means Castilian.
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
20
3. PATTERNS OF RESEARCH
Which children, and which topics, have been
studied? What methods have been used and how
are studies funded? In this chapter we will turn our
attention to the children that are being studied, the
topics, research methods and funding. This can be
influenced by various factors. Clearly funding is
important but has not been shown to influence
which topics are being studied.25 Policy, both on the
national and international level can, however, have
an impact in directing research towards certain
areas as can be the case with public discourses and
even particular events.
3.1. Age of children
For the purpose of collecting studies children were
defined as all individuals under the age of 18 years,
following the definition used by the EC. This adopts
the legal definition of ‘minors’ – those under 18
years old, though media provision and regulation
often define children as those younger than 12 or
15, while child protection services often consider
that youthful ‘vulnerability’ may extend into young
adulthood.
Figure 5 shows the number of studies by age of
the children. The majority of research on children’s
use of internet and mobile technologies is
conducted on teenagers. As early as 2007 it was
noted as problematic that most research concerns
teenagers despite children of primary school age
gaining access to the internet leading Staksrud,
Livingstone and Haddon 26 to point out that:
25 Stald, G. and Haddon, L. (2008) Cross-cultural contexts
of research: Factors influencing the study of children and
the internet in Europe. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24380/
26 Staksrud, E., Livingstone, S., and Haddon, L. (2009)
What Do We Know about Children’s Use of Online
‘increasing the body of research on children
younger than 12 is a priority, since their
activities may challenge their maturity to
cope with unanticipated risk’.
There is not a clear indication that this challenge
has been taken up by the research community.
Only 7% of studies include children aged 5 or
younger while 70% of studies include teenagers
aged 15-17 years. There are, now, indeed more
studies on young children but this is because of the
increased number of studies overall. In other words,
in recent years roughly the same proportion of
studies includes children aged 5 and younger as in
earlier years.
Thus, younger children have not received more
attention despite our highlighting this as a key gap in
our 2009 review of the evidence base. But the age
when children in Europe start to use the internet has
been dropping steadily. The EU Kids Online study of
2010 found that children aged 15-16 years said on
average that they started using the internet when
they were 11 years old. The 9-10 year old children
said that they were around 7 years old when they
started to use the internet and these figures were on
average lower in Northern and Western Europe.
Possibly, the methodological challenges seem too
difficult: it is to facilitate researchers meeting such
challenges that we have produced our Frequently
Asked Questions which contain considerable
guidance on research with young children.
The large number of studies on teenagers is
perhaps not surprisingly given the frequently
expressed concern about the relationship of this
Technologies? A Report on Data Availability and
Research Gaps in Europe. 2nd edition.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24367/, p11).
21
age-category to the internet. In addition, it is
relatively easy to recruit teenagers to take part in
research compared to both younger children and
older age groups.
Figure 5: Number of studies by age of child studied
20 22 31 65 76 104 181 217 268 390 473 557
733 777 883 946 911 791 757
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0123456789101112131415161718+
Note: The studies are multi coded and most studies cover more than one age group. Even though a particular age-group has been
included in a study it does not necessarily mean that individuals from that group have been interviewed in person.
At one end of the age scale, typical data collection
strategies such as self-completion paper
questionnaires distributed to whole classes are not
an option for very young children whose reading and
writing skills are not fully developed. At the other
end of the age scale, once young people have left
school, it becomes quite problematic to get access
to them to recruit them for research.
Thus the inclusion or exclusion of different age
groups can occur for various reasons. Research
conducted on the adult population often includes
older teenagers because they are more
‘researchable’ (i.e. reliable respondents, without
necessitating different methods or demanding more
rigorous ethical procedures). Other research targets
children and young people because they are the
focus of interest. Educational research (including
that focused on the use of information technologies)
may target primary and/or secondary school pupils.
3.2. Topics researched
Based on the first round of studies collected by the
EU Kids Online network the topics addressed were
coded into 16 groups. In addition the studies were
coded into nine topics related to parents.27 Building
on subsequent work by the EU Kids Online network
and the theoretical framework set out by the EU
Kids Online network in its 2010 study of children’s
27 Staksrud, E., Livingstone, S., and Haddon, L. (2009)
What Do We Know about Children’s Use of Online
Technologies? A Report on Data Availability and
Research Gaps in Europe. 2nd edition.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24367/
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
22
internet use28 it was decided to simplify the coding
to five main topics: access and use; activities; risks
and harm; opportunities and benefits; parental and
safety mediation. This classification was applied to
the additional studies collected in 2012, 2013 and
2014 (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Studies conducted, by topic (%)
33
41
59
70
69
0 20406080100
Mediation
Opportunities and
benefits
Risks and harm
Activities
Access and use
Note: The studies are multi-coded and most studies cover more
than one topic, hence the bars sum to more than 100%.
The results are roughly in line with what has been
observed previously. Most studies include
significant information on access and use and
on activities. More than half of the studies (59%)
focus on risks, there is less focus (41%) on
opportunities and benefits and mediation
receives the least attention.
This ordering of topics is in many ways to be
expected. The majority of studies found do indeed
focus on children and the internet and mobile
28 Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K
(2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective
of European children. Full findings.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731/
technologies. But in some studies they are a minor
part of research that has a much broader scope.
Some studies cover a range of different media or
focus on another technology but include data on
internet use. Some studies focus on children and
youth in general but include information on media
use, perhaps intended as background information
but still providing valuable information. This has a
consequence for the above figures on the
distribution of topics researched.
3.3. Funding and origins of
research
The source of funding may shape the research
agenda and the specific questions addressed.29
It may also influence the nature of the research.
Commercial market research often emphasises the
latest figures, providing a descriptive snapshot of a
current situation without a framework for
understanding it. Research council funders expect a
theoretical framework, and also require research to
be accountable and accessible (e.g. researchers
should supply the data/questionnaires. on request).
Commercial/NGO research might focus on the
immediate policy context whereas academic
research should take a longer view.
Analysis carried out after previous collection efforts
distinguished between 15 different sources of
funding. For this report a simplified version with six
categories is used (see Figure 7). The pattern that
emerges is similar, but with national public funding
being either partially or completely behind 46% of
studies. The efforts of doctoral and master’s
students are also an important contribution to the
research field.
29 Stald, G. and Haddon, L. (2008) Cross-cultural contexts
of research: Factors influencing the study of children and
the internet in Europe. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24380/
23
Figure 7: Studies conducted, by funding source
(%)
5
8
9
14
15
46
0 20 40 60 80 100
Other or not specified
Charity
EC
Private
PhD or Masters
Public
Note: The studies are multi-coded and some studies receive
funding from more than one source, hence the bars sum to more
than 100%.
3.4. Research methods
Quantitative and qualitative research methodologies
make different assumptions, use different methods,
rely on different criteria for reliability and validity,
and produce different kinds of findings. Broadly,
quantitative research makes a claim to be
representative of the population, it asserts that it
uses reliable and valid measuring tools and
promises statistical analysis of relationships
between variables. Qualitative research does not
claim to be representative in the same way as
quantitative research does, but instead seeks to
capture the diversity of a phenomenon. It does not
work with numbers but works with observations and
verbal data, seeking richness in the analysis and
providing a voice to those being researched.
For quite a few studies, often where only a summary
is available, it was not possible to determine many
details of the methods used. For the most part,
methods could be only classified as either
qualitative or quantitative and some studies use a
combination of both (see Figure 8).
Around two thirds of studies apply only
quantitative methods and the proportion of
studies that use only quantitative data has
increased in later years. Some 60% of the
quantitative studies use samples that are intended
to be representative on the national level.
Figure 8: Studies conducted, by method (%)
16
22
62
0 20406080100
Qualitative and
quantitative
Qualitative
Quantitative
Although crucial to the evaluation of the quality
of any study, information on sampling and
sample size is often left out of reports or
summaries. Based on those studies where sample
size was available the median size for quantitative
studies was around 830 meaning that half of the
studies had a smaller sample. For the qualitative
studies the median sample size was 23 but here it
should be kept in mind that many such studies
employ group interviews which increases the
number of individuals involved.
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
24
4. USING THE EVIDENCE DATABASE
In addition to finding studies on children and internet
and mobile technologies, the EU Kids Online
network set itself the ambitious goal of summarising
the key findings of those studies. Given the large
number of studies that have been identified it was
decided to focus (at least to begin with) on studies
that have been published most recently or in the
years since 2009.
For many of these studies the national teams
have worked to provide a summary of between
one and seven bullet points. Both the list of
studies and these short summaries are available
in the searchable European evidence database
(available online at: www.eukidsonline.net).
The aim of this effort is to make research more
available. As already noted, results from many of
the studies have been published only in the
respective national language and by providing
summaries of findings in English it is hoped that
researchers will more easily find studies relevant to
their research topics.
We cannot here provide a comprehensive overview
of the findings of all studies conducted since 2009
based only on the summaries provided. To explore
and demonstrate the potential of the European
evidence database now online at
www.eukidsonline.net, we use findings from the EU
Kids Online survey of 2010 as a point of departure.
This is by far the most comprehensive study of
children’s internet use carried out in Europe, both in
terms of the countries included and the topics
covered. The study investigated five key areas of
children’s internet use; access and use, activities,
risks and harm, opportunities and benefits and
finally mediation. This section illustrates the value of
the European evidence database by highlighting
newly added studies that confirm, complement or
contradict key findings from the 2010 survey.30 Our
selection of new findings is very partial, the purpose
being to encourage readers to check out the online
database for themselves. Thus we illustrate the
kinds of information contained in the database
in relation to key themes regarding children’s
use of internet and mobile technologies, as well
as showing what it contains for an exemplar concept
(excessive internet use), technology (mobile
phones) and country (Austria). We hope this
encourages research users to visit the database and
search directly according to interest.
4.1. Access and use
Internet use, and the use of digital media in general,
is thoroughly embedded in children’s daily lives with
the majority of children going online every day or
almost every day. The trend throughout Europe has
been for children to start using the internet at an
ever younger age. Internet access has also been
diversifying with access via mobile devices
becoming more common. Still, the most common
place of use is the children’s home.
Given the fact that studies including very young
children are quite rare and the clear hypothesis that
internet use starts at an ever younger age it is
interesting to look at the summary of findings31 from
a study (in the evidence database) carried out in
Finland in 2010 with a nationally representative
30 See Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A. and
Ólafsson, K. (2011) Risks and safety on the internet: The
perspective of European children: Full findings.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731, summarised on p.5-9.
31 Summary by Laura Järvinen and Juulia Andersson.
25
sample of 743 families with children aged 0-8 years
(see Kotilainen, 2011).32
Children’s media use begins at a very early age.
A majority of 0-2 year olds listened to books,
radio, and sound recordings.
One-year olds watch TV and visual recordings
daily and they mainly use media in the company
of their parents or other adults.
At the age of 3-4, a child’s individual taste in
media begins to develop, and the tastes of girls
and boys begin to diverge.
The greatest difference between 7-8 year olds
and younger age groups is the dramatic rise in
the use of digital games, the internet and mobile
phones.
The most useful forms of collecting data turned
out to be observation at home (0-3 year olds),
and interviews (over 4 year olds), including
questionnaire surveys conducted by peers.
Answering an adult researcher’s questions
seemed to be easiest for a child when they were
allowed to engage in some meaningful activity
e.g. drawing, playing during the interview.
From the point of view of children’s rights, it is
crucial to recognise and acknowledge that
media culture is a part of children’s daily lives
from the earliest age. Thus it would be possible
to enhance the supply of information and
opportunities for self-expression and
participation as well as opportunities for adult
support and awareness.
Here the Finnish study can fill an important gap in
the evidence base regarding the internet use of very
young children.
4.2. Activities
Children engage in a wide range of activities. The
most common online activity 9-16 year olds is using
the internet for school work (85%), playing games
32 Kotilainen, S. (2011) Lasten mediabarometri 2010. 0-8-
vuotiaiden lasten mediankäyttö Suomessa. Helsinki,
Mediakasvatusseurary.
(83%), watching video clips (76%) and instant
messaging (62%). Fewer post images (39%) or
messages (31%) for others to share, use a webcam
(31%), file-sharing sites (16%) or blog (11%).33
Given that the most widely reported online activity is
to use the internet for schoolwork, more can be
learned from one study in the evidence database.
Consider this summary of findings34 from a study
carried out in Austria in 2008 with focus groups of
164 teenagers aged 13-17 years (see Bauer,
Maireder and Nagl, 2009).35
Adolescents use the internet intensively and
regularly for schoolwork, even without being told
to do so by teachers. Google and Wikipedia
dominate the sites accessed; other pages are
visited very rarely. Most pupils copy from the
internet and use a variety of strategies to cover
up their plagiarism. In addition, the internet
plays a vital role in their communication with
classmates and friends. Communication via the
internet is ubiquitous; often schoolwork is
accompanied by chatting and texting.
In school, the internet is not used adequately
enough. It seems that school is not preparing
children for the challenges of a society shaped
by ICTs.
The internet is used mostly to improve existing
methods of teaching, but there is little innovative
use of the internet because this would contradict
the traditional understanding of school:
collaborative, interdisciplinary production of
knowledge and learning is not applicable in a
school system which is based on the
unidirectional system of a teacher teaching his
students.
33 See Livingstone, et al. (2011) Risks and safety on the
internet: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731.
34 Summary by Fabian Prochazka.
35 Bauer, T.A., Maireder, A., & Nagl, M. (2009). Internet in
der Schule Schule im Internet. Schulische
Kommunikationskulturen in der Informationsgesellschaft.
Retrieved February 27, 2012 from
http://www.bmukk.gv.at/medienpool/18687/internetschule
_forschungsber.pdf
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
26
Here the qualitative findings of this Austrian study
complement the quantitative results of the 2010
survey, giving them an increased depth.
4.3. Risks and harm
Most children have not been upset or bothered by
something they experienced on the internet. Risks
are also not necessarily experienced by children as
upsetting or harmful. For example, seeing sexual
images and receiving sexual messages online are
encountered by one in eight children but they are
generally not experienced as harmful except by a
few of the children who are exposed to them. By
contrast, being bullied online by receiving nasty or
hurtful messages is relatively uncommon,
experienced by one in twenty children, but it is the
risk most likely to upset children. 36
This study37 from Estonia on cyberbullying fits in
with the findings from the 2010 survey.
Among 9 graders who participated in the study
(n=410) 24.9% have cyber-bullied someone and
30.2% have been victims of the cyber-bullying.
The majority of the students think that
cyberbullying is a problem and it is widespread.
Almost quarter of the bullying victims do not
know the bully. Almost half of the students were
uninterested and thought that bullying is funny,
but a fifth of the students felt anger, depression
and sadness.
Students in this survey mainly responded by
blocking messages, telling a friend and bullying
someone themselves to deal with bullying. 18%
of the victims of the cyberbullying never told
anyone about it. Almost a third (38.3%) of the
students have never received instructions in
school about safer use of the internet.
36 See Livingstone, et al. (2011) Risks and safety on the
internet: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731.
37 Kuusk, K. (2010). Küberkiusamine ja sellega seotud
karakteristikud Tallinna koolide 7.-9. klasside õpilaste
seas. [Cyber-bullying and related characteristics among 7-
9 grade pupils in Tallinn schools], MA thesis, Tallinn
University, Institute of Social Work.
4.4. Opportunities and benefits
It is likely that more use facilitates digital literacy and
safety skills. In the EU Kids Online survey one third
of 9-16 year olds (36%) say that the statement, “I
know more about the internet than my parents” is
‘very true’ of them, one third (31%) say it is ‘a bit
true’ and one third (33%) say it is ‘not true’ of them.
Younger children tend to lack skills and confidence.
However, most 11-16 year olds can block messages
from those they do not wish to contact (64%) or find
safety advice online (64%). Around half can change
privacy settings on a social networking profile (56%)
compare websites to judge their quality (56%) or
block spam (51%).38
A study39 from Slovakia relates digital literacy to
SNS use:
Average SNS digital literacy is greater than
average overall digital literacy. A higher
frequency of SNS use correlates with a higher
level of SNS skills. The most preferred SNS is
Facebook (70% of internet users 14+); the next
is Pokec (45%).
The most SNS-literate in the study were those
aged 14-17 years, females, students or home-
based youth (in terms of their employment),
university and high school educated youth,
those from households with the highest income
and those from largest cities.
4.5. Mediation
Parents recognise that it is important that they
engage in their child’s internet use and they employ
various strategies, depending amongst other things
on the age of the child. In the EU Kids Online survey
most parents talk to their children about what they
do on the internet (70%) and stay nearby when the
child is online (58%). Some parents do not do very
38 See Livingstone, et al. (2011) Risks and safety on the
internet: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731.
39 Velšic, M. (2012). Sociálne siete na Slovensku [Social
Networking Sites in Slovakia]. Bratislava: IVO.
27
much and one in eight parents (13%) seem never to
engage in any of the forms of mediation asked
about, according to their children. 40
This German study41 has addressed the issue of
parental mediation:
In a survey study, 158 dyads of parents and
their 9 to 12 year-old children reported the use
of television and video games in the family. The
data were analysed with a focus on parents’
strategies to regulate media use and how
children perceive parental mediation.
Factor analyses revealed three different
strategies of parental mediation. Although these
strategies share many aspects with the three
forms of parental mediation described in the
literature, parents were shown to play a more
active role than previously assumed.
Parents’ restrictive mediation was characterised
by rules or restrictions, but also included
parents explaining that media do not reflect
reality. Patronising mediation was found to
include elements like shared media
consumption and parents’ commenting on
contents. Finally, active-emotional co-use
entailed parents’ stressing the social-emotional
aspects shown in the media (e.g. empathy).
When analysing factors that predicted the
particular form of parental mediation, it was
found that parents’ cognitive beliefs largely
affected mediation. In particular, fear of negative
media effects accompanied both active-
emotional co-use and restrictive mediation.
Not surprisingly, observed differences in
parental mediation strategies between media
were likely due to parents’ greater familiarity
with television compared to video games.
Interestingly, overall positive ratings of family
interactions were associated with children using
media less frequently.
40 See Livingstone, et al. (2011) Risks and safety on the
internet: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/33731.
41 Schaan, V., & Melzer, A. (2012). Parental mediation of
children’s television and video game use: Active and
embedded in family processes. Manuscript submitted for
publication. / Schaan, V. (2010). Mediating outside the
box. Drei Mediationsstrategien – zwei Medien – eine
Gegenüberstellung aus der Sicht von Eltern und Kindern
(Unpublished bachelor dissertation). University of
Luxembourg: Luxembourg.
In sum, survey findings reflect the complex
interaction of media type, parents’ cognitive
beliefs, and family processes, as well as
parents’ active role with regard to media use in
the family.
4.6 Excessive internet use42
The majority of articles in the European evidence
database on the topic of excessive internet use are
concentrated on the southern European countries;
Turkey, Greece, Spain, Cyprus and Italy. A number
of articles discuss prevalence data on excessive use
but the reported figures vary widely and range from
3.7% to 24%, which is consistent with the variety
reported in the international body of literature.
Other articles explore the association between
psychosocial variables or personality dimensions
and excessive internet use. These articles typically
found positive associations indicating that
psychosocial/personality variables are somehow
connected with the topic of excessive use, but
conclusions and theory-building about why this may
be the case is lacking. Again, this is consistent with
the international body of literature which struggles
with similar issues.
Socio-demographic variables, gender and age were
also explored in a number of articles, but the
association with excessive use was inconclusive as
some studies showed a positive association while
others found no association at all. Other factors that
were explored include, but are not limited to, lower
school performance, online gambling, online
pornography and friend attachment.
There are also a number of articles looking at the
importance of mediation and parental influence in
the context of excessive use. These studies suggest
that concerns from parents or teachers about the
dangers of excessive use may be exaggerated and
42 Summary by Daniel Kardefelt-Winther.
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
28
result from a relative ignorance about the medium.
Indeed, there are a number of studies showing how
widespread the use of internet has become amongst
young people and illustrates that young people find
the internet to be a necessity for life in modern
society. These findings provide a counterpoint to the
prevalence figures on excessive use and bring into
question the usefulness of such measures in the
light of how embedded internet has become in
young people’s lives. There are studies in the
database that take a different approach to the
question of excessive use and present evidence that
parents, instead of using arbitrary measures of what
is considered “excessive use”, negotiate this with
their children and base their judgment on visible
negative physical consequences, such as
headaches or sore eyes.
Our European evidence database contains the wide
array of perspectives that are also found and
presently debated in the area of excessive internet
use. Some researchers advocate that excessive use
can be measured and treated as pathological or as
a mental disorder; these studies often display
varying prevalence results and tend to use different
measurements for the same concept, which can
make comparison across studies difficult. Other
researchers take a reflexive approach and argue
that the question of what is “excessive” or not is
better approached in a dialogue with the children
and emphasise the importance of parental
mediation in preventing negative outcomes of
internet use. The European evidence database
contains articles arguing for both approaches, which
fairly represents the on-going debate in the field.
4.6. Mobile phones43
While a search for the term mobile phones produced
over 80 hits, mostly quantitative studies, the majority
43 Summary by Leslie Haddon.
of these mentioned only one or two statistics relating
to mobiles, before mostly discussing different
aspects of children’s internet use. These studies,
from diverse European countries, were usually
focused on trends: media literacy and children,
youth and mobile technologies, and new mobile
media more generally. The data to be found here
included access to mobiles phones and access to
smartphones by age, the age when mobile phones
or smartphones were first used, uses of mobile
phones generally and gender differences in this
respect. Other findings covered how few children
could live without mobile phones or (a new question)
without the mobile internet, how mobiles were
valued compared to other ICTs, how many children
used mobile phones to access the internet and how
often.
There were some studies that interviewed parents
or asked children about parents, covering the extent
to which there were arguments about mobile phone
bills, whether parents monitored mobile phone use,
whether they set rules about that use, and the
extent to which they financed children’s mobile use.
There were also some studies specifically of
cyberbullying that had some data such as how much
bullying was via the internet vs. via the mobile, and
what forms of bullying occurred via mobile phones.
In addition there were fifteen studies that covered
mobile phones in more depth. Seven were general
reports on children and mobile phones (and another
asked about both the mobile and the internet). Even
these, again mostly quantitative studies asked some
questions about risks, reflecting the fact that the
internet safety agenda has become more
widespread. A further two studies were on internet
safety generally, four were on bullying and had
substantial sections on mobile phones and one was
on how much phones were used to view
pornographic and violent content.
In the general studies we start to see questions
about some new areas, mainly related to
29
smartphones and the mobile internet: about use of
location based services, apps and payphone
services. Cost is still an issue, a reason why some
people do not use such services. There is also
some new material relating to education, such as
whether there are rules about bringing mobile
phones to school and whether teachers ever
confiscate them, whether they see any possibilities
to use them for education purposes (neither
students nor teachers can envisage this) and taking
photos and videos in school to tease others. One
qualitative study from Cyprus looked at the influence
of peers (e.g. on which mobile brand to buy), at how
children used them to enhance social status (e.g. to
differentiate themselves from younger children) and
how it was important to use mobile phones maintain
privacy from parents – which ties in with the theme
of parents being able to monitor children less in the
broader mobile phone literature.
The study more oriented to risks examined whether
parents talked to children about their mobile phone
use (not just internet use). As regards bullying there
are findings about children using their mobiles to
film and then circulate bulling, about how much
bullying is anonymous, and about children (in Italy)
finding the circulation of photos to be one of the
most annoying practices. The was one experiment
reported in Luxembourg to see if banning mobile
phones from schools (for a test group) led to a
reduction in cyberbullying – it did not. As regards
violent video content viewed on mobile phones
(broadly defined to include sexual and bullying
videos), a German studies looked at how many
children had seen these: 43%. And finally one study
in the UK showed what could be investigated
through qualitative research. It examined how
children managed risks related to sexuality and the
new issues opened up by the sending of
downloaded or user generated sexual images, or
the sharing of these amongst peers via mobile
phones. Through the way they talk about and
provide accounts related to these developments and
related risks (of images being passed on to others,
of images accidentally reaching the wrong people)
we see how the children are managing their self-
presentation, and self-(gendered and sexual)
identity.
4.7. Austria44
A search query for the term “Austria” in the EU Kids
Online database produces 104 hits, and a handful of
these studies also involve other countries. Some
studies come up several times due to the fact that
there is more than one source of data for the same
study, leaving a sizeable number of distinct studies
for Austria. Most of the Austrian studies are
quantitative, but there is also around one third of
studies using a qualitative method. Furthermore,
most studies cover older children or adolescents (14
years or older).
Apart from the EU Kids Online survey, Austria lacks
studies about the general internet use of young
people. In addition, unlike in countries like Germany,
there is almost no longitudinal data available. Most
studies that are representative for the whole country
and deal with the internet use of young people are
funded by private companies like internet providers
and show almost no theoretical framework and often
the results are not freely available. Due to funding
by several provinces, some studies focus
exclusively on one province like the annual study on
internet use in Upper Austria or a study on addictive
behaviour in Styria.
However, when there are data available, the studies
covering access and use of the internet in Austria
indicate that almost all young people use the
internet in some way. Access rates are generally
over 85% for the age group beginning at six, rising
to around 95% for older children (14 and older). In
44 Summary by Fabian Prochazka.
Children’s Use of Online Technologies in Europe. A review of the European evidence base
30
addition to these results, one study finds that even
40% of the 3- to 6-year olds use the internet at least
once a week, predominantly with a tablet device.
Children and adolescents in Austria use the internet
mostly for schoolwork, looking up information and
for social networking, which is more popular among
girls than boys. Another popular activity is watching
videos on platforms such as YouTube. Both
quantitative and qualitative studies reveal that
computer (Laptop and PC) and mobile phones are
now the favourite media devices of young people,
just recently replacing television. The internet in
general is the primary source of information for
young people.
Another important factor is the high rate of mobile
phone usage among Austrian youth. Following the
results of the EU Kids Online survey in 2010, 53% of
Austrian children between 9 and 16 accessed the
internet through a mobile device. The figures in this
age group are now most probably higher, although
there are no comparable data available. Over 80%
of 14- to 29-year olds use the internet via a mobile
device and 50% of Austrian children acquire their
own mobile phone between the ages of 7 and 10
years. Once more, girls use mobile phones
significantly more often than boys.
Regarding risks and opportunities, Austrian studies
cover a wide range of different topics. In general,
the studies are consistent in stating that Austrian
youth are aware of risks like cyberbullying and
protection of personal data but their understanding
of the processes at work and their own assessment
of what is risky is not so sophisticated. Their trust in
information found on the internet is very low
compared to trust in other sources of information.
However, most studies agree that it is not enough to
look at the online risks itself but that it is important to
look at offline factors influencing online risks
because the boundaries between both spheres are
blurred and often young people do not make a
distinction between the two.
31
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report set out to identify the available
empirical evidence regarding children and
young people’s access to and use of internet
and mobile technologies across Europe. In
addition, it has tried to demonstrate the potential in
drawing on the findings of studies carried out in
recent years. It has focused on research concerned
with (a) children (up to 18 years old), as well as their
parents/families and domestic users generally, (b)
online technologies, focusing on issues of use and
risk; and (c) the 33 countries in the EU Kids Online
network (Annexes 1 and 2).
The aim was to locate the research that exists,
scope its main features and biases, identify the key
trends and, especially, reveal gaps in the evidence
base. This, we hope, is useful for a diversity of
research users in academic, policy, funding and
other organisations.
The EU Kids Online network has identified more
than 1,500 separate research projects and coded
these according to an agreed set of criteria.
5.1. Key features of the available
research
Although the scale and quality of research studies
varies considerable, research exists in all
participating countries regarding children and young
people’s use of the internet and online technologies.
Its key feature may be summarised as follows.
The evidence base continues to grow, updating
findings and deepening analysis; but this
expansion does not mean that the pressing
research gaps identified in 2009 have now been
filled. The number of studies on children and
internet and mobile technologies has grown by
some 20 to 30 per cent each year since the
beginning of the century but this has not led to
increased emphasis (proportionally) on, for
example, younger children or qualitative methods.
Instead studies conducted in later years have a
similar profile to those conducted in the earlier years
of the roughly twelve year period studied here. The
evidence base largely comprises single nation
studies, though some multinational and pan-
European research exists.
There is more research on risks and harm than
opportunities and benefits. For every two studies
that have (or include) a focus on opportunities and
benefits related to the use of internet and mobile
technologies there are roughly three studies
focusing on risks and harm. Mediation (by parents
or other means) is, however, the least covered topic.
Research is mainly funded publicly and
conducted on the national level. Funding bodies
that can be described as ‘public’ are behind almost
half of the studies in the evidence database.
Doctoral and master’s theses are also an important
contribution to the evidence base. EC funding is
associated with almost one in ten studies overall but
almost 40% of the multi-country studies.
The majority of studies use only quantitative
data. Some two thirds of studies use only
quantitative data and the increased number of
studies in general does not seem to have resulted in
more studies using mixed methods.
There seems to be an increased emphasis on
academic publication. The number of studies
whose findings have been published in journals has
increased slowly over the years. In the years from
2000 to 2006 on average less than 20 per cent of
studies were published in a journal article but from
2007 to 2013 the average is just above 30 per cent.
Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children
32
This is an important development since academic
publications, especially in journals, generally include
a formal process of anonymous peer-review and
editorial scrutiny and guidance.
5.2. Significant gaps in the
evidence base
Despite the growing number of studies identified
each year, there are still significant gaps in the
evidence base. Indeed, the gaps identified in
2009 all still apply:
Uneven coverage by age, especially very young
children, despite the rapid rise in their access to
internet and mobile technologies.
Overwhelming focus on the fixed internet, to the
neglect of mobile, convergent and emerging
technologies.
Too little known of children’s online activities and
how they do or may reap the benefits.
Gaps in the evidence for exposure to online risk,
how children respond and which are vulnerable to
harm.
Gaps regarding the role of parents and teachers,
along with other forms of safety mediation, and lack
of knowledge of their effectiveness.
The most serious problem is the continuing lack
of research on younger children. This gap was
identified previously and, to be sure, the growing
number of studies has resulted in a growing number
of studies on young children. However, as a
proportion of all studies identified in the evidence
database, studies on young children are not
becoming more common.
As regards topics studied, even though the EU Kids
Online survey of 25 countries in 2010 did much to
provide important information, there remain key
gaps related to consequences of risks (especially
new and emerging risks), how children cope with
risky experiences, which children are vulnerable to
online harm, and on which children actually gain
benefits from internet use.
Methods matter. The vast majority of studies on
children’s use of internet and mobile technologies
employ quantitative survey methods. More
qualitative research would permit a richer
understanding of the experiences of children
(and their parents and teachers). This would
facilitate efforts to anticipate the likely effects of
possible interventions. This raises a final notable
absence, namely of independent evaluations of
safety interventions of various kinds. Many such
interventions take place, but remarkably little is
known of what works, when or why. Thus it is likely
that new interventions fail to learn from the mistakes
of previous ones.
5.3. Emerging issues and
challenges
Many of the issues and challenges identified in
previous analysis of the evidence base remain
unchanged. One of these issues is time-sensitivity.
Research in this field becomes quickly out of date
as technologies, institutions that promote and
manage them, and children’s own practices all
continue to change. Consequently, even where
substantial amounts of research exist, the findings
must be regularly updated. This leads to another
challenge which is lack of continuity. The evidence
database holds very few long-term or longitudinal
studies. Most research is concerned simply with the
short term nature and consequences of internet use.
Some studies are repeated a few years apart,
providing the possibility of trend analysis. But more
tracking studies are required to understand the
wider implications of online technologies in the long
term.
33
Another consequence of the nature of the research
field is that comparative studies are difficult and
challenging to conduct. But although
multidisciplinary, multi-method, contextual, and
longitudinal research is particularly demanding, it
remains sorely needed if we are to understand not
only what children encounter online but also why,
how and with what consequences
Children’s internet use, especially regarding online
risks, is a complex phenomenon. Multiple
theoretical perspectives and multiple methods
are needed so that the various dimensions of
children’s internet use can be understood in the
round – including both the incidence of certain
practices in the population, as well as children’s own
perceptions, those of their parents, and how both
these fit within the context of everyday internet use.
As the body of research continues to grow year by
year it is important to note that more research is not
necessarily needed. Current research efforts could
probably be better co-ordinated. Research is
sometimes poorly reported, with key information
missing, or it is difficult to gain access to. There is
scope for improving the quality, rigour and public
accessibility of research evidence in this field.
5.4. The future of the Evidence
database
The online evidence database has proven to be an
important tool for researchers, students and policy
makers. Many have commented on its value as a
source of information on research which otherwise
would have gone unnoticed. The EU Kids Online
network has therefore decided to try to maintain
the evidence database and continue to look for
new studies in the coming years. In the past the
studies in the database have been collected by
national teams but in the future it is hoped that it will
also be possible to use an online form to enter
information on new studies directly into the
database. Meanwhile everyone is invited to send
information on new studies and findings either to
members of the EU Kids Online network (see Annex
2 below) or to Kjartan Olafsson (kjartan@unak.is)
who has maintained the database on behalf of the
network. For the information needed for each study
please refer to the coding frame (see Annex 3
below).
Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children
34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: How many studies on children and the
internet/mobile technologies are available in Europe? ... 14
Figure 2: Who is the focus of studies? (%) .................... 15
Figure 3: Studies focused on children, by year (%) ....... 16
Figure 4: How are study findings made available? (%) .. 18
Figure 5: Number of studies by age of child studied ...... 21
Figure 6: Studies conducted, by topic (%) ..................... 22
Figure 7: Studies conducted, by funding source (%) ..... 23
Figure 8: Studies conducted, by method (%) ................. 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Countries in EU Kids Online .............................. 8
Table 2: Studies available, by country? ......................... 16
Table 3: Studies of children and internet and mobile
technologies, by language of findings ............................ 19
35
ANNEX 1: EU KIDS ONLINE
Overview
In its first phase (2006-9), as a thematic network of
21 countries, EU Kids Online identified and critically
evaluated the findings of nearly 400 research
studies, drawing substantive, methodological and
policy-relevant conclusions. In its second phase
(2009-11), as a knowledge enhancement project
across 25 countries, the network surveyed children
and parents to produce original, rigorous data on
their internet use, risk experiences and safety
mediation. In its third phase (2011-14), the EU Kids
Online network is examining findings and critical
analyses of internet and mobile technology uses
and associated risks among children across Europe,
drawing on these to sustain an active dialogue with
stakeholders about priority areas of concern for child
online safety.
Thus, the network has widened its work by including
all member states and extending its engagement –
both proactively and responsively - with policy
stakeholders and internet safety initiatives. It has
also deepened its work through targeted hypothesis
testing of the pan-European dataset, focused on
strengthening insights into the risk environment and
strategies of safety mediation, by pilot testing
innovative research methodologies for the nature,
meaning and consequences of children’s online risk
experiences, and conducting longitudinal
comparisons of findings where available over time.
Last, it is updating its work on the online database of
available findings, and by producing timely updates
on the latest knowledge about new and emerging
issues (for example, social networking, mobile
platforms, privacy, personal data protection, safety
and awareness-raising practices in schools, digital
literacy and citizenship, geo-location services, and
so forth).
Work packages
WP1: Project management and evaluation.
WP2: European evidence base
WP3: Hypotheses and comparisons
WP4: Exploring children's understanding of risk
WP5: Dissemination of project results
WP6: Policy implications
International Advisory Panel
María José Cantarino, Telefonica, Spain.
Michael Dreier, Clinic for Behavioural Addictions
Mainz, Germany.
David Finkelhor. Crimes against Children
Research Center, University of New Hampshire,
USA.
Lelia Green, ARC Centre of Excellence for
Creative Industries and Innovation, Australia.
Natasha Jackson, FOSI and GSMA, UK.
Amanda Lenhart, Pew Internet & American Life
Project, USA.
Janice Richardson, European Schoolnet, and
Insafe, Brussels, Belgium.
Kuno Sørensen, Save the Children, Denmark.
Janis Wolak, Crimes against Children Research
Center, University of New Hampshire, USA.
Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children
36
ANNEX 2: THE NETWORK
CountryNationalContactInformationTeamMembers
AT
Austria
IngridPausHasebrinkingrid.paushasebrink@sbg.ac.at
DepartmentofAudiovisualCommunication,Universityof
Salzburg,Rudolfskai42,A5020Salzburg,Austria
IngridPausHasebrink
AndreaDürager
PhilipSinner
FabianProchazka
BE
Belgium
LeenD'HaenensLeen.DHaenens@soc.kuleuven.be
CentrumvoorMediacultuurenCommunicatietechnologie(OE),
OECentr.Mediacult.&Comm.technologie,
Parkstraat45bus3603,3000Leuven,Belgium
Leend'Haenens
VerónicaDonoso
SofieVandoninck
JokeBauwens
KatiaSegers
BG
Bulgaria
LuizaShahbazyanluiza.shahbazyan@online.bg
AppliedResearchandCommunicationsFund,1113,Sofia,5,
AlexanderZhendovSt.
LuizaShahbazyan
JivkaMarinova
DianaBoteva
HR
Croatia
DunjaPotočnikdunja@idi.hr
InstituteforSocialResearch,Zagreb
DunjaPotočnik
IvanaĆosićPregrad
MarijaLugarić
DejanVinković
DraganaMatešković
CY
Cyprus
Yiannis Laouris laouris@cnti.org.cy
Cyprus Neuroscience & Technology Institute
Science Unit of the Future Worlds Center
5 Promitheos, 1065 Lefkosia, Cyprus
YiannisLaouris
ElenaAristodemou
AlikiEconomidou
TaoPapaioannou
CZ
Czech
Republic
David Šmahel smahel@fss.muni.cz
Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University
Joštova 10, 602 00 Brno, Czech Republic
DavidŠmahel
MartinaČerníková
MichelleWright
LukasBlinka
AnnaŠevčíková
AlenaČerná
HanaMacháčková
LenkaDědková
DK
Denmark
GitteStaldstald@itu.dk
ITUniversityofCopenhagen,
RuudLanggaardsVej7,2300Copenhagen,Denmark
GitteStald
HeidiJørgensen
EE
Estonia
VeronikaKalmusVeronika.Kalmus@ut.ee
InstituteofJournalismandCommunication,UniversityofTartu,
18ÜlikooliSt.,50090Tartu,Estonia
VeronikaKalmus
PillePruulmannVengerfeldt
MariaMurumaaMengel
AndraSiibak
KerstiKaru
LennartKomp
IngaKald
MarianneVõime
KairiTalves
37
FI
Finland
ReijoKupiainenreijo.kupiainen@uta.fi
DepartmentofJournalismandMassCommunication,University
ofTampere,33014Finland
ReijoKupiainen
KaarinaNikunen
AnnikkaSuoninen
SirkkuKotilainen
FR
France
CatherineBlayacblaya@aol.com
IREDU‐UniversitédeBourgogne
CatherineBlaya
ElodieKredens
SeraphinAlava
SaidJmel
DE
Germany
UweHasebrinku.hasebrink@hansbredowinstitut.de
HansBredowInstituteforMediaResearch
Warburgstr.810,D‐20354Hamburg,Germany
UweHasebrink
ClaudiaLampert
EL
Greece
LizaTsalikietsaliki@media.uoa.gr
DepartmentofMassMediaandCommunications
NationalandKapodistrianUniversityofAthens
5StadiouStreet,Athens10562,Greece
LizaTsaliki
DespinaChronaki
SoniaKontogiani
TatianaStyliari
HU
Hungary
BenceSágváribence.sagvari@ithaka.hu
InformationSocietyandNetworkResearchCenterITHAKA,
Percu.8,Budapest,1036Hungary
BenceSágvári
AnnaGalácz
IS
Iceland
KjartanÓlafsson
UniversityofAkureyri
Borgumv/Nordurslod,IS600Akureyri,Iceland
KjartanÓlafsson
ThorbjornBroddason
GudbergK.Jonsson
IE
Ireland
BrianO’Neillbrian.oneill@dit.ie
CollegeofArtsandTourism,DublinInstituteofTechnology,
RathminesRoad,Dublin6,Ireland
BrianO’Neill
ThuyDinh
SimonGrehan
NóirínHayes
SharonMcLaughlin
IT
Italy
GiovannaMascheronigiovanna.mascheroni@unicatt.it
OssCom,UniversitàCattolicadelS.Cuore
LargoGemelli,1,20123Milano,Italy
PiermarcoAroldi
GiovannaMascheroni
MariaFrancescaMurru
BarbaraScifo
LV
Latvia
IntaBrikšeinta.brikse@lu.lv
DepartmentofCommunicationStudiesUniversityofLatvia
IntaBrikše
SkaidriteLasmane
MaritaZitmane
IlzeŠulmane
OlgaProskurovaTimofejeva
IngusBērziņš
AleksisJarockis
GunaSpurava
LīvaBrice
IlzeBērziņa
LT
Lithuania
AlfredasLaurinavičiusallaur@mruni.eu
DepartmentofPsychology,MykolasRomerisUniversity,Ateities
st.20,LT08303Vilnius,Lithuania
AlfredasLaurinavičius
RenataMackoniene
LauraUstinavičiūtė
LU
Luxembourg
GeorgesSteffgengeorges.steffgen@uni.lu
UniversitéduLuxembourg
GeorgesSteffgen
AndréMelzer
AndreiaCosta
Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children
38
MT
Malta
MaryAnneLaurimaryanne.lauri@um.edu.mt
UniversityofMalta
MaryAnneLauri
JosephBorg
LorleenFarrugia
BernardAgius
NL
Netherlands
NathalieSonckn.sonck@scp.nl
SCP,Parnassusplein5,2511VX
DenHaag,Netherlands
NathalieSonck
JosdeHaan
MarjolijnAntheunis
SusanneBaumgartner
SimonevanderHof
ElsKuiper
NataschaNotten
MarcVerboord
PeterNikken
NO
Norway
ElisabethStaksrudelisabeth.staksrud@media.uio.no
Dept.ofMediaandCommunication,UniversityofOslo
Boks1093Blindern,0317Oslo,Norway
ElisabethStaksrud
JørgenKirksæther
BirgitHertzbergKaare
IngunnHagen
ThomasWold
PL
Poland
LucynaKirwillucyna.kirwil@swps.edu.pl
DepartmentofPsychology
UniversityofSchoolofSocialSciencesandHumanities
ul.Chodakowska19/31,03815Warsaw,Poland
LucynaKirwil
AldonaZdrodowska
PT
Portugal
CristinaPontecristina.ponte@fcsh.unl.pt
DepartamentodeCiênciasdaComunicação
FaculdadedeCiênciasSociaiseHumanas,
UniversidadeNovadeLisboa(UNL)
Av.deBerna,26C,1069061Lisboa,Portugal
CristinaPonte
JoséAlbertoSimões
DanielCardoso
AnaJorge
RosaMartins
RO
Romania
MonicaBarbovschimoni.barbovski@gmail.com
BabesBolyaiUniversity,FacultyofSociologyandSocialWork,21
Decembrie1989st.no.128130,ClujNapoca,Romania
MonicaBarbovschi
EvaLaszlo
BiancaFizesan
GyöngyvérTőkés
GeorgeRoman
ValentinaMarinescu
AncaVelicu
RU
Russia
GalinaSoldatovaSoldatova.galina@gmail.com
MoscowStateUniversity,FoundationforInternetDevelopment
GalinaSoldatova
EkaterinaZotova
ElenaRasskazova
PolinaRoggendorf
MariaLebesheva
MarinaGeer
SK
Slovakia
JarmilaTomkovájarmila.tomkova@vudpap.sk
VUDPaP,InstituteforChildPsychologyandPathopsychology
JarmilaTomková
ĽudmilaVáclavová
MagdaPetrjánošová
DanaPetranova
39
SI
Slovenia
BojanaLobebojana.lobe@fdv.unilj.si
CentreforMethodologyandInformatics
FacultyofSocialSciences,UniversityofLjubljana
Kardeljevapl.5,Ljubljana,Slovenia
BojanaLobe
SandraMuha
ES
Spain
MaialenGarmendiamaialen.garmendia@ehu.es
Depto.deSociología,UniversidaddelPaísVasco,
Apartado644,48.080Bilbao,Spain
CarmeloGaritaonandia
MaialenGarmendia
GemmaMartínez
MiguelAngelCasado
EstefaníaJiménez
SE
Sweden
CeciliavonFeilitzencecilia.von.feilitzen@sh.se
TheInternationalClearinghouseonChildren,
YouthandMedia,Nordicom,GoteborgUniversity,
Box713,40530Goteborg,Sweden
CeciliavonFeilitzen
ElzaDunkels
OlleFindahl
UlrikaSjöberg
KarlDahlstrand
CH
Switzerland
SaraSigners.signer@ipmz.uzh.ch
IPMZ‐InstituteofMassCommunicationandMediaResearch,
Andreasstrasse15,CH8050Zürich
SaraSigner
MartinHermida
HeinzBonfadelli
TR
Turkey
KursatCagiltaykursat@metu.edu.tr
DepartmentofComputerEducationandInstructional
Technology,FacultyofEducation,MiddleEastTechnical
University,06531,Ankara,Turkey
KursatCagiltay
EnginKursun
TurkanKarakus
SecilTisoglu
UK
United
Kingdom
Coordinator
LeslieHaddonleshaddon@aol.com
DepartmentofMediaandCommunications
LondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience
HoughtonStreet,LondonWC2A2AE,UK
SoniaLivingstone
LeslieHaddon
BenjaminDelaPavaVelez
EllenHelsper
JohnCarr
Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children
40
ANNEX 3: CODING FRAME
Variable Description
Project ID Give each study an ID number for your own purposes - All data collection
belonging to the same study/project gets the same ID
Coded by Write the name of the person who has done the coding this is important if more
than one person are involved and also can be useful at later stages if there are
things to be sorted out
Project title Write the project title both in original language and a brief English translation
Year of fieldwork Enter the year in which data collection took place – if the data collection was
spread over two years use the first year but if the data was collected in more
than one separate rounds then each would be a separate entry (but same
project ID)
Country (or countries) where data was collected Indicate in which country (or countries) data was collected using two letter
country codes and if data was collected in more than one country, separate with
a dash
Type of sample
- Nationally representative
- Representative on a regional level
- Representative for a subgroup of some kind
- Convenience sample
Define type of sample – if the same project has more than one type of sample do
a separate entry for each (but same project ID)
Age of children studied Mark the age of children that are studied or which the study makes inferences on
– indicate for each age whether children of that age were included (1) or not (0)
Number of respondents Write number of respondents or interviews conducted
Target group studied
- Children
- Parents
- Adults
- Teachers
Indicate the target groups included in the study – this would be the type of
individuals who are interviewed
Type of Methodology
- Qualitative
- Quantitative
Write the type of data collected (qualitative or quantitative) – a study using both
becomes two separate entries (but same project ID)
Data collection method
- Telephone
- Face-to-face
- Paper self-completion
- On-line/email
- Other (please describe)
Describe the data collection method
41
Topics covered
- Access and use
- Activities
- Risks / Harm
- Opportunities / Benefits
- Mediation
Indicate the topics covered in the study – indicate for each topic whether it was
covered to some extent (1) or not (0)
Language(s) in which findings are available Indicate the languages in which findings are available using a three letter code
Publication of results
- Printed or online report
- Book chapter
- Journal article
- Brief summary available online
- PhD or Master’s thesis
- Other (please describe)
Note the kind of publications where findings are available – indicate for each kind
of publication whether (1) or not (0) findings from the project have appeared in
such a publication
Main source(s) of funding
- EC
- Public funding
- Private funding
- NGO or charity
- PhD/Masters Research
- Other (please describe)
Indicate the main sources of funding – for each of the listed sources indicate
whether (1) or not (0) the project has been funded in this way
Data set publicly available
- Yes
- No
Write whether the raw data can be obtained or not – it is expected that this will
be the case for only a limited number of studies but that of itself is interesting
Relevant publication(s) in APA style Please list relevant (or most relevant) publications using APA style
Principal investigator Write the name of the principal investigator (or contact person) with available
contact information
Link to project and/or findings Please provide a link to the project or finding if this is available
Comments Write any comments that might be of interes
... Teknologi digital ini mulai digunakan oleh anak-anak sejak usia dini. Balita berusia dua tahun secara teratur menonton film dan video, bermain game dan mendengarkan musik di komputer tablet (Ólafsson, Livingstone, & Haddon, 2014), dan setengah dari anak-anak dapat menggunakan tablet secara mandiri pada saat mereka masuk sekolah (Kabali dkk., 2015;Mourlam, Strouse, Newland, & Lin, 2019). Anak kecil biasanya belajar mengoperasikan perangkat ini dengan mengamati anggota keluarga dan melalui interaksi dengan teman sebayanya (Kumpulainen & Gillen, 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
p> The rapid development of technology today should be the main key in efforts to develop students' abilities and skills in the field of education and the learning process in dealing with the world of technology and information. The support and role of education is expected to increase the nation's competitiveness in the midst of global competition. The openness of information technology should be balanced with the progress of good reading literacy, but in Indonesia in particular, reading literacy skills for children are still at the bottom. Therefore, the development of digital literacy is expected to be a benchmark and a supporting factor in the development of student knowledge that can be accessed by digital media around the environment such as mobile phones, computers, laptops, etc. This article proposes a new conceptual framework for the concept of digital literacy, combining five types of literacy: (a) photovisual literacy; (b) reproductive literacy; (c) information literacy; (d) branched literacy; and (e) socio-emotional literacy that can support knowledge development. </p
... Parents are mediating their young children's engagement with digital technologies often with uncertainty, because these have little precedent in their own experiences and, importantly, because they lack clear guidelines (Chaudron et al., 2018;Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2018). Very young children, particularly those under the age of three, have been identified as a priority group to be studied further (Gillen et al., 2018;Holloway et al., 2013) as there are currently very few studies (Mascheroni et al., 2018;Ólafsson et al., 2013;Poveda & Matsumoto, 2018). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter seeks to gain an understanding of how parents accompany their very young children aged under three into ‘digital society’ by examining their mediating practices and ideologies regarding the children’s digital activities. It draws on diverse data (observations/video-recordings and interviews with parents at home) from cases of five middle-class family children in Spain and Portugal. The data was collected in 2017 following the protocol developed for A Day in the Digital Lives of 0-3 Year-Olds [Gillen et al. 2019 A day in the digital lives of children aged 0-3. Full report: DigiLitEY ISCH COST Action 1410 Working Group 1: Digital Literacy in Homes and Communities. http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/-(19b42af9-7828-4950-afca-69fdce62702e).html.]. We problematise the complex relationship between parental beliefs, self-perceptions and actual practices regarding the place of digital technologies in children’s lives and development. We do so by examining mediation as an emergent process in which family members co-create the interactional ecologies [Kyratzis and Johnson (Linguistics and Education 41:1–6, 2017); Erickson (Discourse, learning, and schooling. Cambridge University Press, 1996)], and by seeing mediation as a set of strategies within family routines [Livingstone (Computers in Human Behavior, 23:920–941, 2007)]. Specifically, we analyse mediation at the levels of the digital media ecology/environment in the home [Plowman (Interacting with Computers 27:36–46, 2015)], the actual digital media activities and mediation practices, and the parents’ broader media ideologies and beliefs on technologies [Gershon (Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 20:283–293, 2010)], to explore the relations and contradictions between these levels.
Article
Bu araştırmada, sosyal öykülerin zihinsel yetersizliği olan bireylere çevrimiçi güvenlik becerilerini edinmeleri, edindikleri çevrimiçi güvenlik becerilerini uygulama sona erdikten bir, üç ve dört hafta sonra korumaları ve farklı kişi, ortam ve araç-gereçlere genellemeleri üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada zihinsel yetersizliği olan bireylerin sınıf öğretmenlerinden ve ebeveynlerinden öznel değerlendirme yoluyla sosyal geçerlik verisi toplanmıştır. Araştırma yaşları 10-15 arasında değişen olan zihinsel yetersizliğe sahip üç erkek, bir kız katılımcıyla yürütülmüştür. Araştırma tek denekli araştırma yöntemlerinden katılımcılar arası yoklama evreli çoklu yoklama modeli ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın bulguları, çevrimiçi güvenlik becerilerinin öğretiminde sosyal öykülerin etkili olduğunu, öğretimin sona ermesinin ardından zihinsel yetersizliği olan bireylerin edindikleri becerileri bir, üç ve dört hafta sonra koruduklarını ortaya koymaktadır. Bununla birlikte zihinsel yetersizliği olan bireylerin edindikleri çevrimiçi güvenlik becerilerini farklı ortam, kişi ve araç-gereçlere genelleyebildikleri belirlenmiştir. Sosyal geçerlilik verileri, çalışmaya katılan zihinsel yetersizliği olan bireylerin sınıf öğretmenlerinin ve ebeveynlerinin çalışmaya ilişkin olumlu görüşler bildirdiklerini göstermektedir.
Article
Full-text available
This paper aims to explore the use of, experiences with, and risks of internet among children in Kosovo. This country has never been involved in the European project called Kids Online. Through a survey based on the Kids Online questionnaire, 437 children aged 11-16 were surveyed in 34 schools across the country. The results show that over 90% of children of this age stay online from one to six hours; YouTube and Instagram are the most preferred platforms; over 90% of them own smartphones. Conversely, many parents have admitted to being less knowledgeable about technology than their children. Parental mediation and schooling remain important, and the paper recommends the introduction of Media Literacy as a separate subject in pre-university education in Kosovo.
Article
Full-text available
Título: Estrategias de regulación de uso del smartphone y uso problemático de internet en la adolescencia. Resumen: La autorregulación constituye una habilidad básica que puede prevenir el uso problemático de internet y del smartphone en la etapa adoles-cente (LaRose et al., 2003). El presente estudio explora las estrategias de regulación del uso de este dispositivo, así como las relaciones de tales estra-tegias y de las variables antecedentes del modelo de Caplan (2010) para identificar a aquellos adolescentes que presentan altas o bajas consecuen-cias negativas del uso de internet. Con una muestra representativa de ado-lescentes de 1º a 4º de la ESO de la Comunidad de Madrid (N = 524, Medad = 13.57, DT = 1.24, Rango = 12-17), nuestros resultados apuntaron a que son los padres los que regulaban el uso del smartphone en cerca de la mitad de los adolescentes. El déficit de autorregulación con rumiación cognitiva, la intervención de los padres para regular el uso de este dispositivo y las variables del modelo de Caplan (2010)-excepto la regulación emocional on-line-fueron predictores significativos para identificar a aquellos adolescen-tes que mostraban altas o bajas consecuencias negativas. Las implicaciones educativas y las futuras líneas de investigación son resaltadas. Palabras clave: Autorregulación. Uso problemático de internet. Smartp-hone. Adolescencia. Abstract: Self-regulation is a basic skill that can prevent problematic In-ternet and smartphone use in adolescence (LaRose et al., 2003). The present study explored regulation strategies in the use of this device, as well as the relationships between such strategies and the background variables of Caplan's (2010) model, to identify those adolescents who present high or low negative consequences of Internet use. With a representative sample of adolescents from 1st to 4th year of secondary education in the Community of Madrid (N = 524, Mage= 13.57, SD= 1.24, Range= 12-17), our results indicated that parents were the ones who regulated smartphone use in about half of the adolescents. Self-regulation deficit with cognitive rumina-tion, parent intervention to regulate the use of this device and the variables of Caplan's (2010) model-except for online emotional regulation-were significant predictors to identify those adolescents who showed high or low negative consequences. Educational implications and future lines of research are also discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Un uso positivo de internet y de los medios sociales, aprovechando sus oportunidades o afrontando sus peligros, requiere de habilidades digitales. La mediación parental es considerada un factor crítico para que los adolescentes adquieran estos conocimientos y habilidades digitales, adoptándolos en su comportamiento cotidiano. A partir de los datos de una encuesta a una muestra representativa de 524 alumnos matriculados en Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (12-16 años) de la Comunidad de Madrid (España) y aplicando análisis de regresión lineal jerárquica por pasos, este artículo examina las relaciones entre las diferentes formas de mediación parental reportadas por los adolescentes, por un lado, y sus competencias digitales y desempeño, por otro. El análisis mostró que tanto la mediación parental restrictiva como la mediación parental orientada hacia el bienestar de los menores impactan, aunque débilmente, en las competencias online de los adolescentes: La primera limita el desarrollo de competencias digitales, mientras que la segunda las favorece. Sin embargo, la edad y el tiempo de uso influyen más en la puesta en práctica de competencias digitales. El co-uso guiado por los padres no se manifiesta como una práctica autónoma de la mediación para asegurar el bienestar, ni parece tener impacto sobre competencias y desempeño digital. Los resultados sugieren que las prácticas parentales restrictivas y las prácticas familiares orientadas a advertir y aconsejar a los menores sobre los riesgos y buenos usos online no son más relevantes que los factores relacionados con la edad y la experiencia de uso en el desempeño digital.
Chapter
This chapter seeks to gain an understanding of how parents accompany their very young children aged under three into ‘digital society’ by examining their mediating practices and ideologies regarding the children’s digital activities. It draws on diverse data (observations/video-recordings and interviews with parents at home) from cases of five middle-class family children in Spain and Portugal. The data was collected in 2017 following the protocol developed for A Day in the Digital Lives of 0-3 Year-Olds [Gillen et al. 2019 A day in the digital lives of children aged 0-3. Full report: DigiLitEY ISCH COST Action 1410 Working Group 1: Digital Literacy in Homes and Communities. http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/-(19b42af9-7828-4950-afca-69fdce62702e).html.]. We problematise the complex relationship between parental beliefs, self-perceptions and actual practices regarding the place of digital technologies in children’s lives and development. We do so by examining mediation as an emergent process in which family members co-create the interactional ecologies [Kyratzis and Johnson (Linguistics and Education 41:1–6, 2017); Erickson (Discourse, learning, and schooling. Cambridge University Press, 1996)], and by seeing mediation as a set of strategies within family routines [Livingstone (Computers in Human Behavior, 23:920–941, 2007)]. Specifically, we analyse mediation at the levels of the digital media ecology/environment in the home [Plowman (Interacting with Computers 27:36–46, 2015)], the actual digital media activities and mediation practices, and the parents’ broader media ideologies and beliefs on technologies [Gershon (Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 20:283–293, 2010)], to explore the relations and contradictions between these levels.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.